The name's Bond

[Sam Flynn]

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Sequira the least experienced and least qualified of the doctors?

He was one of the youngest, that's for sure. However, Sequeira had the distinction of coming from a family of very distinguished physicians and scientists, in a line going back at least as far as the 17th Century.

[elmore 77]

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Sequira the least experienced and least qualified of the doctors?Bond runs the outpatients department and has a legal medical practice.Surely Phillips is the senior doctor here.
From Prosectors book-'even the detail about taking the upper third of the vagina displays a profound degree of anatomical knowledge.Had the operator sliced through the obvious place,the narrow waist between the uterus and the vagina,he would have left the cervix behind since it protrudes several centimetres into the vault of the vagina.No-one without a thorough knowledge of human anatomy could have known that'.
Bond says that Mckenzies throat was 'skilfully' cut and says she belongs to the series.
Could Kelly's heart have been taken to disguise that she died of syncope and
therefore her throat was skilfully cut?
Kelly's room may look a mess but there is still a methodical placing of the pieces.
But there are plenty of threads debating skill and knowledge,I want to ask,can we trust this man?
If Bond is the perp,it would suit him to expand the suspect pool as much as he possibly could,so describing the killer as a nobody would be in his interests.The police couldn't focus their investigation as they could before his 'most helpful' intervention.He then helpfully replaces the science with a 'profile' with an ass kissing tendency,in my opinion

[Wickerman]

Ha!
So you've reduced your argument from, "the vast majority of inquest press reports", to a simple, "We know for a fact", ...you're quite the character Ben, and that's a fact, beyond dispute.



Happy Christmas young fella..

[Ben]

Is this the same 'Ben' who normally admonishes press versions of testimony in favor of the official version?

No, I'm the Ben who normally admonishes people who champion "press versions" which run contrary to all other sources including "the official version", but that's not what's happening here. We know for a fact that Brown and Sequeira did not agree over "all particulars" connected with the Eddowes mutilations, which means we know for a fact that any newspaper claiming otherwise is definitely wrong. Sequeria was obviously saying that he agreed "entirely" with Brown's evidence with regard to the position of the body, as the Times and your friend the Morning Advertiser made clear:

"He saw the position of the body, and he entirely agreed with Dr. Gordon Brown's evidence given on the opening of the inquest."

"I saw the position of the body, and I agree with Dr. Brown as to that position. I heard his evidence at the last examination, and I agree with it."

Let's put this in even simpler terms:

Brown was impressed by the level of anatomical knowledge displayed, and said so, very clearly.

Sequeira was unimpressed by the level of anatomical knowledge displayed, and said so, very clearly*.

Them's the facts, and they're utterly beyond dispute.

Regards,
Ben

*Ditto Saunders and Bond.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I wouldn't trust that quote if I were you, as it differs considerably from what the vast majority of inquest press reports quoted him as saying.

Is this the same 'Ben' who normally admonishes press versions of testimony in favor of the official version?
Here you choose to not accept the official version and go with a press version.

We know that the "every particular" bit is nonsense because he clearly did not believe the killer had either anatomical skill or a design on a specific organ, whereas Brown clearly did. The Daily Telegraph reported his words as follows:

I saw the position of the body, and I entirely agree with the evidence of Dr. Gordon Brown in that respect.

In that respect, not "every particular".

The Daily Telegraph was the only one to use "in that respect", whereas the Times wrote:
"....he entirely agreed with Dr. Gordon Brown's evidence"

Daily News:
"and I entirely agree with it in all particulars."

Morning Advertiser:
"I heard his evidence at the last examination, and I agree with it.
The Coroner - You agree with it entirely? - Yes.

Star:
"I entirely agree with Dr. Gordon Browne in the evidence he gave last week."

A brief comparison with the majority of press versions shows your assertion is unfounded, in fact quite wrong.

The majority of press versions agreed with the official version.

[John G]

same to you! and happy new year!

Thanks Abby. Happy New Year to you too!

[John G]

I don't have a clue what is meant by that. Two thirds of her bladder was taken away, not exactly a subtle manouvre.

Yes, I find Ian Calder's conclusions a little confusing. For instance, on one hand he refers to Eddowes autopsy report, which suggests she was subjected to a "frenzied attack." But on the other hand he concludes that both Chapman's and Eddowes' pelvic organs appear to have been removed "skilfully" and without damage to adjacent organs.

