The subject of Jack's "anatomical knowledge"

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Hunter,



Inclination certainly, but Bond's inference was that that no special "ability" was required to excise the organs in question - not even that of a butcher, and that there was certainly never any contemporary medical consensus that some sort of minimum degree of knowledge was required to carry out the mutilations. The majority of evidence suggested the reverse.

Best regards,
Ben

As far as the murder of Kelly are concerned and I have purposely avoided any entry into the discussion about her murder. There are only 2 irrefutable fact surrounding her murder.

1. She was murdered
2. Her Killer mutilated her body and enviscerated her organs

Anything else is pure speculation

[Phil Carter]

Trevor,

Re Kelly...

Agreed. There are way too many issues with that murder, re anatomical knowledge.

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

Re Kelly...

Agreed. There are way too many issues with that murder, re anatomical knowledge.

best wishes

Phil

One major issue is who actually killed her

The second being what happened to the heart ?

[Phil Carter]

Trevor,

I have never seen the Bond report. I have never seen it posted even. Have you? Is it stamped? Not that I am disputing EVERYTHING that happened to miraculously turn up in 1987 via the Black Museum you understand...

Mind you, Im old enough to be sceptical.

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

I have never seen the Bond report. I have never seen it posted even. Have you? Is it stamped? Not that I am disputing EVERYTHING that happened to miraculously turn up in 1987 via the Black Museum you understand...

Mind you, Im old enough to be sceptical.

best wishes

Phil

I havent see the original but this is how it supossedly reads

Bond's report said:
"I beg to report that I have read the notes of the 4 Whitechapel Murders viz:
1. Buck's Row.
2. Hanbury Street.
3. Berner's Street.
4. Mitre Square.
I have also made a Post Mortem Examination of the mutilated remains of a woman found yesterday in a small room in Dorset Street -
1. All five murders were no doubt committed by the same hand. In the first four the throats appear to have been cut from left to right. In the last case owing to the extensive mutilation it is impossible to say in what direction the fatal cut was made, but arterial blood was found on the wall in splashes close to where the woman's head must have been lying.

2. All the circumstances surrounding the murders lead me to form the opinion that the women must have been lying down when murdered and in every case the throat was first cut.

3. In the four murders of which I have seen the notes only, I cannot form a very definite opinion as to the time that had elapsed between the murder and the discovering of the body. In one case, that of Berner's Street, the discovery appears to have been made immediately after the deed - In Buck's Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed. In the Dorset Street case the body was lying on the bed at the time of my visit, 2 o'clock, quite naked and mutilated as in the annexed report -
Rigor Mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination. From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death as the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in. The body was comparatively cold at 2 o'clock and the remains of a recently taken meal were found in the stomach and scattered about over the intestines. It is, therefore, pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours and the partly digested food would indicate: that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, so one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder.

4. In all the cases there appears to be no evidence of struggling and the attacks were probably so sudden and made in such a position
that the women could neither resist nor cry out. In the Dorset Street case the corner of the sheet to the right of the woman's head was much cut and saturated with blood, indicating that the face may have been covered with the sheet at the time of the attack.

5. In the four first cases the murderer must have attacked from the right side of the victim. In the Dorset Street case, he must have attacked from in front or from the left, as there would be no room for him between the wall and the part of the bed on which the woman was lying. Again, the blood had flowed down on the right side of the woman and spurted on to the wall.

6. The murderer would not necessarily be splashed or deluged with blood, but his hands' and arms must have been covered and parts of his clothing must certainly have been smeared with blood.

7. The mutilations in each case excepting the Berner's Street one were all of the same character and shewed clearly that in all the murders, the object was mutilation.

8. In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.

9. The instrument must have been a strong knife at least six inches long, very sharp, pointed at the top and about an inch in width. It may have been a clasp knife, a butcher's knife or a surgeon's knife. I think it was no doubt a straight knife.

