Was Dr. Phillips flustered by it all?

[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.]

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.

[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.

[kjab3112]

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.

Phillips was a near 20 year experienced police surgeon. One of his first cases involved a child (think aged 7) who had a vaginal rupture and gonorrhoea due to sexual abuse/attack. Hardly a man inexperienced with the horror of East London crime

Paul

[kjab3112]

PS forgot to mention his seeming use of and understanding of the limitations of post death cooling. Bond appears to rely on the less reliable science of rigor mortis

Paul

[John G]

As I've noted before, I don't think there are any completely reliable means for determining time of death: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...mortis&f=false

And Dr Biggs points out that the Forensic Science Regulator advises that modern pathologists shouldn't even attempt it.

On that basis, whatever Dr Phillips, or any of the other Victorian doctors say about time of death issues, should be treated with extreme caution.

[GUT]

As I've noted before, I don't think there are any completely reliable means for determining time of death: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...mortis&f=false

And Dr Biggs points out that the Forensic Science Regulator advises that modern pathologists shouldn't even attempt it.

On that basis, whatever Dr Phillips, or any of the other Victorian doctors say about time of death issues, should be treated with extreme caution.

I've Cross examined numerous forensic medical examiners, most will only give you a range of maybe four hours.

Now I've heard evidence that tests gave been carried out, at universities, by getting medicos to give times of death on bodies where the time is actually known and can be out by hours.

So yes I shake my head when I see someone here say, but Dr X said she'd been dead Y hours.

[John G]

I've Cross examined numerous forensic medical examiners, most will only give you a range of maybe four hours.

Now I've heard evidence that tests gave been carried out, at universities, by getting medicos to give times of death on bodies where the time is actually known and can be out by hours.

So yes I shake my head when I see someone here say, but Dr X said she'd been dead Y hours.

Thanks for this GUT. It clearly 're-emphasises the point that even modern forensic experts cannot ascertain TOD with any degree of accuracy. I think, therefore, that any estimates given by the Victorian doctors should be taken with a pinch of salt.

[Wickerman]

Thanks for this GUT. It clearly 're-emphasises the point that even modern forensic experts cannot ascertain TOD with any degree of accuracy. I think, therefore, that any estimates given by the Victorian doctors should be taken with a pinch of salt.

The issue of Dr. Phillips overestimating Chapman's time of death stands as a contemporary example of the unreliability of the current methods.
The police are said to have grilled Richardson over what time he came to the yard that morning, an indication that the preference of the authorities was to accept professional opinion as opposed to that of a layperson.

I think this incident is what caused the police to equally pursue two suspects (Blotchy & Astrachan) in the Kelly case. They much preferred to take Dr. Bond's opinion, but dare not risk ignoring the statement by Hutchinson.
Which gave rise to the perception by some (the Star?), that Hutchinson's claim had somehow been 'discredited'. Nothing of the sort, they simply could not put all their eggs in one basket.

[Joshua Rogan]

I've just noticed this interesting snippet in the Star 15th Sept;

"Mr. Phillips personally has hitherto withheld information from reporters upon conscientious grounds, and Inspector Abberline himself says that the surgeon has not told him what portions of the body were missing."

I can understand his reluctance to give details of the mutilations in court in front of the press and public,, but to not even inform the police...?

Assuming the story is true, was Phillips really that secretive, or was this Abberline's way of fobbing off the press?

[kjab3112]

I'd doubt a twenty year experienced forensic police surgeon would withhold information from the investigating team. Let's remember he clearly co-operated by sharing his notes with Bond.

[Hunter]

I've just noticed this interesting snippet in the Star 15th Sept;

"Mr. Phillips personally has hitherto withheld information from reporters upon conscientious grounds, and Inspector Abberline himself says that the surgeon has not told him what portions of the body were missing."

I can understand his reluctance to give details of the mutilations in court in front of the press and public,, but to not even inform the police...?

Assuming the story is true, was Phillips really that secretive, or was this Abberline's way of fobbing off the press?

Perhaps Abberline was telling the truth?

[Joshua Rogan]

Perhaps Abberline was telling the truth?

He may well have been... But if so, wouldn't Phillips have been hampering the investigation by witholding the information he discovered? He really didn't want to tell the coroner anything beyond the immediate cause of death; if he didn't tell the police either, what was the point of performing an autopsy?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Daily Telegraph, 10th November 1888—

“During the course of last evening [the day of the Kelly murder] Dr. G. B. Phillips visited the House of Commons, where he had a conference with the Parliamentary Under Secretary for the Home Office, Mr. Stuart-Wortley.”

Echo, 10th November 1888—

“Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of the H Division, whose reticence is justified by an assurance he gave of secrecy, has copious notes of the result of the post-mortem examination, and with nearly every conclusion at which he has arrived, Dr. Thomas Bond, of Westminster, a well-known expert on crimes of violence, agrees.

“Dr. Phillips has only vaguely indicated to the local police the result of his investigations, but a report on the question has, it has been asserted, been jointly made by him and Dr. Bond, and submitted to Sir Charles Warren.”

Daily Telegraph, 14th November 1888—

“It is in the power of the Attorney-General to apply to the High Court of Justice to hold a new inquest, if he is satisfied that there has been rejection of evidence, irregularity of proceedings, or insufficiency of inquiry. This course is improbable, as it is stated that Mr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of police, with whom the coroner consulted in private, has had a commission from the Home Office for some time, and he does not consider himself a ‘free agent’; but it is pointed out that by hurriedly closing the inquest the opportunity has been lost of putting on record statements made on oath, and when the memory of witnesses is fresh. It is not improbable that a long interval may elapse before a prisoner is charged at the police-court.”

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Echo, 12th November 1888—

“It is asserted that the Home Secretary’s offer of a pardon to any accomplice was mainly at the instigation of Dr. G. B. Phillips, the Divisional Surgeon of the H Division, who pointed out to the authorities at the Home Office the desirability of such a step being taken.”

Dr Phillips was far from flustered

Regards,

Simon