Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[GUT]

G'Day Abby

Yeah ???????????????????????

G.U.T.

[Abby Normal]

If you bothered to actually research something before putting your foot in your mouth you would learn that Anderson was not involved in that case, he was on leave at the time.

The conclusion was that of Monro, not Anderson, who merely accepted Monro's conclusion (ie; I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie...).

Your preference to embarrass yourself apparently has no limit.

????????????

[Wickerman]

Didn't Phillips say that Rose Mylett had not had children?
As she had, maybe a second opinion was a good idea.

Pat......................................

Hi Pat.

This issue arose earlier in the case, maybe with Tabram?

There is a thread addressing this issue, not with Mylett, I think it was Tabram. In the thread it was explained how & why it was extremely difficult for a 19th century physician to be sure.

[Ben]

The conclusion was that of Monro, not Anderson, who merely accepted Monro's conclusion.

Your offensive accusations are made all the more insufferable by their painful wrongness.

MONRO BELIEVED THAT McKENZIE WAS A RIPPER VICTIM

ANDERSON DID NOT

Bond wrote to Anderson expressing his opinion that McKenzie was a ripper victim, but Anderson disagreed. If Bond had any influence on anybody at the time of that murder, it was Monro, not Anderson.

Don't you dare accuse me of failing to research something that you've demonstrated a total misunderstanding of.

[Paddy]

Mylett case

Didn't Phillips say that Rose Mylett had not had children?
As she had, maybe a second opinion was a good idea.
You two are clearly intelligent people, I just wish you could get on a bit, it makes it very difficult for us to join in........
(no offence intended)

Pat......................................

[Wickerman]

It will be remembered that Bond believed Alice McKenzie to have been a ripper victim, while Anderson openly disagreed. This fact alone is sufficient to demolish the accusation of undue "influence" exerted by Bond on Anderson.

If you bothered to actually research something before putting your foot in your mouth you would learn that Anderson was not involved in that case, he was on leave at the time.

The conclusion was that of Monro, not Anderson, who merely accepted Monro's conclusion (ie; I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie...).

Your preference to embarrass yourself apparently has no limit.

[Ben]

Dr. Bond's influence over Robert Anderson is established beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Don't even contemplate starting this silly argument again, Jon.

I've told you before, nobody buys into your erroneous assertion that Bond's time of death had anything remotely to do with the discrediting of Hutchinson's statement. Bond's "influence" over Robert Anderson is an old-hat myth that a close inspection of the facts quietly defecates on. If you want to argue that Bond's opinion was held in high esteem (perhaps more so than other doctors, and perhaps for good reason), that's one thing, but Anderson was not simply a hapless sponge to whatever Bond suggested. It will be remembered that Bond believed Alice McKenzie to have been a ripper victim, while Anderson openly disagreed. This fact alone is sufficient to demolish the accusation of undue "influence" exerted by Bond on Anderson.

The police did not endorse Bond's time of death to the exclusion of all other witness testimony, and these include the Miller's Court witnesses, two of whom independently supported a time of death sometime between 3.00am and some time after 4.00am, and another doctor who opted for a time of death between 5.00am and 6.00am. The alleged preferential treatment of Dr. Bond's evidence quite simply never happened, and as the Star article I provided aptly demonstrates, the likelihood is that the police were swayed by the time of death inferred from the evidence of Prater and Lewis.

And please don't repeat any of that boring and inaccurate nonsense about the Star being the ultimate villains of the entire investigation, because much like your Bond/Anderson confusion, it is an outdated view of yesteryear. Smacked botties for the Star for being a little bit Maverick and controversial, and for not being bezzie mates with the police, but that's about it.

And yes, Hutchinson's statement was discredited because of doubts about his credibility, as we learn from impeccable sources that you've failed in your futile attempts to undermine.

It's about time you realised that narrowing your investigative focus to the Kelly murder and paying inordinate attention to Hutchinson discussions hasn't, and isn't, working out terribly well for you.

the truth is never an insult, regardless what the truth is. Some people can't handle the truth so they only claim it to be an insult.

