The subject of Jack's "anatomical knowledge"

[Ben]

So it's "unprofessional" of Bond to have imparted the view that the victims mentioned could not have been dead for longer that three or four hours, when we know from independent evidence that it was absolutely true?

Wow.

I'll know not to listen in future whenever you decry anything or anybody as "unprofessional".

[Tom_Wescott]

Norma,

Have you ever discussed Dr. Bond at any length with Debra Arif? That would be a very interesting discussion to follow, if you ask me!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Natalie Severn]

Scotland Yard Investigates 2006 Evans and Rumbelow

Page 188

[re Dr Bond"s 10th November Report including all errors noted by Evans and Rumbelow]


"Bond"s letter made its way through the hands of Anderson to the Home Office.DESPITE ITS SHORTCOMINGS, ITS ERRORS and the fact that some of what Bond deduced was fairly obvious"................



Do you agree with Evans and Rumbelow here Ben or not?

[Natalie Severn]

He didn't say that, Norma.

He observed that "In Buck's Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed". In other words, three or four hours was the maximum time that could have elapsed in order to account for her condition, from a medical perspective, when found. Obviously, there was independent non-medical evidence which indicated that a far shorter space of time had elapsed between death and discovery, but that was not his area of expertise.

If it bothers you, however, reflect that Dr. Phillips ("pon my soul" - where's Gareth?!) proffered a time of death for Chapman that ill-accorded with the eyewitness testimony of Albert Cadosche and Elizabeth Long.

I'm not attempting to "diminish" any of your case knowledge, but it strikes me that you've nailed your colours far too firmly to the medical knowledge, anti-Bond, anti-Anderson mast for no good reason at all.

Best regards,
Ben

Oh P_L_E_A_S_E dont give me such a ridiculous answer.He said as much as three or four hours which was not only IMPRECISE but completely unprofessional when he was into the business of CONTRADICTING other professional medical men.

[Ben]

that Catherine Eddowes was found "THREE or FOUR HOURS "after her death

He didn't say that, Norma.

He observed that "In Buck's Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed". In other words, three or four hours was the maximum time that could have elapsed in order to account for her condition, from a medical perspective, when found. Obviously, there was independent non-medical evidence which indicated that a far shorter space of time had elapsed between death and discovery, but that was not his area of expertise.

If it bothers you, however, reflect that Dr. Phillips ("pon my soul" - where's Gareth?!) proffered a time of death for Chapman that ill-accorded with the eyewitness testimony of Albert Cadosche and Elizabeth Long.

I'm not attempting to "diminish" any of your case knowledge, but it strikes me that you've nailed your colours far too firmly to the medical knowledge, anti-Bond, anti-Anderson mast for no good reason at all. I wouldn't get too comfortable with the notion that Evans and Rumbelow are somehow "on your side" on matters related to Bond. I'd be incredibly surprised if either of them ever made the suggestion that Bond fabricated his findings to accomodate the "low class Jew" theorizing of Anderson, despite there being no evidence that Anderson even had such a theory to tout at that time.

By the way you are absolutely WRONG on what each of the four doctors said who disagreed with Dr Bond over Catherine Mylett

Funny, you didn't challenge the other posters who tried to make you see sense on this issue when they made precisely the same observations with regard to the doctors involved in the Mylett case.

Best regards,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

Before we go on do you mind answering my question.
How come this doctor

WROTE IN HIS "SUPERIOR" MEDICAL REPORT OF 10TH NOVEMBER 1888

that Catherine Eddowes had been dead THREE OR FOUR HOURS when her death had just happened when she was discovered?

and Mary Ann Nichols had also been dead THREE OR FOUR HOURS when her death had just been discovered?

Ben,I have as much knowledge about this case as any of the people you quote so dont try to diminish me.It doesnt work.I do not however pretend to have anything like the expertise of Stewart Evans or the knowledge and experience of the case of Rumbelow and Evans who appear to disagree with you entirely over Dr Bond.