In fact, as I noted in my earlier post, he concludes that, given the time frame, poor lighting conditions,and degree of skill that was exhibited, Eddowes' organs could not have been removed at the crime scene, a conclusion I find somewhat incredible.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

"I was present and heard the whole of the evidence of Dr. Gordon Brown at the last meeting I quite agree with the Doctor in every particular."

I wouldn't trust that quote if I were you, as it differs considerably from what the vast majority of inquest press reports quoted him as saying. We know that the "every particular" bit is nonsense because he clearly did not believe the killer had either anatomical skill or a design on a specific organ, whereas Brown clearly did. The Daily Telegraph reported his words as follows:

I saw the position of the body, and I entirely agree with the evidence of Dr. Gordon Brown in that respect.

In that respect, not "every particular".

And we know from Dr Brown himself (previously quoted), that he saw some evidence of medical knowledge.

"Considerable knowledge" is what Brown claimed to have detected, which is quite different to Sequeira's view.

Regards,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I've been a little busy, but thanks for asking. Merry Christmas by the way.

same to you! and happy new year!

[Observer]

On the other hand, Ian Calder comments that Annie Chapman's pelvic organs "appear to have been removed skilfully without damage to adjacent tissue." ( Marriott, 2015)

I don't have a clue what is meant by that. Two thirds of her bladder was taken away, not exactly a subtle manouvre.

[John G]

where you been?

Hi Abby,

I've been a little busy, but thanks for asking. Merry Christmas by the way.

[Abby Normal]

A number of modern experts, consulted by Trevor Marriott, were deeply divided on the issue of whether the assailant had any medical/surgical knowledge. Ian Calder, a consultant pathologist, was of the opinion that Eddowes' and Chapman's assailant must have had both knowledge of anatomy and experience in using it. In fact, given the level of skill and expertise that was demonstrated, he concluded that the organs could not have been removed at the crime scene, given the suggested time frame and poor lighting conditions.

On the other hand Dr Biggs , a forensic pathologist, concluded that the killer wouldn't have required any surgical or anatomical knowledge.

Interestingly, Dr Biggs asks whether Eddowes' kidney and uterus were surgically removed or simply hacked out by an unskilled person. On the other hand, Ian Calder comments that Annie Chapman's pelvic organs "appear to have been removed skilfully without damage to adjacent tissue." ( Marriott, 2015)

I think therefore the question as to whether surgical or medical skill was demonstrated by the killer is largely undetermined.

where you been?

[John G]

A number of modern experts, consulted by Trevor Marriott, were deeply divided on the issue of whether the assailant had any medical/surgical knowledge. Ian Calder, a consultant pathologist, was of the opinion that Eddowes' and Chapman's assailant must have had both knowledge of anatomy and experience in using it. In fact, given the level of skill and expertise that was demonstrated, he concluded that the organs could not have been removed at the crime scene, given the suggested time frame and poor lighting conditions.

On the other hand Dr Biggs , a forensic pathologist, concluded that the killer wouldn't have required any surgical or anatomical knowledge.

Interestingly, Dr Biggs asks whether Eddowes' kidney and uterus were surgically removed or simply hacked out by an unskilled person. On the other hand, Ian Calder comments that Annie Chapman's pelvic organs "appear to have been removed skilfully without damage to adjacent tissue." ( Marriott, 2015)

I think therefore the question as to whether surgical or medical skill was demonstrated by the killer is largely undetermined.

[Wickerman]

The views of Sequeira and Saunders with regard to the extent of "skill" evinced by the Eddowes mutilations are broadly in agreement with Bond's.

Strange conclusion Ben, Dr. Sequeira specifically made the point:
"I was present and heard the whole of the evidence of Dr. Gordon Brown at the last meeting I quite agree with the Doctor in every particular."

And we know from Dr Brown himself (previously quoted), that he saw some evidence of medical knowledge. He did not say the killer was greatly endowed with knowledge, but knowledge was evident, in his opinion.

Which then explains the next comment by Sequeira:
"I do not think that he was possessed of any great anatomical skill".

Which does not contradict Dr. Brown at all. The emphasis on "great", Sequira is not agreeing with Bond in this comment.
Bond said he saw "no scientific nor anatomical knowledge".

Sequeira is not agreeing with Bond, he is agreeing with Brown.

[Wickerman]

... Bond was an inexperienced doctor who examined one victim personally and studied the notes for the others; on what grounds do we assert that he is "obviously" wrong?....

Is there a typo somewhere here Ben?