The Echo, 10th November 1888

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

I respectfully wish to make all aware of the following..

It's from the Echo, 10th November 1888

"...Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of the H Division, whose reticence is justified by an assurance he gave of secrecy, has copious notes of the result of the post-mortem examination, and with nearly every conclusion at which he has arrived. Dr. Thomas Bond, of Westminster, a well-known expert on crimes of violence, agrees. Dr. Phillips has only vaguely indicated to the local police the result of his investigations, but a report on the question has, it has been asserted, been jointly made by him and Dr. Bond, and submitted to Sir Charles Warren. It is believed to be the medical opinion that the woman was killed in her sleep, or while in a partially comatose condition arising from drink...."


This raises a few questions.

1) This cannot be the "report" that turned up in 1987, (as is indicated in the words, "...been jointly made by him and Dr. Bond,") ... it certainly ISN'T a joint venture. One must again look to the report "found" in 1987.
This report, according to Sourcebook (pp 382-384), is not stamped, not typed and not signed. It is also addressed to Anderson, NOT Warren.

2) The date of the "Echo" report cited must be 10th November or before, as it says that "copious notes of the RESULT of the post mortem examination" were held by Dr. Phillips.

3) Furthermore...
"...and with nearly every conclusion at which he has arrived. Dr. Thomas Bond, of Westminster, a well-known expert on crimes of violence, agrees. "
This indicates that Bond agrees with Phillips' post mortem examination. Not the reverse. This notwithstanding, the article says that it was a "joint" report submitted to Charles Warren. ALREADY SUBMITTED, please note. If Warren had the copy on the 10th November, it would indicate the post mortem was undertaken either the 9th or 10th November.

4) The date of the article is November 10th. It is noted that Warren had already resigned. This fact was already known, was it not?
The Assistant Commissioner is Anderson. However, the post mortem report that appeared in 1987, is dated the 16th November. So are we now to presume that a new post motem report was made out, at least 6 days later, to Anderson, and only hand-written? And only by Bond? And seemingly without Phillips involvement at all?

I make the above points in respect to all. However, imho, it seems to me that the sudden appearance of a hand-written report, seemingly unsigned and apparently unstamped, which is in conflict with the "detailed" report made from "copious notes" by Dr. Phillips, made in conjunction with Dr. Bond, shows that the Bond report from 1987 has historical flaws. It is possible, on the basis of this report from Phillips AND Bond, that an, or the original post mortem report, ALREADY submitted to Charles Warren, is the actual post mortem report, not the one these sheets of paper that mysteriously appeared in 1987 contain?

However, I would hazard a guess to say that ANYONE writing such a report, even if it were hand written, would sign it at the bottom.
N.B. The name appears at the start of the "report" from 1987, but the end is unsigned.
(The Sourcebook, says nothing about any signature)

Also, if it were an official report, it would be stamped, would it not?
(It is noted here that according to Sourcebook, p. 729, the file in which this report is contained is MEPO3/3153, ff 10-18, yet the report itself is unstamped.) This MEPO file is the one that was returned to Scotland Yard in 1987. (Sourcebook, page 370 says ..."The police reports on this murder are by no means extensive, but are supplimented by the material anonymously returned to NewScotland Yard in 1987 (1), and the Kelly inquest papers held in the London Metropolitan Archives.") Here, (1) refers to MEPO 3/3153, ff 10-18.

One could therefore have a desire to see on Casebook a copy of this Bond report that surfaced in 1987, so that we can compare the hand written report with any other known examples of Dr. Bond's handwriting, should there be any known, could one not?
There seems a discrepancy as to what report is the first or genuine one. This discrepency is important, especially in light of the contents written in the text of the 1987 "find". It also raises a question of the material "found" in 1987.

I only raise the questions for you all to seriously consider and discuss.

respectfully, and with
best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello again all,

After much study, and with many thanks from Debs, who kindly provided me with one of the published articles from The Criminologist 'Another Look at Mary Kelly's Heart' by S. Gouriet Ryan in the Winter 1998 issue.