10. The murderer must have been a man of physical strength and of great coolness and daring. There is no evidence that he had an accomplice. He must in my opinion be a man subject to periodical attacks of Homicidal and erotic mania. The character of the mutilations indicate that the man may be in a condition sexually, that may be called satyriasis. It is of course possible that the Homicidal impulse may have developed from a revengeful or brooding condition of the mind, or that Religious Mania may have been the original disease, but I do not think either hypothesis is likely. The murderer in external appearance is quite likely to be a quiet inoffensive looking man probably middleaged and neatly and respectably dressed. I think he must be in the habit of wearing a cloak or overcoat or he could hardly have escaped notice in the streets if the blood on his hands or clothes were visible.

11. Assuming the murderer to be such a person as I have just described he would probably be solitary and eccentric in his habits, also he is most likely to be a man without regular occupation, but with some small income or pension. He is possibly living among respectable persons who have some knowledge of his character and habits and who may have grounds for suspicion that he is not quite right in his mind at times. Such persons would probably be unwilling to communicate suspicions to the Police for fear of trouble or notoriety, whereas if there were a prospect of reward it might overcome their scruples.

I am, Dear Sir,
Yours faithfully,
Thos. Bond.[7]

[Phil Carter]

Trevor,

Indeed, I apologise for not making myself clearer..I meant I have never seen the original posted. That is why I wonder a little as to it being stamped. It is apparently written in his own hand...

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

Indeed, I apologise for not making myself clearer..I meant I have never seen the original posted. That is why I wonder a little as to it being stamped. It is apparently written in his own hand...

best wishes

Phil

Perhaps SPE might be able to assist ?

[Debra A]

Debs,
I am mindful of yours and Rob"s excellent research into the case of Rose Mylett.
I have long held an interest in this case myself and I accept a number of both your conclusions.However,the bit I posted above about the mark around Rose Mylett"s neck was new to me. It was a mark that DR Bond claimed was not "visible" four days after her death.But in your article you state that William Randall,assistant to Courtain Chivers,fastened down the lid of Catherine"s [aka Rose"s] coffin,seventeen days after Catherine was found dead and noticed a mark around her neck still clearly "visible" about aquarter of an inch deep with a bruise to the left of it.Why such disparity ---if Dr Bond had examined her corpse so many times?
With regards to the number of doctors quoted I included Dr Phillips because he commented on the case,believing her to have been murderd.That makes a total of five doctors who believed Catherine aka Rose Mylett ,had been murdered.

Hi Norma,
Rob and I concluded from the sources available to us, that the only actual source that says Dr Bond viewed Catherine Mylett's body more than once is Anderson himself, all the inquest testimony by Bond and other doctors suggests strongly that Bond only ever viewed the body once in the mortuary,his first opinion, in agreement with Brownfield and Harris being based on his assistant Hebbert's notes.

After Anderson held a meeting with Bond and Hebbert, he then referred them both to Monro, it was after that meeting that Bond went to the mortuary to view the body for himself and discovered that the marks were superficial and barely visible [5 days after the event]

One thing that may go in favour of Bond's claims that the marks were not still as clear as he would have expected for a strangulation case comes in the summing up by coroner Baxter (who makes it clear that 5 doctors viewed the body only, including Bond) he mentions that expert witness testimony had been given [by an unamed person]to show that the Indian thug murderers were able to execute speedy strangulation murders with ligatures and not leave any trace behind. Bond was specifically asked about his experiences of these thug murders in the inquest. If the mark was that clearly obvious, would this witness testimony have been needed at all I wonder?

Dr Philip's would make no comment on the case to the Star, another unknown source was quoted giving Dr Philip's opinion and there is nothing to say that Philip's viewed Mylett's body. Brownfield was questioned by McKellar about the supposed story he gave to the Star, I'm sure Philips would have been in the same sort of trouble if he had done the same.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Debs,
I follow your points.Four doctors disagreed with Dr Bond"s revised view that Rose Mylett had "strangled herself" accidently, as it were.These four doctors all thought she had been murdered and Dr Bond thought her death was an accident.Dr Phillips according to reports, thought she had been murdered,though we understand he did not view her corpse ,unlike the other four doctors who disagreed with Dr Bond about whether or not she had been murdered.In addition,according to one reporter,Dr Phillips thought that from what he had seen in reports,Rose Mylett had died from a "tourniquet" type strangulation similar to the throat injury he had seen on Stride but prior to Stride"s throat cut-so a method of subdue that also lessened blood flow,helpful if throat cutting was next on the agenda followed by mutilation,which was not the case with Rose Mylett,although we dont know if more was initially intended or not this being the case in the case with both Stride and Mylett.

