Dr Bond and his "CANON".

[jason_c]

I think Anderson's Jewish theory came about as the result of the murderer not being handed into the authorities. He complained that these "foreigners" did not give up there own to Gentile justice.

As for when this exasperation from Anderson came about we do not know. By November he may have come to such a conclusion.

Such a conclusion would however not have ruled out a Jewish slaughterman or butcher.

I do think we owe Bond some credit IF it prevented the investigation looking only for a surgeon, or someone of similar skill. After Chapman the investigation did seem to be heading in such a direction. A modern example of such an investigation going off the rails was the Yorkshire Ripper investigation of only Sunderland males after the hoax tapes.

[Natalie Severn]

I agree with you Jason. Moreover Bond"s profile isnt a world away from one by John Douglas.
The fact remains that Anderson does seem to have brought Dr Bond in to support this nascent theory of his and given that he states quite categorically in his autobiography that he arrived at his theory as a result of the house-to house searches in October 1888 and subsequent discussions, it looks to me he was moving rapidly towards such a conclusion by the December[1888].It also appears that in such discussions he made Warren very uncomfortable about the whole matter.He certainly made Henry Smith uncomfortable-if not outraged-by his "theories" when some years later Anderson openly voiced them in his autobiography. Major Henry Smith took exception to it,especially where Anderson suggested there were those in the Jewish community who knew who the Ripper was and would not hand him over to Gentile Justice.It is on record that Smith,the ex City Commissioner of Police and acting Commissioner at the time of Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Square,became incandescent with rage and trashed the theory in no uncertain terms.
Best
Natalie

[Simon Wood]

Hi Natalie,

The top cops and their lackeys said what they wanted when it suited them. It's bloody lucky nobody at the time was reading their remaindered(?) memoirs and reminiscences. Otherwise some astute reader might have picked up on their gross inconsistencies and asked what the hell was going on.

Personally, I wouldn't have trusted the police of the time (Anderson, Smith etc.) to tell me the time of day.

Keep going, Nats.

Regards,

Simon

[Ben]

Hi Nats,

Dr Bond named just five women as the victims of the Whitechapel murderer.

In that report, yes, but that was before the MacKenzie incident. After that murder, Bond believed that at least six victims fell afoul of the same hand. Time of death is notoriously difficult to assess, especially in the LVP, and it is likely that both Phillips and Bond were a little off in their estimations. This has nothing to do with any medical knowledge that might have been inferred from the report, and if that report was thorough, an experienced medical professional need only judge the level of skill by the contents of that report.

[Dan Norder]

You must use a different version of the English language to me as Bond wrote regarding "the time that had elapsed between the murder and the discovery of the body ... In Buck's Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed." Which is clearly incorrect, three or four hours could not have elapsed..

Apparently you use a different version of English than Dr. Bond did if you think that statement is incorrect. Three or four hours could have elapsed in the Chapman case, as that's what the medical evidence showed, so for that set of three victims the statement is correct.

[Gideon Fell]

Apparently you use a different version of English than Dr. Bond did if you think that statement is incorrect. Three or four hours could have elapsed in the Chapman case, as that's what the medical evidence showed, so for that set of three victims the statement is correct.

No I do not accept that nor, apparently, do the authors of the A-Z who say "He [Bond] accepts circumstantially impossible times of death for the cases on which he had read notes."

Taking the murder of Chapman alone (which Bond doesn't) all the witness evidence (except Phillips) suggests it occurred around 5.30 am, Phillips' evidence was she had been dead at least two hours, probably longer which still isn't your 'three or four hours.' The simple fact is that Bond's statement as to time of death is misleading and incorrect.

[caz]

Hi Dan,

Shall I have a go?

Hi Gideon,

The problem isn’t one of English language. The language is fine. Think ‘horses for courses’ and you’ll get there in the end. Bond simply means that in his professional opinion (as a medical man), the medical evidence indicates to him that Polly, Annie and Kate could not have been killed any more than three or four hours prior to their bodies being discovered. He is setting an upper limit on the time based on nothing but the medical evidence. That’s all he is entitled to do, as an objective observer, brought in to give an opinion based solely on his area of expertise. If he starts relying on circumstantial evidence produced by anyone else in any other capacity, to inform that opinion or to dictate its parameters, he is over-stepping the mark. So what if members of the public and the police can narrow down his own time-frame with supported or unsupported accounts? That won’t help if the medical evidence just isn’t capable of narrowing down the time to the same degree. He can’t make it up as he goes along to make it tie in exactly with all the eye witness accounts. If the medical evidence suggests to him ‘anything up to three or four hours but no more’, he isn’t going to modify it to: ‘no more than x or y minutes, actually, because Emily Holland told me’, and nor should he.

