PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

Acting on the authorisation of Warren, on 25th October Anderson wrote to Bond, asking for his opinion on the murders of Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes.

“He [Warren] feels that your eminence as an expert in such cases—and it is entirely in that capacity that the present case is referred to you, will make your opinion especially valuable.”

On 9th November Anderson and Bond were present at Millers Court. Anderson left before Bond in order to call Scotland Yard by telephone.

Bond replied to Anderson's letter the next day — “All five murders were no doubt committed by the same hand.”

Unless Anderson was prescient, the C5 was Bond's creation.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Simon.
Not sure what you mean by "how so?".

At the time of his enlistment he only had four to work on, those prior to Nichols did not qualify. Kelly was subsequently added to his list, but the list of "five" was not his creation, so to speak.
The criteria was set for him by Anderson.

What I am saying is, in a roundabout way the C5 were Anderson's creation, inadvertently.
Anderson told Bond what he wanted to know, and as a result we have five murders to consider.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

How so?

Robert Anderson wrote to Dr. Thomas Bond on 25th October, two weeks before the Millers Court murder.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi All,

Dr. Thomas Bond was first to cast the C5 in stone.

If we follow the paper trail that led to Dr. Bond's enlistment, it appears the criteria had already been established for him.
Dr. Bond was requested to offer opinion on those murders for which the question of "surgical skill" or "anatomical knowledge" was debated.
This pretty much excluded Tabram, Smith and prior cases, so his choice was limited to those five murders for which the knife had been used as a slicing weapon.

[Trevor Marriott]

So are you suggesting that Bond's report for Anderson was handed in before the re-examination of Miller's Court and that the heart was originally missing but was found again later when the doctors went back and that this isn't recorded because we only have Bond's original early report which is the one Hebbert was only privy to as well?

We are off massively off topic with this btw.

You don't listen and read the posts do you. I previously said that the ashes searched was just part of the re examination of the room. As a result of that fuller examination the following was reported

"the organ hitherto taken away at the mutilations was found in the room"

"It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing"

"surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for and placed as closely as possible in its natural position"


The details of the re examination of the room as reported in the press are in such great detail you cant ignore that. They didn't make it up, If they had wanted to make it up they would have sold more papers with the heart missing that not.

As to Hebbert I am given to understand but I do stand to be corrected here but you even went as far as saying he was writing down at the time they did the post mortem. If that be the case then his writings would have ended there when the post mortem concluded. He didn't go with them back to the room. He probably went for his tea and never took any further involvement.

There is no record of anything further occurring whereby he needed to write down anything. Dr Bond would have been the person to document any further events. He didn't, why because all was accounted for.

Now I am not going to continue to argue over the same issues. It is clear for all to see even you? Personally I don't give a dam I have presented the facts and a good case to argue against the killer taking away the heart.

Again as I have said before this could have a massive impact on this case. Because it now brings into question the fact that the killer of Eddowes and Chapman did not remove the organs at the crime scenes, because as has been suggested by many it was the same killer for all three.

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

Ah, but [as far as we know] Dr. Bond wasn't asked about pre-Nichols, so we can only guess as to what his answer may have been.

We can only play the cards we've been dealt.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon
Okay, taking into account he wasn't asked about pre Nichols , he would have included McKenzie?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Debra,

Ah, but [as far as we know] Dr. Bond wasn't asked about pre-Nichols, so we can only guess as to what his answer may have been.

We can only play the cards we've been dealt.

Regards,

Simon

[Debra A]

It would have been six if he was allowed to carry on and maybe more if he was even asked about pre-Nichols?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Dr. Thomas Bond was first to cast the C5 in stone. Following the Kelly PM, he wrote to Robert Anderson on 10th November 1888—

“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 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” [my italics].

Dr. Bond had obviously not been apprised of Jack the Ripper’s legendary signature—that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes had been discovered just minutes after their dispatch.

Yet he was nonetheless able to assure Robert Anderson and history that “All five murders were no doubt committed by the same hand.”

How much faith should we place in Dr. Thomas Bond?

Regards,

Simon

[Debra A]

Why particularly the ashes? they state that they were not able to do a full examination. The ashes search was just a small part of the re examination.

The newspapers are correct nothing was found in the ashes but that doesn't mean to say nothing else was found somewhere else still in the room does it ?

Why do you think Bond didn't mention it in his report to Anderson because when you read that it is a detailed report, and why did no one mention it in later years, Abberline, Reid etc etc when they were all openly talking about the murders and likely suspects?

So are you suggesting that Bond's report for Anderson was handed in before the re-examination of Miller's Court and that the heart was originally missing but was found again later when the doctors went back and that this isn't recorded because we only have Bond's original early report which is the one Hebbert was only privy to as well?

