Was Dr. Phillips flustered by it all?

[John G]

Ive hesitated to address this post cd because it would seem obvious that many of the crimes he would have investigated, and many of the wounds he inspected over his illustrious career, were knife based. He is a qualified and recognized surgeon, and one that I have been unable to find any data to suggest he should not have been. Hence, his opinion is weighty and relevant, particularly as I said, since he saw 4 of 5 canonicals in death personally.

Direct observation of wounds, for me, supersedes reports of that information.

"Illustrious career"? Can you be more specific.

[c.d.]

Ive hesitated to address this post cd because it would seem obvious that many of the crimes he would have investigated, and many of the wounds he inspected over his illustrious career, were knife based. He is a qualified and recognized surgeon, and one that I have been unable to find any data to suggest he should not have been. Hence, his opinion is weighty and relevant, particularly as I said, since he saw 4 of 5 canonicals in death personally.

Direct observation of wounds, for me, supersedes reports of that information.

Hello Michael,

I agree that he was a qualified surgeon and that his opinion is weighty and relevant. My objection is to his opinion being considered an expert opinion as compared to somebody today using computer enhanced imagery to compare the wounds. In addition, we don't have the details of how he arrived at his conclusion which might indicate some flaw or error in his analysis. So we are agreeing that he was qualified to give his opinion but disagreeing as to how much weight it should be given.

c.d.

P.S. It is commonplace today in trials for both sides to have expert witnesses testify both of whom have incredibly impressive credentials and who completely disagree with one another.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

I am not questioning his credentials but rather was he qualified as an expert in knife wounds. We also don't know the details at how he arrived at his conclusions. So rather than take his opinion as the word of God I am more inclined to take it with a grain of salt. You of course are free to do otherwise.

c.d.

Ive hesitated to address this post cd because it would seem obvious that many of the crimes he would have investigated, and many of the wounds he inspected over his illustrious career, were knife based. He is a qualified and recognized surgeon, and one that I have been unable to find any data to suggest he should not have been. Hence, his opinion is weighty and relevant, particularly as I said, since he saw 4 of 5 canonicals in death personally.

Direct observation of wounds, for me, supersedes reports of that information.

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

I am not questioning his credentials but rather was he qualified as an expert in knife wounds. We also don't know the details at how he arrived at his conclusions. So rather than take his opinion as the word of God I am more inclined to take it with a grain of salt. You of course are free to do otherwise.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

Do we know anything about Phillips beyond his seeing four of the women which would qualify him to give an expert opinion?

c.d.

We know he was appointed to the Royal College of Surgeons in 1861, we know that he was asked to perform the autopsy on Alice Mackenzie..and Francis Coles, we know that he was involved in investigating the Pinchin Street murder, we know that his obit described him as a leading Police surgeon....point being cd, that we have no blemishes that might put his expertise in question. And he didnt think all 4 of the women he saw were killed by the same hand, or knife.

[c.d.]

I think the part I accentuated above is important when assessing which medical opinions should hold more weight. The autopsy notes reveal most of if not all of that information, but they do not contain images, photographs, they do not reflect the complete experience of the physician during the examination. The visual aspects.

This is why Phillips in my opinion is a very relevant factor when assembling a "Canonical Group". He saw 4 of the five women in death. The ONLY physician who did.

Hello Michael,

Do we know anything about Phillips beyond his seeing four of the women which would qualify him to give an expert opinion?

c.d.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

I should have been more accurate in my questioning.

What interest me is the possibility that Philips did talk to MacDonald before, and they came to an agreement.

[Michael W Richards]

This part of Wikipedia on GBP (MJK inquest) caught my attention:
"Consequently, the coroner had not complied with the legal requisite that the length, breadth and depths of all wounds to the deceased must be recorded and, with conflicting evidence having been given to the inquest, the time of death had not been established. Phillips had conferred in private with the coroner before the hearing opened, something he had wanted to do at a previous inquest but had been refused."

The quote refers to Colin Kendell's book. I know it doesn't have a good reputation, but is there an ounce of truth there, or is it pure speculation?

I think the part I accentuated above is important when assessing which medical opinions should hold more weight. The autopsy notes reveal most of if not all of that information, but they do not contain images, photographs, they do not reflect the complete experience of the physician during the examination. The visual aspects.

This is why Phillips in my opinion is a very relevant factor when assembling a "Canonical Group". He saw 4 of the five women in death. The ONLY physician who did.

[Bridewell]

This part of Wikipedia on GBP (MJK inquest) caught my attention:
"Consequently, the coroner had not complied with the legal requisite that the length, breadth and depths of all wounds to the deceased must be recorded and, with conflicting evidence having been given to the inquest, the time of death had not been established. Phillips had conferred in private with the coroner before the hearing opened, something he had wanted to do at a previous inquest but had been refused."

The quote refers to Colin Kendell's book. I know it doesn't have a good reputation, but is there an ounce of truth there, or is it pure speculation?

I guess that depends on what Kendell's source was.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Wikipedia

This part of Wikipedia on GBP (MJK inquest) caught my attention:
"Consequently, the coroner had not complied with the legal requisite that the length, breadth and depths of all wounds to the deceased must be recorded and, with conflicting evidence having been given to the inquest, the time of death had not been established. Phillips had conferred in private with the coroner before the hearing opened, something he had wanted to do at a previous inquest but had been refused."

The quote refers to Colin Kendell's book. I know it doesn't have a good reputation, but is there an ounce of truth there, or is it pure speculation?

[lynn cates]

old hands

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

I think one benefit accruing to those who are a long time on the boards is that such can usually guess the other person's reply.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

There's a surprise, Lynn.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

deranged

Hello Caroline.

"Slitting an unfortunate's throat in a dingy backyard in the early hours, then cutting out her uterus before making off with it sounds just like the work of a pretty deranged fantasist."

Pretty much agree.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

If the evidence says that they were most probably killed by someone acting out some deranged fantasies, then the chances are we shouldnt be looking for any more than just 1 or 2 psychopaths.

Works for me, Mike. Slitting an unfortunate's throat in a dingy backyard in the early hours, then cutting out her uterus before making off with it sounds just like the work of a pretty deranged fantasist.

Ditto the other mutilation murders around the same time and within easy strolling distance of each other.

But please, let's return to whether or not Dr. Phillips was flustered by these terribly uncommon, hideously brutal crimes against a handful of helpless women.

Love,

Caz
X

[GUT]

G'day Michael

Some seem a lot like terrorist acts to me.

They would surely induce terror but back to the start of your post was the purpose to terrorize, or was that just a result, ie if his aim was to harvest organs, or kill prostitutes, or whatever it would in no way lessen the terror.