Mr. Ryan, in his excellent article(s) came to various conclusions about these so called "Bond papers", one of which was that the writer of these papers was none other than Dr.Hebbert, Dr. Bond's assistant. The other main conclusion, relating to this thread directly, was that these papers were only "part of" the completed post mortem papers. He explained in detail what should have been included, and how these papers should have looked like, had they been the complete article. He made various references to the Observer from November the 18th, when coming to some of his conclusions. In another article he provides reference to Hebbert's handwriting, and compares the handwriting to the hand written Bond Papers, coming to the conclusion that these papers were indeed written by Dr. Hebbert.

Mr Ryan had presumably NOT seen the Echo article, referred to above. For if he had, his conclusions, I offer, may well have been different in some respects. The importance of exactly what these papers were, or are, cannot be dismissed lightly. For we have been given to believe that these are Dr. Bond's post mortem papers. Indeed, even Sourcebook has entitled them as...
"Dr.Bond's reportof his initial post-mortem examination of the body of Mary Kelly". (page 382). Sourcebook therefore does not acknowledge as correct Ryan's conclusion on the author of the papers, which Ryan wrote two years before the first edition of The Sourcebook, in 2000.

That said, there is more to this than first meets the eye. The most important points to consider when finding either the author of these papers, or their value and true identity, are first and foremost the dates of the the various papers. To back-track a little...

The Echo, dated the 10th of November, reports that Dr. Phillips... "...has copious notes of the result of the post-mortem examination, and with nearly every conclusion at which he has arrived. Dr. Thomas Bond, of Westminster, a well-known expert on crimes of violence, agrees."

...of the result of the post mortem examination... is a key phrase here.
It means the post mortem is completed. It means that the Post Mortem was either completed on the 9th or latest the 10th of November.

The Echo further states...

"....Dr. Phillips has only vaguely indicated to the local police the result of his investigations, but a report on the question has, it has been asserted, been jointly made by him and Dr. Bond, and submitted to Sir Charles Warren. "

...the result of his(Phillips) investigations is another critical point.

and further...

"...but a report on the question has, it has been asserted, been jointly
made by him and Dr. Bond, and submitted to Sir Charles Warren. "

This means that the postmortem was conducted by Dr. G.B.Phillips, divisional surgeon for Whitechapel would have been the official postmortem doctor in the case.
It must be remembered that Bond was requested to attend the Kelly murder scene and observe the postmortem as he had been asked to 'profile' the killer and his surgical skill specifically by Anderson and had not been asked to conduct the postmortem.

Therefore, we now have potentially THREE reports.. potentially.

One, The official post mortem report by Phillips, made on or about the 9th/10th November, and SUBMITTED to Warren. (We have never seen this report.)

Two, The Bond profile report dated Nov 10th, and stamped 14th November, submitted to Anderson.

Three, "Hebbert's" incomplete notes dated the 18th November, with Dr. Bond's name on the front, addressed to Anderson.

The immediate questions when examing the identity of the "Bond papers", are the following...

1) The date.

This report is dated the 16th November. The mere fact that two other lots of "papers" had already been written, both at the LATEST by 10th November, one by Dr. Bond himself, one the official post mortem, with Phillips the doctor responsible, shows that this paper, is, infact un-needed. As Bond had already written a report to Anderson, and submitted a point report to Warren, a third report to the Ass Commissioner by Bond was totally superfluace to requirements. Therefore, I conclude that Dr. Bond did NOT write the "Bond papers".

2) The name of the author.

