Double throat cuts

[Wickerman]

David, there is no point in you claiming the glass is half full, if I am claiming it is half empty.

The difference above is you do not accept that when a doctor makes a cursory, meaning visual, examination it is not a "preliminary" examination. Yet we both know what "preliminary" means.

If any doctor accesses the situation of a corpse and the circumstances of the crime at a crime scene it is an examination, like it or not.

Of course he had taken into account the results of the full post-mortem, that was never in dispute. The issue was that he was able to determine the cause on his "subsequent" in his words, or "preliminary", in the words of the press, examination after he entered the room.
He is telling the court his first impressions were correct.

[David Orsam]

David, there is no point in you claiming the glass is half full, if I am claiming it is half empty.

The difference above is you do not accept that when a doctor makes a cursory, meaning visual, examination it is not a "preliminary" examination. Yet we both know what "preliminary" means.

If any doctor accesses the situation of a corpse and the circumstances of the crime at a crime scene it is an examination, like it or not.

Of course he had taken into account the results of the full post-mortem, that was never in dispute. The issue was that he was able to determine the cause on his "subsequent" in his words, or "preliminary", in the words of the press, examination after he entered the room.
He is telling the court his first impressions were correct.

But, Jon, your entire reason for using the terms "cursory" and "preliminary" is the Times newspaper report, distinguishing Phillips' supposed sole, brief, examination at 1.30pm from the longer multi-doctor examination at 2pm. For all you know, however, Dr Phillips never even looked at the body at 1.30pm - or at least not sufficiently to form any conclusions at all - because the photographer might have got straight to work.

And what I just can't understand was your need to use the word "cursory" at all in this sentence:

"After a cursory (preliminary?) examination he determined she had died from a cut to the throat."

Especially followed by the comment, "That is all we know from Phillips's own mouth, isn't it?"

Why not just say: "After an examination he determined she had died from a cut to the throat"? Because that, in truth, is all we actually know from Phillips' own mouth, isn't it?

[David Orsam]

Just to add one more thing about language here Jon (and I note you didn't answer my question as to whether the whole examination up to 4pm was a "preliminary" one).

In his report submitted to Anderson, Dr Bond says he made a "Post Mortem Examination of the mutilated remains of a woman found yesterday in a small room in Dorset Street". I don't think he is there saying that the post mortem was conducted in the small room in Dorset Street, only that the body was found there. Agree?

Then in his report he refers to his visit at 2pm, says rigor mortis had set in and continues that it "increased during the progress of the examination". From this one might conclude that "the examination" being referred to is the "Post Mortem Examination" referred to at the start of the report.

However, when one looks at his notes we find a different picture.

The first half of his notes is headed:

"Notes of examination of body of woman found murdered and mutilated in Dorset St." He then goes on to the note the position of the body, other superficial details about the mutilations and the blood on the bedclothes.

However, the second half of his notes is headed:

"Postmortem examination."

The injuries and mutilations are then described in great detail.

Now, to me, that suggests that he is referring to two separate events in his notes. An examination conducted in the room (which, perhaps, one could call "a preliminary examination"?) and an examination conducted in the mortuary, namely the post-mortem examination.

This would be in accordance with normal procedure because post-mortems are not normally conducted at a crime scene.

Do you agree with me here Jon?

[Wickerman]

Here is another decent summary, and yes, they confused Phillips with Duke.

"Dr. Duke, the police surgeon of H division, was the first medical man to arrive on the spot and he at once undertook a preliminary examination. Half an hour later he was joined by Dr. Bond, the chief surgeon of the Metropolitan police, and together they commenced a post-mortem examination on the spot, as soon as the requisite authority had been obtained.

Previous to the post-mortem examination a photographer, who was brought on the scene only after considerable difficulty and delay, set to work in the court and house with a view to obtaining permanent evidence, as to the state of the room, the condition of the body, and other points - trivial, perhaps, but possibly important which have heretofore been too much neglected in the investigation of the series of crimes of which today's horror is surely the climax. The state of the atmosphere was, unfortunately, not favourable to good results."
Western Mail, 10 Nov. 1888

Where is the value in trying to argue for only one examination?

[David Orsam]

Here is another decent summary, and yes, they confused Phillips with Duke.

