The broken window

[David Orsam]

David, I'm just wondering whether 'gynaecologist' was a bit blunt for some people in the early days, who may have preferred a circumlocution. When Protheroe Smith dies in 1889, "The Cornishman" calls him 'the well-known gynaecologist' while 'The Pall Mall Gazette' and others call him 'the well-known specialist in diseases of women.'

Posterity calls him a gynaecologist :

Hi Robert,

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, one does not find in the directories for the 1880s a group of doctors called 'gynaecologists'. I'm sure the Fellows of the BGS were all regarded as doctors or surgeons with gynaecological knowledge or expertise. But, as we have seen, Dr Meddowes referred to gathering of the founding Fellows as 'we gynaecologists' in 1885 so there's nothing unhistorical about the use of the term.

When I say that Dr Gabe was a gynaecologist I mean no more than he obviously had some form of gynaecological expertise and that, as I said in response to Hunter earlier in this thread (#440): 'As a fellow of the British Gynaecological Society he obviously was a gynaecologist as we would understand the term.'

In other words, it doesn't matter what the word or expression being used was in 1888, because, as we would use the term today, Dr Gabe was a gynaecologist. I don't believe my disagreement with Simon Wood is about semantics. His argument is that Gabe would not have been called to Miller's Court in November 1888 because of his superior gynaecological knowledge (because he is evidently saying that he didn't have any superior gynaecological knowledge). Whereas I'm saying that, being a member of the BGS, the fact that he had superior gynaecological knowledge is a perfectly possible explanation for his appearance at the crime scene.

We don't need to worry about terms but it is nevertheless misleading in the extreme for Simon say that Gabe was not a gynaecologist without accepting that he was a gynaecological specialist.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Why would the doctors at Millers Court have required "superior gynaecological" expertise when Dr Phillips was an MBBS, MRCS Eng, Lic. Midwif., LSA., and Dr. Bond was an MRCS, MBBS and FRCS.?

Dr. Gabe's appearance at the crime scene was because of the child.

We shall have to agree to disagree.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Why would the doctors at Millers Court have required "superior gynaecological" expertise when Dr Phillips was an MBBS, MRCS Eng, Lic. Midwif., LSA., and Dr. Bond was an MRCS, MBBS and FRCS.?

The thing is Simon, all you do is shoot yourself in the foot. If their qualifications were so all encompassing then what was Dr Dukes doing there?

Dukes, incidentally, was a Fellow of the London Obstetrical Society which may or may not be relevant.

[David Orsam]

Dr. Gabe's appearance at the crime scene was because of the child.

We shall have to agree to disagree.

Whether we agree to disagree or not, it won't change the fact that there was no child at the crime scene.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

And a fat lot of good Dr Dukes obstetric talents did. He was long gone from Millers Court by the time the door to Room 13 was opened.

You stick with your gynaecologist and I'll stick with the child.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

And a fat lot of good Dr Dukes obstetric talents did. He was long gone from Millers Court by the time the door to Room 13 was opened.

I don't know why you say this Simon. It doesn't match the contemporary reports. For example:

'Dr. Phillips, on his arrival, carefully examined the body of the dead woman, and later on again made a second examination in company with Dr. Bond from Westminster, Dr. Gordon Brown from the City, Dr Duke from Spitalfields and Dr. Phillips' assistant.'

Times, 10 November 1888

[David Orsam]

You stick with your gynaecologist and I'll stick with the child.

I suppose we have made an advance of sorts considering you were categorically telling the members of this forum earlier in the thread that Dr Gabe was not a gynaecologist.

But his being a gynaecologist is just one possible reason that could have brought Dr Gabe to Miller's Court that day. It is not the only one.

[Phil Carter]

....being a gynaecologist is just one possible reason that could have brought Dr Gabe to Miller's Court that day. It is not the only one.

And we eagerly await the unmitigated brilliance of your unravelling conjecture as to exactly what all the other possible reasons could have been.

Unless of course you happen to have found the real reason in some obscure file in an archive somewhere of course?
Perhaps Dr. Gabe was one involved somehow in that so called massive file on Tumblety too in years past?
Now that would be good..would tie up that little problem and link Tumblety to Millers Court with gusto. ☺


Phil

[David Orsam]

Perhaps Dr. Gabe was one involved somehow in that so called massive file on Tumblety too in years past?

There is no 'massive file on Tumblety', Phil, nor a 'so called' one.

[Phil Carter]

There is no 'massive file on Tumblety', Phil, nor a 'so called' one.

A 'so called' file about a Dr.T, be it a file, a large one or a massive one, could easily have been about a Dr. Tanner, who as you know was being looked at by SB at the same time btw. Apologies for the side track. Do carry on with your other possibilities re Dr. Gabe, and his presence at Millers Court. I look forward to hearing them all.☺



Phil

[David Orsam]

A 'so called' file about a Dr.T, be it a file, a large one or a massive one

There is no file about Dr T in existence at all. As the latest post by Robert in the 'I am a British suspect' thread has made clear, the Tumblety correspondence I found from the years 1865 to 1876 came from a number of Foreign Office files relating to U.S. and Claims Commission matters.