On the top of the FIRST page of the "Bond papers", the name of Dr. Thos Bond is written. Ryan says, through a complicated understanding of the manner in which a post mortem report is written, that even if Hebbert DID write these papers, it infact was Dr Bond's name that would appear at the top as is stated. He explains the lack of signature at the bottom, amongst other things, by some missing additional papers.
The papers are NOT stamped, as would be the case, and not even stamped of a date recieved. On all papers, the stamps are on the FIRST page of any written article. There are no stamps at all on these papers. They have seemingly never been officially recieved. The only way certain authorship of these papers can be made with great ascertation, is a convincing comparison, to more than one example, of Hebbert's writing. The reference to Hebbert's articles in the book from the 1890's "A system of legal medicine" by Allan McLane Hamilton and Lawrence Godkin does not mean that these "Bond Papers" were written by Dr. Hebbert. There is no reference to Dr. Hebbert at all in these papers either.

3) Provenance.

Ryan himself comments about the heart. We have VARIOUS references to body parts being possibly burnt on the fire in newspapers.
We have references from various people about sifting through the ashes looking for them too.
There are references within the Bond papers that are clearly wrong. That she wore no clothes. Wrong. She wore a chemise and stockings.
He mentions eyebrows , nose, cheek, ears all gashed. The mentioning of the chin almost being sliced off is overlooked. (Ryan points this out)
The more I look at the report itself, it is, WITHIN itself, not complete. There are gaps WITHIN the written words...i.e. things that have been
written about, miss obvious things in the same area. Explantions from Mr. Ryan say that this was because the full report is missing. I question this, as a FULL report would not have been factually incorrect. Especially as there were 7 (SEVEN) doctors attending Millers Court on the 9th November. It is not reasonable to assume that seven doctors would miss the obvious. The more I read this report, the more I see the weight being laid on the mention of the heart being at the scene. Yet in various reports we have the fact that organs are described as missing.
Then we come to where they came from, originally, in 1987. And that brings us back to Col. Millen. That means the very convenient timing of these papers discovery, and WHERE they came from. The Col. Millens story is NOT provenance. Even if these papers WERE written by Hebbert, there is NO historical provenance for them even existing.

I have previously asked what other photos there were in the supposed "photo album" from the same source... apparently used for lectures by Millen... because it was an album, not a page or two that were discovered. I am yet to hear the answer to this question. Tracing anything back to a story of a dead man does NOT prove historical provenance nor authenticity. And that applies to the "Bond papers" as well as anything else.
With the discrepancies with the known facts, the newspaper reports and the fact that these papers are very very incomplete, complete with an unproven historical provenance, unsigned, unstamped, with date discrepancy, non mention of the true apparent author, amongst much more, I conclude that the "Bond papers" are not reliable enough to label with a heavy degree of certainty as contemporary.

Conclusion:-

In my honest opinion, these are NOT therefore the official post mortem papers. At BEST, and without provenance, they are incomplete notes, unsigned, and supposedly written by Hebbert. With this in mind... I ask one small but pertinent question.

Why the blazes would Hebbert of all people write and submit them to Anderson anyway?

Hoenstly, I mean that IF the notes we know as the Bond Papers are genuine notes from Hebbert...they must have been written, dated and addressed..by whoever, on the 16th to Anderson, not the 9th or 10th to Warren.
When one reads the Echo article, it is clear that Phillips is the man performing the post mortem, jointly submitting the results with Bond to Warren. When one knows that Bond had ALREADY submitted his ASKED FOR report to Anderson, WHY would anyone need to rewrite an already written piece? Even if it WERE Hebbert? It CANNOT be the official Post Mortem papers..they have ALREADY been submitted. It cannot be Bond's report, that was already submitted.
And Anderson, in posession of the two reports...would never have asked a Doctors Assistant to submit a THIRD report..

My great thanks again to Debs, who has been most helpful. My thanks also to the authors of Sourcebook, when quoting from it.

In my honest opinion, I believe that the questions about the "Bond papers", above, need serious consideration. I believe RE-CONSIDERATION is in order.
Perhaps?

