The name's Bond

[spyglass]

Hi spyglass,try my site? it's [url]www.thomasbondfrcs.com

Hi,
Thanks I certainly will do.

Regards

[elmore 77]

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

[spyglass]

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

[elmore 77]

I wasn't codding when I gave you the tip

[elmore 77]

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

[Ben]

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

[Ben]

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

[Wickerman]

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.

[John G]

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?

[SirJohnFalstaff]

One question

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

[Michael W Richards]

Hi JohnG,






1. Exactly, and why attempt - and fail - to remove Chapman's head if his sole purpose was to “obtain possession of body parts”?

2.Another fallacy that does the rounds occasionally is that Bond’s conclusions on the other victims are somehow invalid because he only saw “notes”. It is possibly overlooked that Phillips would have written clear and accurate descriptions of the injuries inflicted on the women, as befitting his experience and ability. Any insistence, therefore, that the conclusions derived from these are faulty is as much a criticism of Phillips’ ability to convey his findings in written format as it is of Bond’s medical ability.
All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

On the above I differ with your conclusions;

On the first point, who says that the nicks automatically convey the message that the killer attempted to remove the head, they could be a result of very forceful cuts that were intended to sever both arteries for certain. Conversely, who is to say that someone wanting organs might not also want a head?

On point 2, there is no way, in my opinion of course, that mere notes are adequate replacement for first hand, hands on review. Philips saw 4 Canonicals, and as such, is the best source for comparative analysis.

Bonds confused comments concerning his original review of those same notes, while assessing the comparison with Alice McKenzies wounds, is enough to put his opinion in question.

[John G]

Hi JohnG,



But Dr. Bond said precisely the opposite - that the perpetrator did not even possess the knowledge of a butcher. There can be no doubt that Phillip's oft-quoted opinion that the killer "had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife..." cannot possibly be correct, since two cuts are obviously required to liberate the pelvic organs from the body, and almost certainly not as the result of a single "sweeping" motion. The top cut evinced no expertise at all, merely hacking through the bladder, and I’ve addressed the lower cut in an earlier post half-expecting to be told I’m mistaken, although that hasn’t happened yet. I don’t know if Dr. Calder took the misleading “one sweep of the knife” comment at face value, but it simply isn’t true that "the pelvic organs appear to have been removed skilfully without damage to adjacent tissues.”. The pelvic organs are very much “adjacent” to the bladder, and the latter was very much damaged.




Exactly, and why attempt - and fail - to remove Chapman's head if his sole purpose was to “obtain possession of body parts”?

Another fallacy that does the rounds occasionally is that Bond’s conclusions on the other victims are somehow invalid because he only saw “notes”. It is possibly overlooked that Phillips would have written clear and accurate descriptions of the injuries inflicted on the women, as befitting his experience and ability. Any insistence, therefore, that the conclusions derived from these are faulty is as much a criticism of Phillips’ ability to convey his findings in written format as it is of Bond’s medical ability.

All the best,
Ben

Hello Ben,

Philip Harrison, who assisted Dr Calder, made this interesting observation about the Chapman evisceration:

"To remove the appendages, the uterus, the fallopian tubes, and ovaries in one frenzied attack and one slice of the blade would be almost impossible. It is a very difficult and skilled undertaking to remove there organs carefully even by today's methods, especially as the comment is that they were cleanly cut and the cut missed the rectum." (Marriott, 2013). In fact, Dr Calder concluded that the organs could not have been removed at the crime scene, in these circumstances, which accords with Trevor's theory.

However, I wonder if there may be an issue of misinterpretation of the surviving medical reports. For instance Dr Biggs, a forensic pathologist consulted by Trevor, takes a contrary view, and although he doesn't comment in any detail about Chapman, he does opine that, in respect of Eddowes' reports, "much of the description is vague and potentially ambiguous" (Marriott, 2013.)

[Fisherman]

Hi JohnG,



But Dr. Bond said precisely the opposite - that the perpetrator did not even possess the knowledge of a butcher. There can be no doubt that Phillip's oft-quoted opinion that the killer "had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife..." cannot possibly be correct, since two cuts are obviously required to liberate the pelvic organs from the body, and almost certainly not as the result of a single "sweeping" motion. The top cut evinced no expertise at all, merely hacking through the bladder, and I’ve addressed the lower cut in an earlier post half-expecting to be told I’m mistaken, although that hasn’t happened yet. I don’t know if Dr. Calder took the misleading “one sweep of the knife” comment at face value, but it simply isn’t true that "the pelvic organs appear to have been removed skilfully without damage to adjacent tissues.”. The pelvic organs are very much “adjacent” to the bladder, and the latter was very much damaged.




