Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The name's Bond

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

  • Originally posted by SirJohnFalstaff View Post
    Are there any documents that were available at the time and have disappeared since then?

    Meaning: is there anything that a modern medico legal expert couldn't have access to?

    btw, if any of you are interested, I translated a Arthur MacDonald's report (1893) from a Lacassagne thesis (1899) where he seems to agree with the American criminologist.

    Both men were medical expert and criminologists. Of course, none of them had direct access to the bodies, but maybe they saw documents that were lost other time.

    http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...102#post367102
    I think this is called good point. Also the convention in 1888 may have been to provide less specific detail than would be expected today. I mean, for probity's sake, at the inquest wasn't Dr Phillips' reluctant to give any specific detail of Chapman's injuries until required to do so by the coroner?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Ben View Post

      Very unlikely, Jon, unless Anderson was a big fat liar when he described his Jewish witness, popularly assumed to be Lawende, as "the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer".
      Witnesses who move from one rental room to another every few weeks/months or years, or from one doss-house to another, do not leave forwarding addresses Ben.
      In many cases they don't want to be found, and this is long before society adopted measures for tracing people's movements.

      Lawende had a business, and it's very likely the police no idea where Schwartz, Mrs long, Cox, Hutchinson and the rest of them were.
      And from what we understand today, contra Anderson, they had no idea who the killer was in 1888, so even less of an idea as to which witness who "had a good view" of the killer.

      So tell me, who was the killer Ben, a nameless staggering drunk?, sailor-man, Blotchy or Astrachan?, just to name a few.

      If time and proximity are considered by some to be "persuasive factors in including Stride in the canon", that would amount to a basic assessment of the evidence rather than "emotional" outpouring, surely?
      If that is what you think, then please explain what evidence exists to connect the Stride murder with Eddowes?


      What else could he possibly have meant - that the women willingly permitted the cutting of their throats?
      But that is just what you are implying.
      If you are not, then you must agree with me that the victims had to have resisted, therefore Bond was wrong. Phillips noted indications of resistance with Chapman, and the minor wounds on Kelly's arms and thumb are consistent with defensive wounds.
      At the very least Bond should have never made the comment he did.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Hi Fisherman,

        Firstly, are you a 20-year-old aspiring beatboxer from Hackney Wick? Then please don't say "dissed" anymore.

        Secondly, what's the problem? Do you dispute my observation that the pelvic organs could not possibly have been removed from the abdominal cavity with "one sweep of the knife"? Finally, do I take it that you chimed in here in defense of Phillips' conclusion that Chapman's killer possessed surgical skill? In which case I can only assume you've finally abandoned your surgically-oblivious suspect Crossmere.

        If not, and you support my contention that the killer had, in all probability, little to no anatomical skill, you might have been better off with a "good points, Ben" type of post - more Crossmere-friendly, at any rate.

        All the best,
        Ben

        Comment


        • Hi Jon,

          And from what we understand today, contra Anderson, they had no idea who the killer was in 1888, so even less of an idea as to which witness who "had a good view" of the killer.
          It's all very well to say "contra Anderson", but according to two separate publications, the man is on record as having had a jolly good idea who the killer was. I don't agree with his conclusion, and will happily explain why on a more appropriate thread, but my reasons for tentatively dismissing the Polish Jew suspect are rather more complex than the "he lied about this particular witness because he had lost track of all the others" version of events you seem to be opting for, all of a sudden. I don't believe for a moment that the police were dopey enough to lose track of all witnesses bar Lawende, or that the convictions expressed by Anderson with regard to the importance of his Jewish witness were the pack of lies you insist they were, but this is really for another thread.
          If that is what you think, then please explain what evidence exists to connect the Stride murder with Eddowes?
          I never said I thought the evidence pointed towards Stride being a ripper victim. Based on the conflicting evidence, I'm as "on-the-fence" as they come on the issue. I was simply observing that Bond's conclusions in that regard were likely to have been prompted by a dispassionate analysis of the evidence, rather than "emotion".

          But that is just what you are implying.
          If you are not, then you must agree with me that the victims had to have resisted, therefore Bond was wrong.
          I'm implying only that you've misinterpreted Bond's intended meaning. There would obviously have been some sort of resistance - unless the victims chose suicide-by-ripper - but rather than defining it as a "struggle", which technically speaking it wasn't, Bond described what actually happened; that the killer acted in such a way as to prevent a struggle from occurring.

          All the best,
          Ben
          Last edited by Ben; 01-05-2016, 07:02 PM.

          Comment


          • Hello peeps,I've had a bit of a look at Bond,if you're interested it's at www.thomasbondfrcs.com thanks

            Comment


            • I wasn't codding when I gave you the tip

              Comment


              • Originally posted by elmore 77 View Post
                Is it time to think the unthinkable and consider the possibility that Dr.Bond was JTR and the Torso killer?I've seen him mentioned before but it doesn't seem to have been taken seriously.Perhaps he has totally deceived us all .
                Hi,
                Only just caught up with this thread.
                Is it by coincidence that as I'm putting together a new idea concerning the murder of MJK, only two days ago I decided to look a bit further into Mr Bond.....and "hey presto" two threads turn up on the same day, the other being about what was in the bucket he took home.
                I'm not for one minute suggesting he was the Ripper, but I'm getting the feeling there could be more to this man than meets the eye.

                regards

                Comment


                • Originally posted by spyglass View Post
                  Hi,
                  Only just caught up with this thread.
                  Is it by coincidence that as I'm putting together a new idea concerning the murder of MJK, only two days ago I decided to look a bit further into Mr Bond.....and "hey presto" two threads turn up on the same day, the other being about what was in the bucket he took home.
                  I'm not for one minute suggesting he was the Ripper, but I'm getting the feeling there could be more to this man than meets the eye.

                  regards
                  Hi spyglass,try my site? it's [url]www.thomasbondfrcs.com
                  Last edited by elmore 77; 11-13-2016, 03:11 PM. Reason: made a mistake

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by elmore 77 View Post
                    Hi spyglass,try my site? it's [url]www.thomasbondfrcs.com
                    Hi,
                    Thanks I certainly will do.

                    Regards

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X