What you really want is for Bond to have said something along the lines of: “Although the medical evidence only allows me to state with confidence that these three victims were all discovered within three or four hours of their deaths, there is certain evidence of a circumstantial nature, which, if deemed reliable, pushes forward the earliest time of death accordingly.”

But Bond is not obliged to apply the circumstantial evidence to the medical at all, and purists would say he would have no business doing so. It's not his job because he is no more qualified than we armchair ’tecs to assess the strength or the reliability of the former. It's up to the police to weigh up all the evidence and to see if the medical lends support to the circumstantial or contradicts it. If you look again carefully at the language used by Bond, it does lend support because it allows for the eye witness accounts to be accurate. I can see why you thought his words were misleading, but he clearly isn't incorrect if the victims did indeed die no more than four hours before they were found.

Think of it like this: if a doctor is called in to assess the age of a dead person and they say “at most 24 or 25”, that is their professional opinion based on the body itself. If the person is wearing a badge with ‘21 Today’ on it, that doesn’t make the doctor’s medical opinion either misleading or incorrect. It makes it an opinion that lends support to the person being just 21 when they died.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Caz,
Well I see what you are saying.
However, writing a report belongs to a category of language use that is termed "informative" as opposed to say poetry or declamatory language.As a rule the reader can expect quite specific and detailed information.
However Dr Bond is at pains to point out in item 3 of his report that the information he can give can be neither detailed or specific because:

"in the four murders OF WHICH I HAVE SEEN NOTES ONLY ,I cannot form a very definite opinion as to the time that elapsed between the murder and discovering the body.

In one case,that of Berner"s Street,the discovery appears to have been made immediately after the deed-

[so far quite clearly put but now follows the part that is ambiguous and certainly unclear to me]

"In Buck"s Row,Hanbury Street,and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed.


That statement, beginning," In Buck"s Row" can be understood in more than one way.For example, if you knew nothing of the murders or times of death you would be likely to understand the statement as meaning they were all on a par vis a vis the time that had elapsed between when they died and when they were found----ie approximately three hours or so.
However if you know roughly the time gaps in each case, you may read the statement as you have done.
But it is an ambiguous and therefore imprecise statement that can mislead the reader by several hours in the case of Polly.
Best
Natalie

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Natalie,

The top cops and their lackeys said what they wanted when it suited them. It's bloody lucky nobody at the time was reading their remaindered(?) memoirs and reminiscences. Otherwise some astute reader might have picked up on their gross inconsistencies and asked what the hell was going on.

Personally, I wouldn't have trusted the police of the time (Anderson, Smith etc.) to tell me the time of day.

Keep going, Nats.

Regards,

Simon

Cheers Simon-appreciated!
I must admit I find Warren quite hard to fault in terms of the murder inquiry.But Matthews and Monro soon made it their business to see him off!
Best
Natalie

[Mitch Rowe]

OK..I found the quote Phillips made at Mc Kenzies inquest. What i feel is important I will put in bold.

After careful and long deliberation, I cannot satisfy myself, on purely Anatomical and professional grounds that the perpetrator of all the "Wh Ch. murders" is our man. I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion in this noting the mode of procedure and the character of the mutilations and judging of motive in connection with the latter.

I do not here enter into the comparison of the cases neither do I take into account what I admit may be almost conclusive evidence in favour of the one man theory if all the surrounding circumstances and other evidence are considered, holding it as my duty to report on the P.M. appearances and express an opinion only on Professional grounds, based upon my own observation.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Mitch, thats really helpful .What it does is to impress upon whoever read his reports that he sees his job as purely to present his post mortem findings and to remind people that he wants to be as objective and as independent as possible in this regard .
Natalie

[Gideon Fell]

Bond made the statement that he could not form a very definite opinion as to the time that had elapsed between the murder and the discovering of the body. He admitted that in the cases of Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes, he had seen the notes only. I appreciate that he is speaking from a medical point of view but the argument being made above to justify his saying "In Buck's Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed" still doesn't hold up just using medical evidence. The notes, or medical evidence, Bond would have used would have been that supplied by the medical men who did see the bodies. We have the following.

In the case of Nichols Dr Llewellyn clearly stated "the deceased had not been dead more than half an hour."

In the case of Chapman Dr Phillips stated (after seeing the body at 6.20 am) "She had been dead at least two hours" (that is from 6.20 when he saw the body, not from 6.00 am when it was discovered).