Exactly, and why attempt - and fail - to remove Chapman's head if his sole purpose was to “obtain possession of body parts”?

Another fallacy that does the rounds occasionally is that Bond’s conclusions on the other victims are somehow invalid because he only saw “notes”. It is possibly overlooked that Phillips would have written clear and accurate descriptions of the injuries inflicted on the women, as befitting his experience and ability. Any insistence, therefore, that the conclusions derived from these are faulty is as much a criticism of Phillips’ ability to convey his findings in written format as it is of Bond’s medical ability.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben!

I will not go into any debate with you - I avoid it nowadays. I will make one point and one point only, and then I will leave you to it.

Have you noticed how you first dissed Phillips´ judgment and professionalism by pointing out how he would have been totally wrong about the procuring of the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife (the amateur!), only to then move on to telling us how the exact same medico would have provided Bond with an exact, skilled and truly professional report: "clear and accurate" as you eloquently put it.

Now, I have lost interest of this as of now, but maybe you owe John G an explanation as to why we should diss a medico one second and invest in him in the next...?

[Ben]

Hi JohnG,

At the very least, the degree of care taken suggests that the perpetrator had significantly more skill than, say, a butcher or slaughterman.

But Dr. Bond said precisely the opposite - that the perpetrator did not even possess the knowledge of a butcher. There can be no doubt that Phillip's oft-quoted opinion that the killer "had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife..." cannot possibly be correct, since two cuts are obviously required to liberate the pelvic organs from the body, and almost certainly not as the result of a single "sweeping" motion. The top cut evinced no expertise at all, merely hacking through the bladder, and I’ve addressed the lower cut in an earlier post half-expecting to be told I’m mistaken, although that hasn’t happened yet. I don’t know if Dr. Calder took the misleading “one sweep of the knife” comment at face value, but it simply isn’t true that "the pelvic organs appear to have been removed skilfully without damage to adjacent tissues.”. The pelvic organs are very much “adjacent” to the bladder, and the latter was very much damaged.

And what adds to the confusion is that Dr Phillips stated at the inquest that, "the whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these body parts."

But if that was the case then why remove Chapman's intestines?

Exactly, and why attempt - and fail - to remove Chapman's head if his sole purpose was to “obtain possession of body parts”?

Another fallacy that does the rounds occasionally is that Bond’s conclusions on the other victims are somehow invalid because he only saw “notes”. It is possibly overlooked that Phillips would have written clear and accurate descriptions of the injuries inflicted on the women, as befitting his experience and ability. Any insistence, therefore, that the conclusions derived from these are faulty is as much a criticism of Phillips’ ability to convey his findings in written format as it is of Bond’s medical ability.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Quite simply because of the dozens, possibly scores, of other witnesses who identified suspicious people to the police, none could claim to have seen anything incriminating.

Exactly, so it makes precious little sense, then, to argue that the witnesses who didn't see "anything incriminating" are more likely to have seen the real murderer than those who were considered by the police to have witnessed something very incriminating.

The other factor in calling on Lawende in later years is very likely that he was the only witness who's whereabouts was known.

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". If you're suggesting that his convictions with regard to the identity of the most notorious criminal in history rested entirely on an identification provided by "the only person we weren't clumsy and stupid enough to lose track of", then there is no more vociferous critic of Anderson than you!

Time and proximity are commonly used as persuasive factors in including Stride in the canon, more the result of emotion than the application of medical experience.

Still not sure what you're getting at here.

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? We have no idea if Bond factored either of these things into his overall judgment, although the likelihood is that he restricted himself to the medical evidence.

So resistance was noted, and resistance is "struggle", so Bond was in error.

No, he wasn't.

Bond was obviously defining a "struggle" as a physical altercation as opposed to measures taken - in this case strangulation - to ensure the prevention of such an altercation. What else could he possibly have meant - that the women willingly permitted the cutting of their throats?

Regards,
Ben