Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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......................................

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

[GUT]

G'Day Abby

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

G.U.T.

[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.

[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.

[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.........................

[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.

[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.

[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.