Respectfully, and with best wishes to all,

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

thank you for your pm's and emails on the subject. Most appreciated, for or against.

best wishes

Phil

[Archaic]

re: Dr. Bond's handwriting

Hi, Phil. I think you ask a lot of good questions here.

Below is a link to the biography of Dr. Bond that I posted under 'Coroners'. As you know the bio was published in 1888 shortly before the Ripper murders and has a nice portrait of Bond that includes a small sample of his handwriting and signature.

In response to your inquiry on that thread requesting more samples of Bond's handwriting in order to help answer the question as to whether the inquest reports were actually penned by Bond or by Hebbert, Alex has kindly posted a few pages of Bond's inquest papers on victims Mary Kelly and Alice MacKenzie for comparison.

1888 Dr. Bond Biography: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...284#post129284

Best regards, Archaic

[Natalie Severn]

Many Thanks Phil for bringing these discrepancies to our attention.Its strange how so much seems to have suddenly appeared from out of the blue in 1987,just a year before the centenary! It fits very nicely with the Swanson Marginalia which also made its debut in 1987 and when you think about it these two apparitions would complement each other in quite a revelatory way:
After all it was Dr Bond who is alleged to have written that the murderer had no surgical skill whatever and not even the skill of a horse slaughterer which contradicted the impressions Dr Phillips and Dr Brown had had for several of the murders .But by being able to reference Dr Bond"s allegedly different assessments -in fact his extraordinary insistence on the total absence of any skill ,despite the post mortem reports of Dr Phillips and Dr Brown stating quite the reverse in at least two cases, the way is opened ofcourse for someone such as Kosminski,who as far as we know ,had no anatomical or medical skills.
In other words, take away Dr Bond and the Swanson marginalia and you are left with a suspect who is rather a " mismatch" for what is known,for a fact, about the ripper viz:

That he was able to use the knife very effectively and when required ,skillfully ,in the dark and with little time.
That he appeared to know how to rapidly subdue his victims and the significance of the carotid artery in bring about death instantly

That at least to some extent he planned as evidenced in the way he escaped despite committing murders on at least two occasions between 15 minute police beats

and that there was nothing about the nutter in his manner when he took up with the women.

Not a plausible match for Kosminski in my opinion.

Do keep onto this Phil.it may prove to be of critical importance.
thanks again,
Norma

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello again all,

After much study, and with many thanks from Debs, who kindly provided me with one of the published articles from The Criminologist 'Another Look at Mary Kelly's Heart' by S. Gouriet Ryan in the Winter 1998 issue.

Mr. Ryan, in his excellent article(s) came to various conclusions about these so called "Bond papers", one of which was that the writer of these papers was none other than Dr.Hebbert, Dr. Bond's assistant. The other main conclusion, relating to this thread directly, was that these papers were only "part of" the completed post mortem papers. He explained in detail what should have been included, and how these papers should have looked like, had they been the complete article. He made various references to the Observer from November the 18th, when coming to some of his conclusions. In another article he provides reference to Hebbert's handwriting, and compares the handwriting to the hand written Bond Papers, coming to the conclusion that these papers were indeed written by Dr. Hebbert.

Mr Ryan had presumably NOT seen the Echo article, referred to above. For if he had, his conclusions, I offer, may well have been different in some respects. The importance of exactly what these papers were, or are, cannot be dismissed lightly. For we have been given to believe that these are Dr. Bond's post mortem papers. Indeed, even Sourcebook has entitled them as...
"Dr.Bond's reportof his initial post-mortem examination of the body of Mary Kelly". (page 382). Sourcebook therefore does not acknowledge as correct Ryan's conclusion on the author of the papers, which Ryan wrote two years before the first edition of The Sourcebook, in 2000.

That said, there is more to this than first meets the eye. The most important points to consider when finding either the author of these papers, or their value and true identity, are first and foremost the dates of the the various papers. To back-track a little...

