Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Wickerman]

We have an instance of Anderson agreeing with Bond, and we have an instance of Anderson disagreeing with Bond.
Your claim that Anderson always supported Bond is therefore invalid. It cannot possibly be true.

Are you sure you have not dropped that 'always' in there on purpose?

I am too careful to use absolutes in a debate where we are only discussing two cases. Yes, Anderson did follow the advise of Dr Bond in the Mylett case, that is established. Therefore, the possibility that he also followed Dr Bond's opinion in the Kelly case is established.
If it could never be established in any case then that would weaken my proposal, the fact it is established, and in the very next murder a month later, demonstrates the viability of my suggestion.

It is your claim that Anderson did not agree with Bond in the McKenzie case.
There are two problems with this claim of yours.
1 - All that needs to be established is that Anderson 'did' follow Bonds opinion, not that he had to do it every time.
2 - You have no reports from the McKenzie case that show what Anderson thought when he returned from being on leave.

Your only source is a vague sentence from his memoirs written 21 years later where he says he "assumed" Monro was correct, not that he was convinced of it.

He's "assuming" that Monro was correct in his determination, and that Bond was wrong.

So you agree an assumption is not a conviction?
That is all we are talking about - Anderson was not convinced, but just for the sake of stating the Millers Court murder was the last in the series, he is assuming Monro was correct.

It is understandable that Anderson uses caution, although Bond is dead by 1910, Monro is still alive and the 'old department' are sure to read these memoirs. Anderson is not about to state his old boss was wrong, so it is preferable to merely state he 'assumed' he was right.

[Ben]

Its a historical fact that Anderson accepted Bond's opinion over the majority view in the Mylett case. This you cannot change or misrepresent.

I'm not challenging this.

We have an instance of Anderson agreeing with Bond, and we have an instance of Anderson disagreeing with Bond. Your claim that Anderson always supported Bond is therefore invalid. It cannot possibly be true.

You have no opinion from Anderson during the McKenzie investigation, so you are in no position to claim he agreed or disagreed with anyone.

Do you have any evidence that Anderson EVER supported Bond's view that McKenzie was a ripper victim? No you don't. You have nothing. Anderson's statement with regard to McKenzie not being a ripper victim is all we have on record from Anderson on this subject.

Once again, Anderson is acknowledging the official conclusion

Yes, and he acknowledged it in the full and certain knowledge that Bond did not share the view of this "official conclusion". He's "assuming" that Monro was correct in his determination, and that Bond was wrong.

[Wickerman]

Your argument that Anderson slavishly sucked up whatever Bond's opinion happened to be at the time has been proven to be utterly without foundation.

Its a historical fact that Anderson accepted Bond's opinion over the majority view in the Mylett case. This you cannot change or misrepresent.

You're now trying to conjure up some non-existent evidence of Anderson maaaaybe thinking McKenzie was a ripper victim once upon a time, but that never happened.

Not at all.
You have no opinion from Anderson during the McKenzie investigation, so you are in no position to claim he agreed or disagreed with anyone.
Even in his memoirs 21 years later Anderson does not say he agreed with either party, Monro or Bond, only that he "assumes" the official conclusion to be correct.
That much is clear enough.

So if you're insistent on arguing that Anderson was influenced by anyone, it was his immediate superior, James Monro,

Once again, Anderson is acknowledging the official conclusion, in deference to no-one.

[Ben]

Your argument that Anderson slavishly sucked up whatever Bond's opinion happened to be at the time has been proven to be utterly without foundation. You're now trying to conjure up some non-existent evidence of Anderson maaaaybe thinking McKenzie was a ripper victim once upon a time, but that never happened. So what you need to deal with and accept is the fact that:

(a) Bond believed McKenzie was a ripper victim. No evidence that he ever thought otherwise.

(b) Anderson believed McKensie was NOT a ripper victim, but rather an "ordinary murder". No evidence that he ever thought otherwise.

Them's the facts, Jon, and it's no use you trying to fiddle with them in an effort to salvage your erroneous views on the Kelly murder.

