Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dr Bond and his "CANON".

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dr Bond and his "CANON".

    The file on the Whitechapel Murders was opened by the Police in April 1888 following the Easter Bank Holiday murder of Emma Smith on the corner of Osborn Street ,close to a cocoa factory.Her friend and fellow lodger, Margaret Hames ,had been similarly attacked on 8th December 1887 in the very same area of Whitechapel and like Emma had been admitted to the Whitechapel Infirmary,treated for face and chest injuries but unlike Emma,Margaret suvived her attack,though she wasnt fit to be released from hospital until Boxing Day 1888.
    Two other attacks took place on women in between the two attacks above,one of them on Annie Millwood in Whites Row on 25 February 1888 and another on
    Ada Wilson on 28 March 1888 in Bow ,just past the Whitechapel Hospital.Both women survived ,though Annie died suddenly a month later.
    After Emma Smith was attacked in April 1888 there seems to have been a gap of four months when ,immediately after the August Bank Holiday, on the same day,a Tuesday, and around the same time-2-3 am, another woman,Martha Tabram ,was murdered in Georges Yard,about 300 yards from the spot where Emma had been attacked.
    After these followed the murders of Polly Nichols,Annie Chapman,Liz Stride,Kate Eddowes and Mary Kelly.
    It was immediately after the murder of Mary Kelly that Robert Anderson
    had requested that Dr Bond should be called in to try to guide the enquiry" as to the amount of surgical skill and anatomical knowledge probably possessed by the murderer or murderers".
    And "pon my soul" Dr Bond was wheeled in by Robert Anderson to do just that!
    to be continued
    Last edited by Natalie Severn; 03-30-2008, 04:57 PM.

  • #2
    So these were the names of the women who comprised the original Whitechapel Murder victims and opened the Police File.
    They were not the only women to die in the streets of Whitechapel or the only women in that Whitechapel murder file opened by the police.
    One of the most curious cases of women found dead on the streets in the area of Whitechapel was that of Rose Mylett a woman found dead on 20 December 1888, after being seen "arguing and seeming to be trying to resist the attention of "two men "dressed as sailors."

    In the meantime, Dr Bond had done Anderson"s bidding and set about compiling a "profile of the murderer" and he made up his very own list of those victims that could properly be ascribed to the hand of "The Whitechapel Murderer".
    He excluded Smith and Tabram and the other women who had suffered attacks in Whitechapel in 1887/88 and suggested only five could properly be ascribed to the Whitechapel Murderer.These were Nichols, Chapman,Stride,Eddowes and Kelly ,from henceforth known as "the Canonical Five"
    One of the major reasons I dispute the "canon" of Dr Bond"s,is because he had never even seen any of the victims" in the flesh" other than Mary Kelly, when he made his propsal in November 1888.
    I also found it astonishing that after contradicting Dr Phillips and the City expert Dr Brown, by stating categorically, in November 1888 that in each case [of the five victims] the murderer was completely without any
    scientific or surgical knowledge-----"he didnt even have the skill of a horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cutting up dead animals he----wait for it----contradicts himself -"pon my soul!
    On 17th July, 1889 yet another woman was found with her throat cut and abdominal injuries on the streets of Whitechapel.This time about 300 yards west of where Martha Tabram was found the year before.
    As was usual in such cases ,Dr Phillips,the divisional surgeon for Whitechapel,was the first to be called in.He was unsure that the murder was carried out by the same hand as the man who had murdered Annie Chapman--just as he was unsure whether the man who murdered Kate Eddowes was one and the same.In fact Dr Phillips was never of the opinion,as far as we know,that only one man carried out the Whitechapel murders.
    This was the cue for Robert Anderson to promptly sent for Dr Bond,who obligingly contradicted Dr Phillips,and insist he saw the hand of the Whitechapel Murderer:
    "I see in this murder evidence of a similar design to the former Whitechapel murders viz the sudden onslaught on the prostrate woman, THE THROAT SKILLFULLY & RESOLUTELY CUT with subsequent mutilation,each mutilation indicating sexual thoughts and a desire to mutilate the abdomen and sexual organs."

    OK he has apparently changed his mind about the murderer having no "skill" whatsoever.

    But that wasnt the only time Dr Bond contradicted himself.In the case of Rose Mylett who I mentioned above,he bent over so far backwards to do Anderson"s bidding as to do the Grecian Bend,and completely contradict himself-------as well as five other medical experts while he was at it,including his boss, the Police Surgeon -in Chief Dr MacKellar.
    to be continued
    Last edited by Natalie Severn; 03-30-2008, 05:47 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Bravo so far Nats, looking forward to your next post.

      My best regards Natalie.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by perrymason View Post
        Bravo so far Nats, looking forward to your next post.
        Indeed. Can we look forward to similar hatchet-jobs on the reputations of Brown, Saunders and Sequeira?
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi Natalie,

          Your posts on Bond's Canon Balls are gathering momentum nicely.

          Do we know why the good doctor resigned from Scotland Yard C.O. five days after the Millers Court murder?

          Regards,

          Simon

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
            Indeed. Can we look forward to similar hatchet-jobs on the reputations of Brown, Saunders and Sequeira?
            Sam grow up, other people are entitiled to thier opinions. I don't think i've seen you post anything that is not rubbishing other peoples opinions who don't happen to fall in line with everything you think is right about the Ripper case, how about trying to be a bit more objectionable. If you do have an uncontrolable urge to rubbish someone, do try and make a decent factual response back.