The Echo, dated the 10th of November, reports that Dr. Phillips... "...has copious notes of the result of the post-mortem examination, and with nearly every conclusion at which he has arrived. Dr. Thomas Bond, of Westminster, a well-known expert on crimes of violence, agrees."

...of the result of the post mortem examination... is a key phrase here.
It means the post mortem is completed. It means that the Post Mortem was either completed on the 9th or latest the 10th of November.

The Echo further states...

"....Dr. Phillips has only vaguely indicated to the local police the result of his investigations, but a report on the question has, it has been asserted, been jointly made by him and Dr. Bond, and submitted to Sir Charles Warren. "

...the result of his(Phillips) investigations is another critical point.

and further...

"...but a report on the question has, it has been asserted, been jointly
made by him and Dr. Bond, and submitted to Sir Charles Warren. "

This means that the postmortem was conducted by Dr. G.B.Phillips, divisional surgeon for Whitechapel would have been the official postmortem doctor in the case.
It must be remembered that Bond was requested to attend the Kelly murder scene and observe the postmortem as he had been asked to 'profile' the killer and his surgical skill specifically by Anderson and had not been asked to conduct the postmortem.

Therefore, we now have potentially THREE reports.. potentially.

One, The official post mortem report by Phillips, made on or about the 9th/10th November, and SUBMITTED to Warren. (We have never seen this report.)

Two, The Bond profile report dated Nov 10th, and stamped 14th November, submitted to Anderson.

Three, "Hebbert's" incomplete notes dated the 18th November, with Dr. Bond's name on the front, addressed to Anderson.

The immediate questions when examing the identity of the "Bond papers", are the following...

1) The date.

This report is dated the 16th November. The mere fact that two other lots of "papers" had already been written, both at the LATEST by 10th November, one by Dr. Bond himself, one the official post mortem, with Phillips the doctor responsible, shows that this paper, is, infact un-needed. As Bond had already written a report to Anderson, and submitted a point report to Warren, a third report to the Ass Commissioner by Bond was totally superfluace to requirements. Therefore, I conclude that Dr. Bond did NOT write the "Bond papers".

2) The name of the author.

On the top of the FIRST page of the "Bond papers", the name of Dr. Thos Bond is written. Ryan says, through a complicated understanding of the manner in which a post mortem report is written, that even if Hebbert DID write these papers, it infact was Dr Bond's name that would appear at the top as is stated. He explains the lack of signature at the bottom, amongst other things, by some missing additional papers.
The papers are NOT stamped, as would be the case, and not even stamped of a date recieved. On all papers, the stamps are on the FIRST page of any written article. There are no stamps at all on these papers. They have seemingly never been officially recieved. The only way certain authorship of these papers can be made with great ascertation, is a convincing comparison, to more than one example, of Hebbert's writing. The reference to Hebbert's articles in the book from the 1890's "A system of legal medicine" by Allan McLane Hamilton and Lawrence Godkin does not mean that these "Bond Papers" were written by Dr. Hebbert. There is no reference to Dr. Hebbert at all in these papers either.

3) Provenance.

Ryan himself comments about the heart. We have VARIOUS references to body parts being possibly burnt on the fire in newspapers.
We have references from various people about sifting through the ashes looking for them too.
There are references within the Bond papers that are clearly wrong. That she wore no clothes. Wrong. She wore a chemise and stockings.
He mentions eyebrows , nose, cheek, ears all gashed. The mentioning of the chin almost being sliced off is overlooked. (Ryan points this out)
The more I look at the report itself, it is, WITHIN itself, not complete. There are gaps WITHIN the written words...i.e. things that have been
written about, miss obvious things in the same area. Explantions from Mr. Ryan say that this was because the full report is missing. I question this, as a FULL report would not have been factually incorrect. Especially as there were 7 (SEVEN) doctors attending Millers Court on the 9th November. It is not reasonable to assume that seven doctors would miss the obvious. The more I read this report, the more I see the weight being laid on the mention of the heart being at the scene. Yet in various reports we have the fact that organs are described as missing.
Then we come to where they came from, originally, in 1987. And that brings us back to Col. Millen. That means the very convenient timing of these papers discovery, and WHERE they came from. The Col. Millens story is NOT provenance. Even if these papers WERE written by Hebbert, there is NO historical provenance for them even existing.