You quote Anderson:

"but the Chief Commissioner investigated the case on the spot and decided it was an ordinary murder, and not the work of a sexual maniac"

So if you're insistent on arguing that Anderson was influenced by anyone, it was his immediate superior, James Monro, and NOT Dr. Bond. If Anderson had written something more along the lines of "Despite the official conclusion being that McKenzie was just an ordinary murder, Dr. Bond believed otherwise, and I'm inclined, as ever, to trust his judgment", then you'd have an argument.

But he didn't.

So you don't.

[Wickerman]

Anderson knew precisely what Bond's views on the McKenzie murder were, and yet he still disagreed with them.

We have no paperwork from Anderson concerning the McKenzie murder in 1889, we have no idea what his thoughts were.

In his memoirs written in 1910 Anderson is acknowledging the Millers Court murder was the last of the series. But, that statement is based on his assumption that the official conclusion held by Monro was the correct conclusion.

This is what he meant when he wrote:
"I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on the 17th of July 1889, was by another hand. I was absent from London when it occurred, but the Chief Commissioner investigated the case on the spot and decided it was an ordinary murder, and not the work of a sexual maniac".

This is not a declaration that he disagreed with Bond, or that he agreed with Monro. Anderson is making an assumption that the official conclusion was the correct one, he is not sharing his personal belief.

Anderson's marginal note needs to be taken in context, not in isolation.

[Ben]

Is that any clearer?

Clear? Yes.

Relevant? No.

Helpful to your argument regarding Bond's assessment of Kelly's time of death? No. The precise opposite, in fact.

Anderson never consulted with Bond.

Who cares?

Anderson knew precisely what Bond's views on the McKenzie murder were, and yet he still disagreed with them.

I don't need to have "consulted" with Patricia Cornwell to have an opinion that her theory's crap.

[Paddy]

Link

Wickerman....

Yes, thanks for the link, I see what you were getting at now....

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

[Wickerman]

Post Mortem Report by Dr Brownfield
The medical report revealed evidence purporting that Mylett had never given birth, this time contradicting the statement made by her mother (who said Rose Mylett gave birth to a son in 1881). It was not a son but a daughter Florence.

Hi Pat.

Here is what I was talking about, read the first post.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5575

[Wickerman]

- 17th July, Monro's report to the Home Office (looks like a Ripper murder).

- 18th July, Bond writes to Anderson (in absentia), (this is a Ripper murder).

- Anderson never consulted with Bond.

- 14th August, Monro receives official conclusion from Dr Phillips, "it was an ordinary murder".

- 1910, Anderson writes in memoirs that Monro believed McKenzie was "an ordinary murder".


Is that any clearer?

[Ben]

Leave the bloody thing alone!

I've already told you we're off-topic, and you irritatingly persist nonetheless.

I think you'll find that Monro called for more plain-clothes police officers to be stationed in the district even after the medical reports, which meant he can hardly have relinquished his "intuition" that McKenzie may have been a ripper victim. But all this strays considerably from your original flawed point that Anderson slavishly adhered to whatever view Bond had on the medical evidence. It is so totally wrong, as this episode perfectly demonstrates.

Bond believed that McKenzie was a true ripper victim. Anderson disagreed, despite knowing full well that he was in conflict with Bond on that score. Even if he was "upholding the official view" of Monro just to show solidarity with his boss (because that's sooo in keeping with Anderson's personality. Oh wait...), he was still flying in the face of an opinion expressed by a doctor who you insist dictated his every thought on the medical evidence.

Bond's influence over Anderson is a well established fact

But that's the very last thing the McKenzie investigation demonstrates.

It demonstrates the precise opposite - a clear an unambiguous instance of disagreement between Bond and Anderson. "Well established fact" my rosy red behind. You simply assume, on the basis of nothing, that it was Bond influencing Anderson in the Mylett case, but how do you know it wasn't the other way round? How do you know Anderson didn't have a pre-decided answer to the question of whether or not Mylett was murdered, and Bond offered his preferred answer? How do you know Anderson hadn't convinced himself that Myeltt's was an accidental death and rejected all views to the contrary?

I'm not saying I support any of these views, necessarily, although I know some do. All I know for certain is that your "well-established fact" is nothing of the sort. The only "well-established" fact that is pertinent to this discussion is that Bond's suggested time of death for Kelly had phuck all to do with Hutchinson's discrediting.

