The name's Bond

[Observer]

There's just a little bit of 'Apples & Oranges' there.

Prosector made his detailed analysis on Eddowes mutilations, not the Kelly case. And, Dr. Bond only studied case notes of the Eddowes murder (along with the case notes of the murders previous to Kelly), though he was present at the Kelly post-mortem.

The two are not truly compatible.

Doctor Bond only studied the case notes? What are you saying, Prosector had access to information unavailable to Doctor Bond? The two are most assuredly compatible.

[Observer]

As I said, if Bond's analysis of the wounds, and subsequent declaration that the killer did not display any anatomical knowledge, or surgical skills, is to be discounted on the grounds that he did not physically examine the bodies of Eddowes, Nichols and Chapman, then Prosectors analysis should carry equal weight as Bond's.

This of course is aimed at those with double standards, who are only too willing to champion Prosectors analysis to promote a theory, whilst dismissing Bond because it does not suite said theory.

[SuspectZero]

As I said, if Bond's analysis of the wounds, and subsequent declaration that the killer did not display any anatomical knowledge, or surgical skills, is to be discounted on the grounds that he did not physically examine the bodies of Eddowes, Nichols and Chapman, then Prosectors analysis should carry equal weight as Bond's.

This of course is aimed at those with double standards, who are only too willing to champion Prosectors analysis to promote a theory, whilst dismissing Bond because it does not suite said theory.

But they can't be viewed as the same when Bond had access to the living coroners and physicians who did. They were contemporaries and conceivably available for questioning. You can't say the same for Prosector.

[Observer]

But they can't be viewed as the same when Bond had access to the living coroners and physicians who did. They were contemporaries and conceivably available for questioning. You can't say the same for Prosector.

You miss my point. There are posters who dismiss Bonds reasoning based solely on the fact that he did not view all of the victims. Those same posters champion Prosector, who also did not actually physically see the victims, who like Bond relied on the reports of the other doctors.

As you say Bond probably was in an even better position to comment on the injuries inflicted on the victims. I was giving Prosector the benefit of the doubt, and gave them equal status in the ability to determine whether the killer displayed any anatomical or surgical skill.

So, dismiss Bond by all means, but don't go spouting off in the next breath that Prosector is correct in his assumption that the killer displayed anatomical, or surgical skill.

[Wickerman]

Doctor Bond only studied the case notes? What are you saying, Prosector had access to information unavailable to Doctor Bond? The two are most assuredly compatible.

Ok sorry, I tried to be brief.

Prosector studied the testimony as recorded at the inquest concerning Eddowes mutilations, his opinions do not relate to the Kelly murder.

Bond studied the autopsy notes of Eddowes murder, but never saw the mutilations in person.
His opinions concerning skill level apply to only the Kelly case.

This suggests to me the opinions of Prosector & Bond are not comparable.

[Observer]

I think you'll find Jon that Bond didn't detect any skill level period, that is on any of the victims. Regarding Eddowes, Arn't the autopsy notes, and the inquest revelations concerning her injuries one and the same? Or at least very similar .

[Ben]

Bond studied the autopsy notes of Eddowes murder, but never saw the mutilations in person.
His opinions concerning skill level apply to only the Kelly case.

Not true I'm afraid, Jon.

8. In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion be does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.

[Observer]

Was just about to post the above Ben. Point 8.

[Phil Carter]

Point of note..

The autopsy notes re Kelly and Bonds conclusions are NOT necessarily one and the same.
We do not know because the autopsy notes went missing and they cannot be compared to the Bond notes.

Reading between the lines, Phillips' official autopsy may well differ but sadly we just don't know.



Phil

[Observer]

I believe there is a newspaper report wherein Philips is said to have reached the same conclusion as Bond regarding the injuries inflicted upon Mary Kelly. That is a lack of anatomical knowledge, or surgical skill

[Wickerman]

I think you'll find Jon that Bond didn't detect any skill level period, that is on any of the victims. Regarding Eddowes, Arn't the autopsy notes, and the inquest revelations concerning her injuries one and the same? Or at least very similar .

I'm aware Dr. Bond said the killer showed, "no scientific nor anatomical knowledge."

Which in my view contradicts Dr. Brown who said:

"I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them".

Also, "It required a great deal of knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed".

Then the kidney, "...(that) the peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed, the left renal artery was cut through".

The renal artery is very small in diameter, there is no need to use a knife, simply pull the kidney out of the body and the renal artery will snap in two.
A medical man accustomed to cutting as apposed to tearing might slice through the flimsy artery more due to habit than necessity.
It's like running the knife around the umbilicus, a custom more likely the result of a trained hand than some slash & grab artists.

[Phil Carter]

I believe there is a newspaper report wherein Philips is said to have reached the same conclusion as Bond regarding the injuries inflicted upon Mary Kelly. That is a lack of anatomical knowledge, or surgical skill

Hello Observer,

Without wishing to pour cold water on the above..I am reminded of the old saying..
"One swallow doesn't make a summer".

The statement, in reality..means very little without details to back it up..and as far as I am aware..I could be mistaken..nowhere that I know of has any details of the official Phillips autopsy?

I could be mistaken though.


Phil

[Wickerman]

Not true I'm afraid, Jon.

8. In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion be does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.

No Ben, how cuts were applied can only be assessed by looking at the mutilations, this Bond was only able to do with Kelly.
Recording what organs were removed does not tell the reader how the knife was applied (re: knife skills). For that you have to see the mutilations first hand.

[elmore 77]

The way Annie's uterus was removed could only have been done by someone with a thorough knowledge of human anatomy according to Prosector,also see the surgical mobilisation of the bowel,the location of the kidney in the dark and the skirting the umbilicus.Bond denies that the killer has even the skills of a butcher which is not true,he obviously has anatomical knowledge.So the next question is,what is going on in his head?I say he has an agenda.
In the Mylett case he is the only one of five doctors to say she was not murdered,saying,in effect she was drunk and had an accident with her collar.If Mylett was garotted it might explain why Liz Stride couldn't cry out very loudly.

[Observer]

I'm aware Dr. Bond said the killer showed, "no scientific nor anatomical knowledge."

Which in my view contradicts Dr. Brown who said:

"I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them".

Also, "It required a great deal of knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed".

Then the kidney, "...(that) the peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed, the left renal artery was cut through".

The renal artery is very small in diameter, there is no need to use a knife, simply pull the kidney out of the body and the renal artery will snap in two.
A medical man accustomed to cutting as apposed to tearing might slice through the flimsy artery more due to habit than necessity.
It's like running the knife around the umbilicus, a custom more likely the result of a trained hand than some slash & grab artists.

Hi Jon

I have no problem with individual poster's interpretation of what the medical men who investigated the crimes revealed about the injuries. My issue is with posters who dismiss Bond on the grounds that he did not physically examine all the victims, and then use Prosector as a means to promote a theory which includes the killer requiring surgical skill in order to carry out the mutilations.