I have previously asked what other photos there were in the supposed "photo album" from the same source... apparently used for lectures by Millen... because it was an album, not a page or two that were discovered. I am yet to hear the answer to this question. Tracing anything back to a story of a dead man does NOT prove historical provenance nor authenticity. And that applies to the "Bond papers" as well as anything else.
With the discrepancies with the known facts, the newspaper reports and the fact that these papers are very very incomplete, complete with an unproven historical provenance, unsigned, unstamped, with date discrepancy, non mention of the true apparent author, amongst much more, I conclude that the "Bond papers" are not reliable enough to label with a heavy degree of certainty as contemporary.

Conclusion:-

In my honest opinion, these are NOT therefore the official post mortem papers. At BEST, and without provenance, they are incomplete notes, unsigned, and supposedly written by Hebbert. With this in mind... I ask one small but pertinent question.

Why the blazes would Hebbert of all people write and submit them to Anderson anyway?

Hoenstly, I mean that IF the notes we know as the Bond Papers are genuine notes from Hebbert...they must have been written, dated and addressed..by whoever, on the 16th to Anderson, not the 9th or 10th to Warren.
When one reads the Echo article, it is clear that Phillips is the man performing the post mortem, jointly submitting the results with Bond to Warren. When one knows that Bond had ALREADY submitted his ASKED FOR report to Anderson, WHY would anyone need to rewrite an already written piece? Even if it WERE Hebbert? It CANNOT be the official Post Mortem papers..they have ALREADY been submitted. It cannot be Bond's report, that was already submitted.
And Anderson, in posession of the two reports...would never have asked a Doctors Assistant to submit a THIRD report..

My great thanks again to Debs, who has been most helpful. My thanks also to the authors of Sourcebook, when quoting from it.

In my honest opinion, I believe that the questions about the "Bond papers", above, need serious consideration. I believe RE-CONSIDERATION is in order.
Perhaps?

Respectfully, and with best wishes to all,

Phil

I have always said that the suggestion that the taking away of the heart was questionable. two recent newapaper articles recently mentioned on here also support my view. Now a further doubt has been cast.

[Natalie Severn]

Phil,
Am I right about this.The original Drs. Phillips+ Bond Inquest document written for the attention of Warren and which according to The Echo reveals they were in total accord regarding the nature of Mary Kelly"s injuries etc has disappeared. Instead another unsigned unstamped Inquest document,allegedly by Dr Bond acting off his own bat ,was sent, not to Warren but to Anderson next day direct-ie 10/11/1888 -but did not make its public debut until 1987 around the same time as the Swanson marginalia made its 1st public debut ?
You refer to Warren"s resignation---what date was that exactly?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Norma,

The post mortem was, according to the Echo, performed by PHILLIPS, on 9th November, with Bond in attendance. They made out a report, jointly, to Warren.
This post mortem report has NEVER been seen.

Bond was only there because Anderson asked him to be there, to do his "profile" report, which was done, and is dated 10th November, stamped 14th November. He was NOT asked to perform the post mortem.

THEN comes the so called "Bond papers" that suddenly turn up in 1987. Originally thought to be Bond's, Ryan argued in 1998 that it was Hebbert that actually wrote these papers. They are unsigned, and with only the stamp you see on the front, show NO stamp of Home Office.

I argued above that as Bond ALREADY did a profile report for Anderson on the 10th, and THAT is rec'd the 14th, why on Earth would Anderson want Bond to do another set of papers dated the 16th?