We are off massively off topic with this btw.

[Trevor Marriott]

Bond says the heart was absent. Bond then goes on to gives the position of other organs found in the room but fails to mention the heart. Why?

The newspapers reported that no organs were found in the ashes. If a newspaper report that no organs were taken is enough evidence for you on that question, then why doesn't the same apply in relation to the report that the doctors didn't find any organs or remains in the ashes of the fire?

Why particularly the ashes? they state that they were not able to do a full examination. The ashes search was just a small part of the re examination.

The newspapers are correct nothing was found in the ashes but that doesn't mean to say nothing else was found somewhere else still in the room does it ?

Why do you think Bond didn't mention it in his report to Anderson because when you read that it is a detailed report, and why did no one mention it in later years, Abberline, Reid etc etc when they were all openly talking about the murders and likely suspects?

[Debra A]

Perhaps no motive because technically what he said was correct when they did the post mortem organs were found missing, and no doubt the notes taken at that time were taken by him. He was present. I don't dispute that fact

But that is where his report or his writings would have ended would it not ? Because anything he said or wrote about the re visit thereafter would be hearsay, and again there is no corroboration.

It would be down to Dr Bond to continue the evidence of continuity, But he doesn't does he? He mentions nothing after his ambiguous statement.

Bond says the heart was absent. Bond then goes on to gives the position of other organs found in the room but fails to mention the heart. Why?
Taking what Hebbert said in a medical jurisprudence text in conjunction with Bond's statements strongly suggests the heart was missing from the room.

The newspapers reported that no organs were found in the ashes. If a newspaper report that no organs were taken is enough evidence for you on that question, then why doesn't the same apply in relation to the report that the doctors didn't find any organs or remains in the ashes of the fire?

[Trevor Marriott]

Insp Collard : The doctors remained until the arrival of the ambulance, and saw the body placed in the conveyance. It was then taken to the mortuary, and stripped by Mr. Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself

Perhaps you could quote that source ? or are you cherry picking again ?

Well something cannot be right as Halse says he went with Collard to the mortuary no mention of him being present in what you quote.

I suggest you read up on the other testimonies of both Halse and Collard where we get back to conflicts in the reports and inquest testimony

[Trevor Marriott]

Hebbert was present at the post mortem as Dr Bond's assistant and SG Ryan made a good case that Bond's post mortem notes areactually in Hebbert's handwriting and not Bond's.
How many doctors does it take to search ashes from a fire? The post mortem was done, Hebbert was there, something was missing that Bond and another doctor went back to search the ashes for, that was reported extensively. Several newspaper accounts say they found nothing. They didn't find what was missing in that case?

The difference between the Miller's Court murder and the others is that no details of organ removal were given at the official inquest. Some papers go as far as to state that on the day of the murder Dr Philips wouldn't make a statement to confirm that there were no organs missing and so it was inferred from that that there were none missing. It depends which paper you read.

The details in this case were kept well under wraps.
What motive would Hebbert have in claiming that the heart was taken away if it wasn't?

Perhaps no motive because technically what he said was correct when they did the post mortem organs were found missing, and no doubt the notes taken at that time were taken by him. He was present. I don't dispute that fact

But that is where his report or his writings would have ended would it not ? Because anything he said or wrote about the re visit thereafter would be hearsay, and again there is no corroboration.

It would be down to Dr Bond to continue the evidence of continuity, But he doesn't does he? He mentions nothing after his ambiguous statement.

[Debra A]

You are right I read it wrong, but it doesn't detract from the fact that Hebbert wasn't present when they went back to the room and they went back to look for the remaining parts. Which is in line with what is in the newspaper and what the newspapers reported that all parts accounted for.

So I am afraid Dr Hebbert is not someone to be totally relied on in the light of Dr Bond not mentioning it in his report to Anderson, and as i said earlier no no one else mentions it was taken away.

So the against`s far outweigh the for`s I think you can even see that.

Hebbert was present at the post mortem as Dr Bond's assistant and SG Ryan made a good case that Bond's post mortem notes areactually in Hebbert's handwriting and not Bond's.
How many doctors does it take to search ashes from a fire? The post mortem was done, Hebbert was there, something was missing that Bond and another doctor went back to search the ashes for, that was reported extensively. Several newspaper accounts say they found nothing. They didn't find what was missing in that case?

The difference between the Miller's Court murder and the others is that no details of organ removal were given at the official inquest. Some papers go as far as to state that on the day of the murder Dr Philips wouldn't make a statement to confirm that there were no organs missing and so it was inferred from that that there were none missing. It depends which paper you read.

The details in this case were kept well under wraps.
What motive would Hebbert have in claiming that the heart was taken away if it wasn't?