Is There More To Bond's Death Than Meets The Eye?

[Natasha]

Hi All,

I would like to question weather Bond's death was suicide or perhaps something more sinister.

Obviously he suffered from insomnia and this is what has led people to believe it was suicide. As someone pointed out on another thread, he had access to medication that perhaps would have been less painful. Then someone suggested someone was caring for him and that because of this he was unable to kill himself in that way, but of course they would need to leave him at some point.

I know that suicides committed by men are usually more dramatic and painful ways in which they choose to kill themselves, perhaps this has something to do with manly pride.

Bond had been suffering since middle age with his afflictions, so I don't understand why he would end it some years down the line after a long period of suffering.

[Rosella]

I've always understood that Bond suffered from a long illness for which he'd been treating himself with narcotics, presumably morphine-based. He had a nurse, didn't he, who left the room where he was lying for a minute, and he then upped and threw himself out of the third-floor window? He'd been bed-ridden for weeks.

It stated in one of the press reports that he was awaiting an operation but had long despaired of his health. If he was anxious about a possible operation, couldn't sleep, his medical practice was suffering and he may have been suffering from a long term addiction to narcotics due to a painful illness, he might well have impulsively decided to end it all, IMO.

[RockySullivan]

Wow I never knew that. How well can you trust the opinion of someone who would fling themselves out a window?

[GUT]

Wow I never knew that. How well can you trust the opinion of someone who would fling themselves out a window?

I do hope you're joking Rocky.

While a lot of highly intelligent and competent people commit suicide as this one is by jumping out a window how about Edwin Howard Armstrong, who killed himself by jumping out a window he was the inventor of FM radio.

[RockySullivan]

G'day gut,

All joking aside Bond's suicide does show that just because someone is an official or a doctor doesn't mean they are of sound mind. Those circumstances do sound a bit strange. Would you want a doctor operating on you who was heavily medicated and suicidal?

[GUT]

G'day gut,

All joking aside Bond's suicide does show that just because someone is an official or a doctor doesn't mean they are of sound mind. Those circumstances do sound a bit strange. Would you want a doctor operating on you who was heavily medicated and suicidal?

If it was a medication that didn't effect his capacity to work no problems, you would probably be surprised if you knew how many processionals are suffering from [and being treated for] things like Bipolar disorder and depression.

The fact that some one takes their own life doesn't mean they are not of sound mind, many do it having considered the opinion closely, such as living with unrelenting pain or a slow deterioration or similar.

[Mayerling]

I do hope you're joking Rocky.

While a lot of highly intelligent and competent people commit suicide as this one is by jumping out a window how about Edwin Howard Armstrong, who killed himself by jumping out a window he was the inventor of FM radio.

G'day GUT,

Armstrong's suicide (the year I was born, 1954) was after a nasty court defeat in his fight against RCA concerning his rights to his FM patents. Ironically, although he lost the then battle, his wife continued the fight, and the decision was reversed a couple of years later.

This is the first I knew of Bond's suicide. Sad situation, if he killed himself due to physical collapse tied to increased dependence on drugs. I think we should give Bond the benefit of the doubt regarding the soundness of his medical opinions. Unless something showed up during his presenting his opinions that left people shocked by his demeanor or comments than the average man would have felt he had presented his ideas coherently and intelligently .

I can give you an example of the reverse. At the trial of Florence Maybrick for poisoning her husband Jack...err James Maybrick ( ) the Judge was Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, then one of the leaders of Britain's judiciary, and a noted writer on legal subjects. But during the trial the Judge appears to have had a nervous breakdown. Although his directions to the jury led to Florence being convicted, it was soon apparent that the interest of justice required the sentence to become one of imprisonment, not the death penalty that Stephen imposed.

During his summation, Mr. Justice Stephen kept making comments that made no sense, and even showed a remarkable lack of grasp of basic facts everyone knew: for example, Florence and Alfred Brierley, her lover, went to attend the Grand National race together. Like the Derby or the American Kentucky Derby or Preakness, everyone has heard of the Grand National in Great Britain. Stephen actually said. "They attended something ... the Grand National...whatever that is!" Is there any reason that people in the courtroom, at the end of the trial were looking a his Lordship with great dismay!

Nothing (apparently) like that concerns audience reaction to Dr. Bond's comments involving the autopsies. He seems to have handled his job well. Of course, if somebody finds something really odd maybe we can consider this matter differently.

Jeff

[Robert]

Yes, I think Bond was OK. He committed suicide over 12 years after the murders, so it's unlikely that his judgement was impaired.

[GUT]

G'day Jeff

But during the trial the Judge appears to have had a nervous breakdown. Although his directions to the jury led to Florence being convicted, it was soon apparent that the interest of justice required the sentence to become one of imprisonment, not the death penalty that Stephen imposed.