In the case of Stride Dr Blackwell said she had been dead "from 20 minutes to half an hour when I arrived" (at 1.10 am).

In the case of Eddowes Dr Brown stated "She must have been dead most likely within the half hour" (at 2.18 am).

So none of the evidence of the attending doctors gives reason to state an upper time limit of three or four hours elapsing. Where on earth does he conjure up these timings from?

Another point to remember is that the evidence of witnesses like Holland and those discovering the bodies is not circumstantial evidence, it is direct evidence and doctors do take into consideration such witness evidence.

As to Bond's own methods of ascertaining time of death it is interesting to note that in the case of Kelly, where he did see the body, he estimated that she had "been dead about 12 hours" (at 2.00 pm) and that "one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of her murder."

[caz]

Hi Nats, Gideon,

Yes, I wasn't disputing that Bond's wording concerning the three cases could sound misleading if taken at face value. And I wasn't trying to suggest he did a wonderful job or anything. But actually, his qualification right at the start: "in the four murders OF WHICH I HAVE SEEN NOTES ONLY ,I cannot form a very definite opinion as to the time that elapsed between the murder and discovering the body... " does let him off the hook somewhat because he is admitting that basing an opinion on notes is not ideal!

That should be enough to make the reader appreciate why Bond may have felt the need to generalise and give what he considered to be a safe upper limit for the time lapse covering three of the four victims. On the medical evidence contained in the notes (the physical signs described as opposed to stated opinions on time by the doctors at the scene), he was unwilling to commit himself further than he did and to offer different parameters for each victim. That has got to be more honest than sticking his neck out and giving his own precise time lapse for each victim (if the notes didn't allow him to do it) using eye witness accounts to guide him!

OK..I found the quote Phillips made at Mc Kenzies inquest. What i feel is important I will put in bold.

After careful and long deliberation, I cannot satisfy myself, on purely Anatomical and professional grounds that the perpetrator of all the "Wh Ch. murders" is our man. I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion in this noting the mode of procedure and the character of the mutilations and judging of motive in connection with the latter.

I do not here enter into the comparison of the cases neither do I take into account what I admit may be almost conclusive evidence in favour of the one man theory if all the surrounding circumstances and other evidence are considered, holding it as my duty to report on the P.M. appearances and express an opinion only on Professional grounds, based upon my own observation.

Hi Mitch,

This is precisely what I am getting at with Bond.

Any reputable scientist should leave all preconceptions at home with the morning paper when he goes to work and not allow even the strongest circumstantial evidence or opinions to get in the way of his own professional observations. If they don't match exactly, or even if they are in total conflict, so be it. If the medical notes Bond had to go on had been a whole lot sketchier, or put together by total amateurs for instance, his opinion might in theory have been limited to saying that all four women were alive 24 hours before they were found and that was all he could know for certain. He would still be correct - the information just wouldn't be all that useful.

That's the trouble with relying on science. A bad scientist can get things badly wrong or not be competent enough to provide better, or more precise information than is available from other sources, while a good scientist will always err on the side of caution with the result that more definitive information is invariably required from other sources.

It's up to the individual to decide which doctors fall into which category in the ripper case.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Just one caveat Caz.If we are to consider Dr Bond"s record in 1888 as being that of a completely dispassionate and objective "scientist" or "doctor of medicine" or observer ,whatever ,I believe we need to take into account not only his report dated November 10th 1888 and all of its contents which can be found on Stewart Evans/Keith Skinner"s Ultimate JtR Source Book but also his role in the Rose Mylett case and his subsequent change of mind which led to much dispute with his medical superior,Dr MacKellar, and four of his other doctor colleagues over their findings[plenty of other medical expert sources brought in here].Their findings are summarised in a report of Monro"s of 26/12/1888 to be found on page 470 in the above named book,where Monro too is in no doubt Rose Mylett was murdered .There then follows a very interesting report by Robert Anderson on how and why Dr Bond changed his mind to concur with that of himself , Robert Anderson,a decision which put him at loggerheads with the Chief Surgeon and four other of his surgeon colleagues as well as the jury at the inquest.Its an extraordinary case and deserves to be studied of its own right, especially if we wish to determine the relative objectivity and freedom from other influence of reports claiming to be scientific.
Best
Natalie

[caz]

Indeed Nats. (Sorry, I only just read your post!)

Lack of objectivity, or undue influences, can make fools of the best as well as the rest.

Love,

Caz
X