[David Orsam]

Do carry on with your other possibilities re Dr. Gabe, and his presence at Millers Court. I look forward to hearing them all.☺

Rather than continue in this thread, which is supposed to be about the broken window, I will start a new thread about Gabe and make all the possibilities clear but Simon has suggested I read the Ornella Moscucci book, so I suppose I had better do that first.

[David Orsam]

And here is another couple of observations.

The landlord was present. He knew about the window.
He would also know what to type of lock the door had.
There is a possibility that the landlord would have an extra key.

So..If the idea of entering the place via an axe of sorts is used..It is very simple to imagine that the hole the axe made would be for reaching in and unlocking the door.

I ask again. If that were the purpose of gaining entry, however long they had waited..why not simply take out the rest of the broken pane of glass instead?

No need for an axe. No need for the door to be destroyed either.

I know I'm not a qualified policeman... but this isn't rocket science.

Yet nobody..not one person of the very many...thought of it.
And guess what. .I thought of that over four decades ago when I first read about the murder in Millers Court.

Please tell me this is quite normal, practical thinking?
All before the age of the Internet, please note.

Phil

Getting back to the window, I simply don't understand your thinking on this Phil.

Why faff about trying to remove the broken pane when effecting entry with an axe was both quick and simple? Probably quicker than any other method in fact.

What did it matter if the cheap door to Kelly's room was damaged or destroyed? The police wanted to get into the room and they did so.

[Phil Carter]

Getting back to the window, I simply don't understand your thinking on this Phil.

Why faff about trying to remove the broken pane when effecting entry with an axe was both quick and simple? Probably quicker than any other method in fact.

What did it matter if the cheap door to Kelly's room was damaged or destroyed? The police wanted to get into the room and they did so.

Dear David,

You don't understand my thinking. I have heard this. .or seen it, attributed to many. .not just me on here..but on we go...to a simple lesson in positive logicalism.

One doesn't need to "faff about" as you so quaintly express it. It is a broken window pane. Broken enough to ALREADY be the known method of entry...without a key.

It is logical to assume therefore that the window pane is already so broken..that an arm can get through it to reach the lock. Ipso facto, the only "faffing about" is to knock any remaining pieces of glass out. Making entry safer..If need be. It would take no more than 5 secs.
No such things as fingerprints to worry about...just a couple of strategic taps...if need be..reach in and hey presto..One opened door. Positive logicalism in a nutshell.

Not that simple for Captain Beaky and his band. Use an axe on the door. But first. .go find an axe.

Quite simple for most grown ups to understand.
They use such thoughts in the Army you know..solve problems the easy way..With less effort, time and resource used. Positive logicalism.

Now..you will excuse me but I am currently exploring something else of more pressing interest. .and cannot answer your queries further. You have the answer asked for.... have a jolly good time with it. I will not answer further.
So chasing me for a follow up will be pointless. Find someone else to play with.. .there's a good fellow. ☺



Phil

[David Orsam]

Dear David,

You don't understand my thinking. I have heard this. .or seen it, attributed to many. .not just me on here..but on we go...to a simple lesson in positive logicalism.

One doesn't need to "faff about" as you so quaintly express it. It is a broken window pane. Broken enough to ALREADY be the known method of entry...without a key.

It is logical to assume therefore that the window pane is already so broken..that an arm can get through it to reach the lock. Ipso facto, the only "faffing about" is to knock any remaining pieces of glass out. Making entry safer..If need be. It would take no more than 5 secs.
No such things as fingerprints to worry about...just a couple of strategic taps...if need be..reach in and hey presto..One opened door. Positive logicalism in a nutshell.

Not that simple for Captain Beaky and his band. Use an axe on the door. But first. .go find an axe.

Quite simple for most grown ups to understand.
They use such thoughts in the Army you know..solve problems the easy way..With less effort, time and resource used. Positive logicalism.

Now..you will excuse me but I am currently exploring something else of more pressing interest. .and cannot answer your queries further. You have the answer asked for.... have a jolly good time with it. I will not answer further.
So chasing me for a follow up will be pointless. Find someone else to play with.. .there's a good fellow. ☺

Thanks for the lesson in 'positive logicalism' Phil, much appreciated.

But here's the thing. The police had two whole hours to get hold of an axe, if they didn't have one already, while they waited (in vain) for the bloodhounds to arrive.

So if we assume that, at 1.30pm, they had an axe then, as you say, five seconds to knock out the glass in the window - assuming they knew they could unlock the door from the inside, and were then able to put their hand round and simply and easily unlock the door - and, bingo, they are in.....but, also, let's say five seconds to smash the door open with the axe.

So five seconds to go through the window, five seconds to smash the door with an axe. Doesn't that logically mean that, in terms of effort, time and resource, there is no difference which option they chose? Other than a damaged door. So is it the door you are concerned about? Is that your whole point?

Oh yes, you said you are not going to answer me, so let's just call that a rhetorical question.