Now you've had your shout with this Bond/Anderson silliness, and it's time to move on.

[Wickerman]

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

Post Mortem Report by Dr Brownfield
The medical report revealed evidence purporting that Mylett had never given birth, this time contradicting the statement made by her mother (who said Rose Mylett gave birth to a son in 1881). It was not a son but a daughter Florence.

Sorry not Phillips, but the inconsistancies could have led to a second opinion.

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

I don't think there is any disagreement over the advantages of a second opinion. The doctors involved in the Ripper case were normally quite accommodating on that issue.

[Wickerman]

But that was not Monro's view.

Monro's view, as submitted to the Home Office at the time, was this:

"I need not say that every effort will be made by the police to discover the murderer, who, I am inclined to believe, is identical with the notorious Jack the Ripper of last year."

And he followed this up almost immediately by increasing the police presence on the streets.

Anderson was writing years later, and had clearly misrepresented Monro's view.

Bond and Monro shared the same view.

Anderson was the lone voice of the three.

But we're now completely off topic because you're insistent on bringing up this Bond business again.

Anderson did not always follow the opinions of Bond, as this episode perfectly and conclusively demonstrates.

The end.

No, Anderson did not misrepresent the words of James Monro.
You have not considered the timing of the reports.

- McKenzie was found murdered in the early morning of Wednesday 17th July.

- Immediately, Monro visited the scene, and provided the report to which you refer (ie; "I think it was a ripper murder"). At this point Phillips had not provided any post mortem details to police, AND, Dr Bond had not yet written his report!
Monro was guessing, on his own intuition. This is why he sent out the troops the same day, before any medical conclusions had been given. He was guessing.

- Later that same day Phillips conducted his P.M., but his conclusion about McKenzie not being a Ripper victim were not made public for another month (Aug. 14th).

- Thursday 18th July, Bond writes to Anderson (absent on leave), and was picked up by Monro, where Bond claims McKenzie was a Ripper victim.

[Bond's report was not official. Monro waits for the outcome of the official Inquiry where Dr Phillips declares that McKenzie, in his opinion, was NOT a continuation of the previous series.
On August 14th, Monro is given the official conclusion that this was "an ordinary murder".]

Anderson did NOT misrepresent the opinion of Monro, and Monro was NOT influenced by Bond.

Like I said Ben, if you had taken the time to research this instead of jumping at any opportunity to contest what I tell you, you should have seen this.

Monro's opinion (your quote) was 'pre' Bond, and Anderson's recollections of Monro's opinion was 'post' the official inquest (obviously). This is why they differ.

Monro accepted that Phillips was correct, it was an ordinary murder.

Therefore, to get back to my point. Bond's influence over Anderson is a well established fact - re Mylett case. The McKenzie case has no bearing on the matter.

[Paddy]

Wickerman

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

Post Mortem Report by Dr Brownfield
The medical report revealed evidence purporting that Mylett had never given birth, this time contradicting the statement made by her mother (who said Rose Mylett gave birth to a son in 1881). It was not a son but a daughter Florence.

Sorry not Phillips, but the inconsistancies could have led to a second opinion.

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

[Ben]

But that was not Monro's view.

Monro's view, as submitted to the Home Office at the time, was this:

"I need not say that every effort will be made by the police to discover the murderer, who, I am inclined to believe, is identical with the notorious Jack the Ripper of last year."

And he followed this up almost immediately by increasing the police presence on the streets.

Anderson was writing years later, and had clearly misrepresented Monro's view.

Bond and Monro shared the same view.

Anderson was the lone voice of the three.

But we're now completely off topic because you're insistent on bringing up this Bond business again.

Anderson did not always follow the opinions of Bond, as this episode perfectly and conclusively demonstrates.

The end.

[Wickerman]

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.

Robert Anderson:
"I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on the 17th of July 1889, was by another hand. I was absent from London when it occurred, but the Chief Commissioner investigated the case on the spot and decided it was an ordinary murder, and not the work of a sexual maniac".

The Chief Commissioner made the decision - NOT Anderson.

Anderson is upholding the official conclusion by his boss, James Monro.

This case has nothing to do with the personal interaction between Bond & Anderson - this is where you have dropped the ball.