I am interested in the comment by William Randall about a bruise he saw on the left of her neck and about the mark a quarter inch deep around her neck,still clearly visible 17 days later.There is obviously some "mismatch" between what Dr Bond is saying about this "nearly invisible " wound and what William Randall saw quite clearly.Have you any thoughts on this?

[Debra A]

Hi Norma,
I know I bang on about the reasons and the sequence in which the various doctors viewed Catherine's body but I think it's important to be accurate on that point.
When all the various circumstances are taken into account, as we outlined in the article, to me anyway, Bond's conclusions don't seem that outlandish and his opinion was certainly seriously considered as an option.
Several newspaper accounts show that both scenarios of homicidal strangulation and an accidental one were thought possible and it was a difficult case to decide, but I feel that whoever gave the Indian thug evidence probably swayed the jury in the direction of homicidal death.
And as we know from a couple of other cases I mentioned elsewhere, Bond was certainly not afraid to go against other doctors opinions in other cases that weren't connected to the WM at all.

As to Randall's remarks, yes, it does appear from his comments that the mark was still quite deep 17 days later, but it's hard to know how much stock to place in the observations of a mortuary attendent, given in no official capacity, especially as no actual depths of the wound were mentioned at all in any of the inquest reports in the paper from any of the doctors involved.
The bruise I believe was actually on Catherine's left cheek and about the size of a sixpence. To me, this may tie in more with what Hebbert suggested as the mode of causing death, that the throat was compressed and mouth closed [I assume he meant held closed], but there aren't any more details on Hebbert's observation unfortunately to know what he thought exactly.

[Ben]

Hi Norma,

Suffice to say I'm in full agreement with Debs' observations, and will only add, in response to your suggestion that I be made fully aware of the criticims levelled at Bond, that the image of him as the villain of the piece in terms of medical commentators is both lacking in adequate foundation and decidedly "old hat".

Best regards,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Debs and Ben,
You are both aware I am sure that Stewart Evans and Don Rumbelow in their book,newly published in 2006,entitled " JtR, Scotland Yard Investigates" examine in some significant depth, the role played by Dr Bond within the overall context of the East End Murders of 1888. They look very closely at the role played by Dr Bond in the death of Rose Mylett.Two ex-policemen who have put many years into trying to evaluate evidence as it appeared in 1888/89.


Is this what you are calling "old hat" Ben?

see pages 245 and 246:

Debs,
My argument is about sequence and context and the prevailing view of the majority of medical opinion.I do not think the Indian thug theory played nearly the role you award it,actually.These men were trained in medicine and surgery and in the assessment and appraisal of injury to the tissue of the human corpse-not in some weird gang magic that allegedly went on in India for goodness sake-sorry Debs-it just sounds like gobbledegook that one!
When the four medical men who saw the injury sustained by Rose Mylett, disagreed with Dr Bond"s "revised" opinion, after themselves re-evaluating the evidence and seeing the corpse for ,then to me it is quite clear that one medical man is completely outnumbered by four medical men,one of whom was the Police-Surgeon -in Chief [five doctors actually if you include Dr Phillips ,who read the reports of her injury and released his "tourniquet" theory]. So at 5 to 1 I go with the majority---Rose Mylett was murdered.
Cheers
Norma

[Rob Clack]

My argument is about sequence and context and the prevailing view of the majority of medical opinion.I do not think the Indian thug theory played nearly the role you award it,actually.These men were trained in medicine and surgery and in the assessment and appraisal of injury to the tissue of the human corpse-not in some weird gang magic that allegedly went on in India for goodness sake-sorry Debs-it just sounds like gobbledegook that one!