So that is where Hebbert comes in, supposedly...and I argue that as Anderson (because Warren had resigned) now has the ORIGINAL post mortem papers (jointly done by Philllips and Bond) dated the 9th, and Bond's profile papers, dated the 10th...what on Earth would Anderson want Bond's Assistant to give him another set of notes for, dated the 16th?

The original Drs. Phillips+ Bond Inquest document written for the attention of Warren and which according to The Echo reveals they were in total accord regarding the nature of Mary Kelly"s injuries etc has disappeared. Instead another unsigned unstamped Inquest document,allegedly by Dr Bond -allegedly acting off his own bat was sent,not to Warren but to Anderson next day direct-ie 10/11/1888 -and made its public debut in 1987 around the same time as the Swanson marginalia made its 1st public debut ?

All correct except the date. 16th November. That is the date of these papers that turned up in 1987.

Yes Norma, that is what I am presenting. All rather convenient, one could say, could one not?

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Again, with great help from Debs, who has valiantly tried to trace a copy of Hebbert's handwriting from the 1911 census, all in vain, I ask anyone if they have any samples of the above, or know where we can find a sample?

Many thanks,

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

I have always said that the suggestion that the taking away of the heart was questionable. two recent newapaper articles recently mentioned on here also support my view. Now a further doubt has been cast.

Hello Trevor,

Here is a little something that may also whet the appetite.. again from the Echo, 13th November...

PORTION OF BODY IS MISSING.

The medical testimony adduced at the inquest was limited to that which was absolutely required to enable the Jury to find respecting the cause of death. A morning contemporary is, however, enabled to state, on what it declares to be good authority, that, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, a portion of the body organs was missing. The police, and with them the divisional surgeon, have arrived at the conclusion that it is the interest of justice not to disclose the details of the professional
inquiry.

et voila!

best wishes

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Just Noticed

I have only just noticed this thread and I should be able to cast some light on the points raised. However, the preceding posts are lengthy and somewhat confused and I shall need to itemise and pick up on points individually. I shall try to keep my posts as concise as possible so as to avoid a lengthy jumble of words. I shall first answer the questions raised by Phil in his first post and, hopefully, elucidate a few points. Please bear with me as I am busy and may not get to this immediately.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Stewart,

Many thanks, much appreciated

best wishes

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Question 1

Regarding question 1, no the Echo report does not refer to the report submitted by Bond which concerns his initial examination of the body of Kelly whilst still in situ, on the bed, at 13 Miller's Court. Obviously the full post mortem examination was carried out at the mortuary and involved several doctors.

I should say that it was written to follow Bond's 'profile' of 10 November in which he states, "I have also made a Post Mortem Examination of the mutilated remains of a woman found yesterday in a small room in Dorset Street...", which obviously refers to this report. It was not 'found' in 1987, it was anonymously returned to New Scotland Yard, with other papers.

The file cover (see below) is dated 16 Novr. 1888 and bears a registry stamp of the same date. It also bears the annotation 'Mr Anderson / Seen & noted / JM 5/12 / P.A/RA [?]', indicating that Anderson had forwarded it to Monro for his information on 5 December.

The cover is also marked 'Special', indicating that it is a special (individual) report by Bond, presumably to accompany his 'special' report on the murders. Another annotation indicates that it was finally submitted to the Registry on 23 April 1889.

[Stewart P Evans]

Reports

Question 2 - the press reports of 10 November 1888 are, understandably, often confused and confusing. More importantly, they have been found to be more inaccurate than those of later dates.

I would imagine that all the doctors who examined the body would have made 'copious notes', more especially Dr. Phillips who was the Divisional Police Surgeon and it was he to whom the main responsibility for the case attached.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Stewart.That greatly clarifies matters.I appreciate too that it was not "found" but presumably " lost over the years" and finally" returned to Scotland Yard" in 1987.
Wouldnt it now be helpful if we could just get a sight of Dr Philllip"s Inquest Report on Mary Kelly which has apparently been "lost".Just to see if what he said does largely tally with what Dr Bond wrote.
Norma