During his summation, Mr. Justice Stephen kept making comments that made no sense, and even showed a remarkable lack of grasp of basic facts everyone knew:

A Judge making comments that made no sense, ..... mmmmmm sounds like a normal day in Court to me.

for example, Florence and Alfred Brierley, her lover, went to attend the Grand National race together. Like the Derby or the American Kentucky Derby or Preakness, everyone has heard of the Grand National in Great Britain. Stephen actually said. "They attended something ... the Grand National...whatever that is!"

There was a pretty much standard protocol well into the 1960's that Judges were not to show that they were human and pretend that they were befuddled by ordinary type events, there is a case somewhere from the 1960s at the heights of Beatlemania where a Judge makes out he has never heard of this group of "Jazz Musicians" [I think it was the Beatles but it may have been the Stones], but then blows his cover by referring to one of their songs, I honestly don't know just when nor why this started and it always seemed pretty stupid to me.

But don't disagree Stephens appears to have well and truly lost the plot during Florry's trial.

[Rosella]

Yes, Stephen made serious errors in his summing-up, of names, dates and events. He relied on a book of newspaper cuttings when writing up his notes.

Probably a prime example of a fifty years behind the times barrister was Mervyn Griffith-Jones in the 1960 Lady Chatterley's Lover obscenity trial. As prosecuting counsel, Griffith-Jones asked the jury 'is it a book you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?'

[Robert]

Peter Cook satirised Mr Justice Cantley's summing up in the trial of Liberal Party leader Jeremy Thorpe :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xi-agPf95M

[Mayerling]

G'day Jeff



A Judge making comments that made no sense, ..... mmmmmm sounds like a normal day in Court to me.




There was a pretty much standard protocol well into the 1960's that Judges were not to show that they were human and pretend that they were befuddled by ordinary type events, there is a case somewhere from the 1960s at the heights of Beatlemania where a Judge makes out he has never heard of this group of "Jazz Musicians" [I think it was the Beatles but it may have been the Stones], but then blows his cover by referring to one of their songs, I honestly don't know just when nor why this started and it always seemed pretty stupid to me.

But don't disagree Stephens appears to have well and truly lost the plot during Florry's trial.

G'day GUT,

Losing it in spades. Oddly enough Stephens keeps flitting into and out of Ripper studies all the time. He was (when more compes mentis) the Judge at the trial in 1887 of Israel Lipski (remember - the man who was the source, perhaps, or that yell of "LIPSKI!" at a Jewish gentleman in the case), and his son is James Kenneth Stephen, the tutor of the Duke of Clarence, who was pushed (no better way of saying it) by Michael Harrison as the actual "Jack the Ripper' in Harrison's "Clarence: Was he Jack the Ripper?".
Like his daddy, James Kenneth (a slightly above-average poet) went bonkers and ended up in an asylum, dying in 1892 - apparently he starved himself to death after hearing of the death of Clarence.

With the Justice the Judge at the trial of poor Florrie for "Jimmy/Jack's?" death Mr. Justice Stephen makes a kind of unwitting trifecta here.

Jeff

[GUT]

G'day GUT,

Losing it in spades. Oddly enough Stephens keeps flitting into and out of Ripper studies all the time. He was (when more compes mentis) the Judge at the trial in 1887 of Israel Lipski (remember - the man who was the source, perhaps, or that yell of "LIPSKI!" at a Jewish gentleman in the case), and his son is James Kenneth Stephen, the tutor of the Duke of Clarence, who was pushed (no better way of saying it) by Michael Harrison as the actual "Jack the Ripper' in Harrison's "Clarence: Was he Jack the Ripper?".
Like his daddy, James Kenneth (a slightly above-average poet) went bonkers and ended up in an asylum, dying in 1892 - apparently he starved himself to death after hearing of the death of Clarence.

With the Justice the Judge at the trial of poor Florrie for "Jimmy/Jack's?" death Mr. Justice Stephen makes a kind of unwitting trifecta here.

Jeff

G'day Jeff

A family that never stops...

Giving us something to talk about anyway.

[Mayerling]

Peter Cook satirised Mr Justice Cantley's summing up in the trial of Liberal Party leader Jeremy Thorpe :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xi-agPf95M

Hi Robert,

Thanks for the site. It was hysterical.

Jeff

[GUT]

Peter Cook satirised Mr Justice Cantley's summing up in the trial of Liberal Party leader Jeremy Thorpe :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xi-agPf95M

Seems like a pretty normal summing up to me.

Probably got the poor bugger convicted that's the way it generally works, juries often dislike being told what to do.