"Dr. Duke, the police surgeon of H division, was the first medical man to arrive on the spot and he at once undertook a preliminary examination. Half an hour later he was joined by Dr. Bond, the chief surgeon of the Metropolitan police, and together they commenced a post-mortem examination on the spot, as soon as the requisite authority had been obtained.

Previous to the post-mortem examination a photographer, who was brought on the scene only after considerable difficulty and delay, set to work in the court and house with a view to obtaining permanent evidence, as to the state of the room, the condition of the body, and other points - trivial, perhaps, but possibly important which have heretofore been too much neglected in the investigation of the series of crimes of which today's horror is surely the climax. The state of the atmosphere was, unfortunately, not favourable to good results."
Western Mail, 10 Nov. 1888

Where is the value in trying to argue for only one examination?

Why is it a "decent summary"? Because it reinforces what you are saying?

This is just another agency report circulated around the country and appearing in multiple newspapers on 10 November. The fact you cite the Western Mail suggests that you are unaware that it can be found in the Daily Chronicle of 10 November.

And you've been a little bit naughty Jon. In between those two paragraphs, the report states (as it does in the Daily Chronicle), "Sir Charles Warren arrived at Miller-court (sic*) at a quarter to two o'clock...The commissioner remained on the spot until the completion of the post-mortem examination, at a quarter to four, and then returned to Scotland Yard...". That was wrong wasn't it? Another press error.

So why do you have any confidence in a report which misidentifies Dr Phillips as Dr Duke?

The only thing is certain is that the journalist who wrote that report was not in the room at the time and is reporting, at best, hearsay information.

Some members of the press thought there were two examinations. We already know that. Why isn't it possible that they were wrong?

*The Daily Chronicle has it correct as Miller's Court

[Wickerman]

Just to add one more thing about language here Jon (and I note you didn't answer my question as to whether the whole examination up to 4pm was a "preliminary" one).

I didn't see it, on this thread?
No matter, why should there be any issue over that?
Any examination of a body after death is a post-mortem. When two examinations take place, especially on the same day, obviously it is necessary to distinguish between the two.
(I normally choose to refer to the Saturday morning post-mortem as an autopsy, as this is the only examination sanctioned by the Coroner for the inquest. Except below, and I explain why)

In his report submitted to Anderson, Dr Bond says he made a "Post Mortem Examination of the mutilated remains of a woman found yesterday in a small room in Dorset Street". I don't think he is there saying that the post mortem was conducted in the small room in Dorset Street, only that the body was found there. Agree?

Right, In the press the Saturday morning examination was identified as the "post-mortem-in-chief", to distinguish it from the post-mortem performed on Friday.

Then in his report he refers to his visit at 2pm, says rigor mortis had set in and continues that it "increased during the progress of the examination". From this one might conclude that "the examination" being referred to is the "Post Mortem Examination" referred to at the start of the report.

No, it's the post-mortem he was involved with at 2:00 pm Friday afternoon.
Rigor mortis would not be increasing during the Saturday morning post-mortem-in-chief. That would have been some 17 hours after the Friday post-mortem, at 2:00 pm.

However, when one looks at his notes we find a different picture.

The first half of his notes is headed:

"Notes of examination of body of woman found murdered and mutilated in Dorset St." He then goes on to the note the position of the body, other superficial details about the mutilations and the blood on the bedclothes.

However, the second half of his notes is headed:

"Postmortem examination."

The injuries and mutilations are then described in great detail.

Now, to me, that suggests that he is referring to two separate events in his notes. An examination conducted in the room (which, perhaps, one could call "a preliminary examination"?) and an examination conducted in the mortuary, namely the post-mortem examination.

This would be in accordance with normal procedure because post-mortems are not normally conducted at a crime scene.

Do you agree with me here Jon?

No David.
This entire report (which begins "Notes of examination of body of woman, etc.) takes place at Millers Court - all of it.

Nowhere does Bond offer any details of his involvement in the Saturday morning post-mortem-in-chief, that is entirely the purview of Dr. Phillips.

[David Orsam]

I didn't see it, on this thread?

Just a few hours ago Jon in #135:

"If you had said Phillips "immediately" worked out the cause of death then that would be reasonable, but there is nothing to indicate it was during a cursory or preliminary examination unless you want to argue that the entire examination up to 4pm was a cursory or preliminary one. Do you?"

[David Orsam]

Any examination of a body after death is a post-mortem.