            All the best

            Comment


            • #7
              Just a word of caution here:

              The people who clutch at anything possible in an attempt to discredit Bond are usually the ones who, for whatever reaon, want Jack the Ripper to have been a doctor or someone with medical skill. Since Bond attested to no medical skill on the part of the killer, his evidence is inconvenient for doctor-pushers. Too bad the Bond was actually in the majority when it came to attibuting little to no skill on the part of the killer.

              Three criticims usually levelled at Bond:

              1) He lied about his findings and suppressed evidence of medical knowledge just so he could support Robert Anderson's Polish Jew theory.

              Nonsense. Anderson didn't even have a "Polish Jew" theory at that stage, and are we really prepared to accept that Bond was some callous monster who jeapordized further lives by supplying false information about the killer?

              2) Bond was a slave to the "canon".

              Also nonsense. Bond's inclusion of Mackenzie as a ripper victim naturally ran contrary to Macnaghten's canononical five, just as his exclusion of Tabram was in contrast to the views of Anderson. So much for the image of Bond as some hapless lying sponge to the views of Anderson. And as for the throat being skillfully cut, a knife-using serial killer is naturally going to hone his knife-using abilities as he learns and progresses. That's quite different from being a ready-made product. No contradiction there at all.

              3) Unnecessary reminders that Bond took his own life.

              "Oh no, I lied about the fact that Kelly's killer was Surgeon-Major General Astrakhan for no reason whatsoever. There is no way to go on!....!

              Puh-lease.
              Last edited by Ben; 03-30-2008, 06:21 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by jc007 View Post
                If you do have an uncontrolable urge to rubbish someone, do try and make a decent factual response back.
                My response needed no facts, because I was simply indicating my hope that we'd get similar articles on other doctors who didn't share Bagster Phillips' opinions. A fair enough request, in the interests of balance and fair play, I'd have thought.

                To use your word, his thread seems to be "rubbishing" Dr Bond - fair enough, there might be justification in doing so - but let's make it clear: I rubbished no-one.

                Let's get another thing clear: they're not only "my" opinions either. I happen to have come to the same conclusions as the aforementioned good doctors (Phillips excepted), and if people want to disagree that's fine, as long as they can back up their views.

                None of this means that Natalie and I can't have the odd good-natured pop at one another's viewpoints. Indeed, we've done so for a good couple of years now, and we both mean well.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
                  One of the major reasons I dispute the "canon" of Dr Bond"s,is because he had never even seen any of the victims" in the flesh" other than Mary Kelly, when he made his propsal in November 1888.
                  To the self appointed geniuses of the forum Ben and Sam, if this statement is correct the Bond had never seen any of the victims besides Mary Kelly how in the blazes could he make a statement concerning any skill involved in any of the other murders?? and seeing as there wasn't a whole lot left of Mary Kelly to examine of course there wouldn't be alot of skill present in the mess that was left, nor much of anything else. So really Bond didn't have a hard time figuring that one out. So if he didn't actually examine or even see the other victims how can his opinion be taking seriously? He would just be guessing as a result of his findings on what was left of Kelly and assuming the same killer killed all 5 accepted victims of the ripper.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                    My response needed no facts, because I was simply indicating my hope that we'd get similar articles on other doctors who didn't share Bagster Phillips' opinions. A fair enough request, in the interests of balance and fair play, I'd have thought.

                    To use your word, his thread seems to be "rubbishing" Dr Bond - fair enough, there might be justification in doing so - but let's make it clear: I rubbished no-one.

                    Let's get another thing clear: they're not only "my" opinions either. I happen to have come to the same conclusions as the aforementioned good doctors (Phillips excepted), and if people want to disagree that's fine, as long as they can back up their views.

                    None of this means that Natalie and I can't have the odd good-natured pop at one another's viewpoints. Indeed, we've done so for a good couple of years now, and we both mean well.
                    Fair enough

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by jc007 View Post
                      To the self appointed geniuses of the forum Ben and Sam.
                      Of all the infantile... Why don't you come back after you've grown some hair?
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                        Of all the infantile... Why don't you come back after you've grown some hair?
                        Not going to answer my question?? or are you better at insults?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Bond didnt have a canon, that was a Martin Fido term wasnt it?

                          He was asked to write a report on the murders by Anderson. Whilst everyone is open to question the fact he didnt see all the victims is irrelevant, as the reports were to hand, and I wish to point out no one here has seen the victims either.

                          Monty




                          Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                          http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by jc007 View Post
                            Not going to answer my question?? or are you better at insults?
                            a. I did answer your question earlier.

                            b. I do enjoy a good insult, but only when provoked.

                            c. You reap what you sow.
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Monty, it is very relevant if Bond didn't see all the victims, in fact it changes alot, the only victim Bond is qualified to give a opinion on is Kelly, he can't possible give an professional opinion on evidence he didn't even see, he is purely basing it on the fact that he believed all the 5 victims had the same killer thus if Kellys killer had shown no skill then obviously there must be no skill, that is not scientific fact, that is an assumption and can no way be used to conclude the other victims were not killed by someone with some degree of skill, in the other cases, Phillips was totally and completely more qualified to say what skill the killer did or did not possess as he actually examined the bodies.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X