The name's Bond

[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]

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

[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]

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 .

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[Wickerman]

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.

[SuspectZero]

Bond was closer to the action than Prosector, he even had the chance to talk to those who did the autopsies, so how is Prosector more reliable than Bond??

Now I am confused.

I have to go with you on this one. Bond is more reliable. He had first hand knowledge and access to medical experts who also had such knowledge. Prosector did not, and is only interpreting case notes. There is a big difference.

[GUT]

Beats me what happened there.

[DJA]

Interpreter!

[GUT]

I go with the people who did the autopsies and Prosector ,who taught surgery

Bond was closer to the action than Prosector, he even had the chance to talk to those who did the autopsies, so how is Prosector more reliable than Bond??

Now I am confused.

[Observer]

I go with the people who did the autopsies and Prosector ,who taught surgery

How can you "go", with Prosector, after ruling out Doctor Bond for the sole reason that he didn't actualy (apart from Kelly) view any of the bodies? He making his assesment that the killer did not possess any skill in either surgery or anatomy by reading and iterpreting the case notes of the other doctors? Isn't that exactly what Prosector has done?