The name's Bond

[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!

[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

[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.

[John G]

same to you! and happy new year!

Thanks Abby. Happy New Year to you too!

[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.

[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]

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..

[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

[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.

[Wickerman]

Regarding surgical skill it's not widely pointed out in this forum that a part of the stomach was above the left shoulder possibly sliced off as the killer disemboweled Annie Champan. This to me another example of a killer simply hacking away at the victim.

Hi Obs.

And yet, it is well to remember Phillips's words of caution in response to the Coroner:
[Coroner] - Was any anatomical knowledge displayed?
[Phillips] - I think there was; there were indications of it. I think the anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated by being hindered in consequence of haste.
(my emphasis)

This is quite in keeping with Dr. Brown over the Eddowes mutilations, and Dr. Sequeira, to a lesser extent ("of any great anatomical skill", means, just like Phillps had previously said, there were indications of it).

I'm suspicious that Phillips was reluctant to offer his opinion in a public forum, at the inquest. That he saw the mutilations of Chapman as something beyond haphazard slashing, but was not comfortable in putting his feelings into words due to the implication of what he might be required to say.

There was a camaraderie among surgeons in the medical profession.

[Sam Flynn]

A guide for the perplexed:

[John G]

A guide for the perplexed:

[ATTACH]17362[/ATTACH]

Yes, I think I understand your point Sam! To be fair, Dr Phillips didn't seem to think that Kelly's murderer displayed any anatomical skill. Asked by the coroner, at the Pinchin Street Torso inquest, if there was any similarity between the cutting off of the legs in that case and the one severed from the woman in Dorset Street, he replied: " The savagery shown by the mutilated remains in the Dorset-Street case far exceeded that shown in this case. The mutilations in the Dorset-Street case were most wanton, whereas in this case it strikes me that they were made for the purpose of disposing of the body. " (the emphasis is mine.)

[Wickerman]

The problem Sam is, your source.

While "indications" concerning anatomy came from a surgeon, your "indications" of architecture, did not come from an architect.

[Sam Flynn]

The problem Sam is, your source.

There's no problem, Jon. There are indications of architectural skill in the shack - in the clear sense that certain basic principles of construction must have been adhered to if the shack were to remain standing, which it clearly does. (There would be no "indications of architectural skill" in evidence if a novice were given a pile of planks and told to get on with it.) However, it's still a god-awful mess by any objective standard, and you can bet your boots that the guy who built it was about as far removed from Nicholas Hawksmoor as Kelly's killer was from Sir William Gull.

[Phil Carter]

I will mention in passing that the "surgical methodology" of removal of the heart from below the ribs, leaving other items close to or surrounding the heart intact, was a very fresh idea...in surgical terms.

Now..at least until that time. .as far as I am aware, but could be mistaken, no murder committed on a human had this procedure been used.

One can..If that be the case, perhaps include this limited knowledge whilst weighing up the pros and cons of anatomical knowledge.

This method of removal of the heart has a name..and I believe was from the 1870's. The name escapes me at the moment but I THINK it was a German surgeon who came up with the idea. I believe. .but could be wrong..that Bond studied under this man. Please make allowances for a faulty memory.

I will try and ferret out the reference.



Phil