By the way you are absolutely WRONG on what each of the four doctors said who disagreed with Dr Bond over Catherine Mylett,

[Ben]

Now if you happen to think that Evans and Rumbelow are "old hat" in this matter,as you implied a few days ag

I most assuredly did not imply that Evans and Rumbelow were "old hat". I have no trouble at all with critics of Bond per se, providing they are least mildly rational. It was the notion that the image of Bond as the villain of the contemporary medical fraternity should be considered some sort of ripperological truism that I consider painfully "old hat", particularly when it is resorted to in combination with the inexcusable nonsense about Bond being some sort of sycophant to Anderson. Absolutely baseless, grotesquely unfair, and tantamount to an accusation of reckless criminal misconduct.

You are once again attempting to undermine the value of Bond's insights by claiming that his opinions on the Mylett case reflected the minority, despite the fact that we've all pissed on that bonfire over and over again. Dr. Bond disagreed with Dr. Brownfield, a damnably fine thing that was too, considering that the latter made medical claims that were subsequently proven false. As Debs and Rob explained to you several posts ago, Bond's witness evidence was considered valuable on account of his experience of strangulation murders - experience that the other medicos did not appear to possess to an equal extent. It was also observed that the four doctors who were supposedly united in disagreement with Bond also disagreed with eachother about how Mylett was dispatched. Dr. Harris hadn't even seen a case of strangulation before, and there's ni evidence that Phillips ever viewed Mylett's corpse, so no biggie that Bond disagreed with either of them.

You've drawn attention to the fact that messrs. Evans and Rumbelow are "ex-policeman", and yet you aren't nearly so bothered by the fact that the opinion of Doctor Bond was accepted by the police in 1888.

[Natalie Severn]

While you are pondering on this Ben,perhaps you can switch your mind into gear and explain quite how Dr Bond was able to arrive at these

"remarkable facts"
by
" using the other doctors case notes" [I dont think so]

that Catherine Eddowes was found "THREE or FOUR HOURS "after her death

[we know her body was still warm when Dr Brown arrived at 3 minutes past two]

and that Mary Ann Nichols was also found "THREE OR FOUR HOURS" after her death-[Dr Llewellyn thought she had been dead no more than thirty minutes]


So how come this punctilious doctor was so ridiculously "way out" over time of death?

[Natalie Severn]

Scotland Yard Investigates 2006 Evans and Rumbelow

And I'd respectfully submit that such a fallacious concept should have been dispensed with many moons ago.


Bond was never "outnumbered 12 to one". That's nonsense. His opinions regarding the killer's apparent lack of anatomical skill reflected the majority view amongst contemporary medical personnel.

I could ennumerate the large number of doctors but Stewart Evans and Don Rumbelow do it far better actually in their book Scotland Yard Investigates which I have noted you avoid discussing.

Lets look at how they begin their criticism of Dr Bond"s role in the death of Rose Mylett shall we:
page246

"It is interesting to see that Anderson had personally viewed the autopsied body and convinced himself that it was a case of "death by natural causes"

Evans and Rumbelow also remind us here that Anderson was much taken with the opinion of one of the "police" who impressed him as being reliable-a PS Golding- but Anderson TOTALLY IGNORED THE OPINIONS OF THE MEDICAL MEN INVOLVED AND DECIDED TO CALL IN HIS OWN "FAVOURED" POLICE SURGEON DR BOND"


Now if you happen to think that Evans and Rumbelow are "old hat" in this matter,as you implied a few days ago when I quoted from their book on the matter then say so now, and I will not continue to discuss this with you ,because it is their "evaluation "of Dr Bond's evidence where he contradicts his four medical colleagues,including the most senior police surgeon of all," Police surgeon in Chief,Alexander MacKellar "-who is presumably Dr Bond"s "superior" in this matter,that have influenced me most. Moreover Evans and Rumbelow bring to the case their valuable understanding as "ex policemen" which throw much light on Anderson"s role too as well as the initial opinion of the police in this case ,to whom Anderson "apparently" deferred.
So,do you want to discuss their analysis of this case or not?