Hi Norma,
The Indian Thug theory was brought up in the press and at the Inquest by Wynne Baxter who specifically asked Doctor Bond about it. And it may have been Baxter's comments about it at the summing up that helped the jury come to it's verdict.
And are you saying the Indian Thug Murders never happened?

When the four medical men who saw the injury sustained by Rose Mylett, disagreed with Dr Bond"s "revised" opinion, after themselves re-evaluating the evidence and seeing the corpse for ,then to me it is quite clear that one medical man is completely outnumbered by four medical men,one of whom was the Police-Surgeon -in Chief [five doctors actually if you include Dr Phillips ,who read the reports of her injury and released his "tourniquet" theory]. So at 5 to 1 I go with the majority---Rose Mylett was murdered.
Cheers
Norma

There's nothing to suggest Doctor Phillips read any reports or gave his opinion into Catherine Myletts death.

regards

Rob

[Natalie Severn]

I dont actually want to get side tracked here ,Rob,by Dr Phillips and his reported comments.
The report on Dr Phillip"s comments is from The Star of 24th December 1888.But Dr Phillips was not one of the official "examining" doctors,in this instance, as were the other FOUR ,who did not agree with Dr Bond,so while he may or may not have said what was reported ,its interesting of itself as he "may well have commented like this"----,thats it really,I really am not interested in that line of discussion really right now-but others might well be-as might I at another time regarding Dr Phillip"s alleged remarks about a "tourniquet" being used.
Regarding this Indian thug theory.I am familiar with its mention by Baxter,but Rob,once again, you had better find someone else to discuss this with because I dont find it is supported by the medical establishment of the time and it all sounds a bit off the wall to me to be frank.
I prefer to keep to what the doctors themselves agreed upon,which was that all four doctors agreed it was murder ,including the Chief Surgeon.There was one exception to this and that was Dr Bond and his "revised" opinion that her death was one of "accidental "strangulation.
That closes the case for me.
The majority medical view carries the decision.Her death was one of murder.
Best Wishes
Norma

[Rob Clack]

I only mentioned Doctor Phillips and the Thug murders because you did Norma. Any here's the relevant portion from 'The Star' 24 December 1888.

WHAT DR. PHILLIPS THINKS
is a matter of direct and most important bearing upon the question because Dr. Phillips, of course, knows more of the medical bearings of the murders than any other man. So The Star man called upon the doctor at his surgery in Spital-square. Dr. Phillips was disinclined to express any opinion on the matter to a newspaper-man, but from another source our reporter ascertained that Dr. Phillips, as soon as he knew of the Poplar discovery, expressed the opinion that it was
THE WORK OF THE SAME MAN
He also recalled at once the fact of the strangulation in the Hanbury-street case. With respect to the other murders Dr. Philips points out that the retraction of the skin following immediately upon severance of the throat would immediately destroy the marks of the cord supposing it to have been first used. But there is also another
and a most important point of resemblance which Dr. Phillips is understood to perceive. He has always maintained the opinion that the murderer was a man of considerable surgical knowledge. In this belief the Poplar case confirms him. “The murderer,” he says, “must be a man who had
STUDIED THE THEORY OF STRANGULATION,
for he evidently knew where to place the cord so as to immediately bring his victim under control. It would be necessary to place the cord in the right place. It would be a very lucky stroke for a man at the first attempt to hit upon the proper place.”

That might also explain where the Thug idea came from.

It should also be noted Norma that while four doctors agreed it was murder there was disagreement on how it was done. Brownfield and Harris
suggested a ‘lanyard’ or 'soap cutter' type method. Doctor Hebbert’s opinion was slightly different. He believed that death was caused by 'compression
of the throat and closing of the mouth,' And while some people are quick to blame Bond for not noticing the mark on the throat. Doctor Brownfield emphatically stated Mylett never had any children when in fact she had at least two. It wasn't just Bond who made mistakes.

regards

Rob