That's your playground logic.

I get it.

And so I ask again:

Is it okay to go up to an overweight stranger and call him or her "fatty" on the grounds that it's true, and true things are never insulting, according to you?

[Wickerman]

Ben.

Dr. Bond's influence over Robert Anderson is established beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Your refusal to accept the fact can only be due to ignorance because you have forgotten the details, or denial because it demonstrates the viability of the 'Time of Death' issue in the Kelly murder.

Anderson called on Bond for his opinion in the Mylett case.
Bond's conclusion that this was death by natural causes was in direct conflict with the police surgeon in charge of the autopsy - Dr Brownfield. In direct conflict with the most knowledgeable Surgeon on the Whitechapel murders - Dr Phillips, and in direct conflict with his own superior - Chief Surgeon Mackellar.

Dr Bond's opinion carried through to Scotland Yard via Anderson and resulted in the official police opinion that it was 'death by natural causes'. Even in contradiction with the Coroner's Jury in so far as Scotland Yard refused to accept their findings and treat the Mylett case as a murder inquiry.

Bond's influence with Anderson is therefore established beyond a shadow of a doubt, so continued protests from yourself have no bearing on the matter.

Though on present knowledge it cannot be proven to have been the case in the Kelly murder, the theory is at the same time proven viable and demonstrated to be certainly possible, using the Mylett case as evidence.

Which is more that can be said for the suggestion of 'discredit', which finds no official evidence whatsoever.

* * *

P.S. - the truth is never an insult, regardless what the truth is. Some people can't handle the truth so they only claim it to be an insult.

[Ben]

An argument not supported by evidence, or referenced sources, is nothing more than a belief - fantasy.

I agree, which is why you're advised to relinquish your grasp on the "Isaacstrakhan" theory.

The truth is never an insult.

So, according to you, it's "never an insult" to approach a heavily overweight gentleman and call him a fat wanker?

Interesting...

[Wickerman]

Ah, but here come the insults.

Took a little longer than I thought, but here they come...

An argument not supported by evidence, or referenced sources, is nothing more than a belief - fantasy.

The truth is never an insult.

[Ben]

Consistent drivel fueled by your own fantasy.

Ah, but here come the insults.

Took a little longer than I thought, but here they come...

[Wickerman]

Yep, no problem with this at all.

"Nearly" isn't "all", though, is it?

This really isn't difficult.

I'm not suggesting that Bond and Phillips had vastly differing opinions on the Kelly murder and mutilations. I'm simply pointing out a reality that is very well known to serious researchers of the Kelly murder, which is that the two doctors were at odds when it came to assesing the likely time of death. It amuses me greatly that you think I'm single-handedly responsible for the revelation that Phillips supported a 5am or 6am time of death, in all likelihood. I think you'll find that one of your ripperological "movers and shakers", Philip Sugden, agrees with me.



And good boys never fart or blow bubbles in their milkshakes.

Dream on.

Consistent drivel fueled by your own fantasy.

[Ben]

You're not suggesting that I'd fart are you

Perish the thought, Gut!

And I'm sure you sip your milkshake like a gentleman.

Cheers,
Ben

[GUT]

G'Day again Ben

You're not suggesting that I'd fart are you

"Good boys don't fart"

G.U.T.

[Ben]

and with nearly every conclusion at which he has arrived. Dr. Thomas Bond

Yep, no problem with this at all.

"Nearly" isn't "all", though, is it?

This really isn't difficult.

I'm not suggesting that Bond and Phillips had vastly differing opinions on the Kelly murder and mutilations. I'm simply pointing out a reality that is very well known to serious researchers of the Kelly murder, which is that the two doctors were at odds when it came to assesing the likely time of death. It amuses me greatly that you think I'm single-handedly responsible for the revelation that Phillips supported a 5am or 6am time of death, in all likelihood. I think you'll find that one of your ripperological "movers and shakers", Philip Sugden, agrees with me.

Dr Phillips did not speak to the press.

And good boys never fart or blow bubbles in their milkshakes.

Dream on.