I refer you to pages 241 to 247 in case you want to refresh your memory .

Just in case I misunderstood :Was it perhaps Martin Fido who you meant was "old Hat"?

[Ben]

I believe Dr Bond was simply Robert Anderson"s stooge in these matters.

And I'd respectfully submit that such a fallacious concept should have been dispensed with many moons ago.

You are not a medical practitioner but the men who outnumbered Dr Bond by 12 to one WERE.

Bond was never "outnumbered 12 to one". That's nonsense. His opinions regarding the killer's apparent lack of anatomical skill reflected the majority view amongst contemporary medical personnel.

[Natalie Severn]

Are you even vaguely serious?

Lives were potentially dependent upon an accurate medical report as it could have provided clues to the identity of the offender. If Bond genuinely thought that the perpetrator had no medical knowledge or that the autopsies compiled by his colleagues did not adequately reflect the conclusions they drew from them, it was both professionally and morally encumbant upon him to state as much.

Or are you seriously suggesting that it would have been more "professional" and less "arrogant" if Bond had lied about his findings and pretended to think the killer had anatomical skill, purely as a courtesy nod to his colleagues?



No, I think you'll find that's an obvious exaggeration. Besides, I thought Debs and Rob had put you in the picture a little more over the Mylett issue. One of those doctors whose opinion was contracted by Bond was Dr. Brownfield who made medical claims that were provably false, but you don't focus nearly so much on this. Bond had the support of the police force in the Mylett issue, in any event.

Best regards,
Ben

I believe Dr Bond was simply Robert Anderson"s stooge in these matters.
You,Ben can think what you like.You are not a medical practitioner but the men who outnumbered Dr Bond by 12 to one WERE.

[Natalie Severn]

Powerful and controlling, are we still discussing the Jews?[/QUOTE]


Jason,
What exactly do you mean by this?
Thanks

[jason_c]

Few doctors would have had the arrogance to behave in such an unprofessional way towards their colleagues as did Dr Bond.
He flatly contradicted some twelve doctors over the Ripper case in total that is,including the five he contradicted over Catherine[Rose] Mylett.To contradict the Police Surgeon -in- Chief,as well as three others ,four including Dr Phillips ,as he did over Mylett reveals either an extraordinary arrogance or a fear of someone more powerful and controlling than any one else---maybe someone such as Sir Robert Anderson- The Chief of Police!

Or Bond showed his professionalism by not reaching the same conclusions as his peers.


Powerful and controlling, are we still discussing the Jews?

[Ben]

Hi Hunter,

"It is also strange that Bond saw some skill in the way McKenzie's throat was cut and related her murder to the one's perpetrated the previous fall."

Bond was talking about ability with the use of the knife, which was most probably honed "on the job" of killing prostitutes. In that respect, I agree entirely with Bond's observations. There's little doubt that the killer became more knife-proficient as he gained experience.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Few doctors would have had the arrogance to behave in such an unprofessional way towards their colleagues as did Dr Bond.

Are you even vaguely serious?

Lives were potentially dependent upon an accurate medical report as it could have provided clues to the identity of the offender. If Bond genuinely thought that the perpetrator had no medical knowledge or that the autopsies compiled by his colleagues did not adequately reflect the conclusions they drew from them, it was both professionally and morally encumbant upon him to state as much.

Or are you seriously suggesting that it would have been more "professional" and less "arrogant" if Bond had lied about his findings and pretended to think the killer had anatomical skill, purely as a courtesy nod to his colleagues?

He flatly contradicted some twelve doctors over the Ripper

No, I think you'll find that's an obvious exaggeration. Besides, I thought Debs and Rob had put you in the picture a little more over the Mylett issue. One of those doctors whose opinion was contracted by Bond was Dr. Brownfield who made medical claims that were provably false, but you don't focus nearly so much on this. Bond had the support of the police force in the Mylett issue, in any event.

Best regards,
Ben