So you could equally have said the following to John in #128:

"After a post-mortem examination he determined she had died from a cut to the throat. That is all we know from Phillips's own mouth, isn't it?"

Is that right? Please confirm.

[David Orsam]

No, it's the post-mortem he was involved with at 2:00 pm Friday afternoon.
Rigor mortis would not be increasing during the Saturday morning post-mortem-in-chief. That would have been some 17 hours after the Friday post-mortem, at 2:00 pm.

I'm a little bit worried you are not reading my posts properly. Bond says that rigor-mortis was increasing after his visit at 2pm, at which time he was carrying out an examination, but not, expressly, after the start of a post-mortem examination. Please read my #138 carefully. Had you answered the question I asked you in the second paragraph, we might have been able to avoid this sort of confusion.

[David Orsam]

No David.
This entire report (which begins "Notes of examination of body of woman, etc.) takes place at Millers Court - all of it.

I see, so if his "report" (to take your description) is entirely of the post-mortem examination, what is the purpose of the heading "Postmortem Examination" after the first five paragrahs?

[David Orsam]

Nowhere does Bond offer any details of his involvement in the Saturday morning post-mortem-in-chief, that is entirely the purview of Dr. Phillips.

How do you know that the details of Bond's involvement in the Saturday morning post-mortem-in-chief are not contained in his "report" of 16 November?

[Robert St Devil]

this is a tough one david. considering the severity of the crime ie. her organs laying upon the bed and bedside, i could see how, while preparing his post mortem notes, he was also conducting part of his post mortem examination. in a macabre sense, jack the ripper had partly done their job for them. as in, "under her head is her breast, under that is...."

im guessing they removed her body at 4:30??? thats two hours with her compared to the other cases where they transported the body on an ambulance shortly after.

[Wickerman]

Why is it a "decent summary"? Because it reinforces what you are saying?

This is just another agency report circulated around the country and appearing in multiple newspapers on 10 November. The fact you cite the Western Mail suggests that you are unaware that it can be found in the Daily Chronicle of 10 November.

It's in the Irish Times too, and in other outlets. Didn't you tell me before in was in the Chronicle?
Why does that matter?

And you've been a little bit naughty Jon. In between those two paragraphs, the report states (as it does in the Daily Chronicle), "Sir Charles Warren arrived at Miller-court (sic*) at a quarter to two o'clock...The commissioner remained on the spot until the completion of the post-mortem examination, at a quarter to four, and then returned to Scotland Yard...". That was wrong wasn't it? Another press error.

David, every newspaper has both correct & incorrect information. Why are you drifting off the subject?
(How ironic, this being a Double Throats Cut thread)
What is the point of me mentioning Warren when we are talking about a post-mortem?

So why do you have any confidence in a report which misidentifies Dr Phillips as Dr Duke?

No-one is correct in everything they write, scientists, archaeologist, police official, doctor - journalist.
The task is to disseminate what we read, not dismiss it because they got a name wrong.

The only thing is certain is that the journalist who wrote that report was not in the room at the time and is reporting, at best, hearsay information.

So, there is no value in press reports unless their reports are all first-hand accounts? Well, that's the end of the press as we know it.

Some members of the press thought there were two examinations. We already know that. Why isn't it possible that they were wrong?

*The Daily Chronicle has it correct as Miller's Court

From what I see David, you are the one who "thinks" there was only one.

[David Orsam]

It's in the Irish Times too, and in other outlets. Didn't you tell me before in was in the Chronicle?
Why does that matter?

I already said the same report appeared in multiple newspapers. It matters because it's an agency report which is not based on first hand knowledge. The reporter could simply have been speculating about what was going on in the room knowing that Phillips was in there. Phillips might have done nothing until the photographer had taken his photographs. That's the point. The reporter didn't know for sure what was happening in the room. You don't know for sure. So by all means say that you think or believe that there was a preliminary examination but please stop stating it as an established fact!

[David Orsam]

David, every newspaper has both correct & incorrect information. Why are you drifting off the subject?

But it's bang on the subject. Yes, every newspaper has both correct and incorrect information. So how do you know that the newspaper was correct on this occasion when it referred to a preliminary examination being carried out by Dr Duke, meaning Dr Phillips?

What is the point of me mentioning Warren when we are talking about a post-mortem?

I never said you should have mentioned Warren. What you should have done was indicate by the use of dots that you had omitted to reproduce a section of the report, as you must know.