Double throat cuts

[David Orsam]

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.

You are once again getting it all the wrong way round.

I'm not dismissing anything.

I'm asking you why you are accepting the newspaper report without corroboration and without qualification.

Do you see the difference?

[Wickerman]

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.

We need to be sure we are discussing the same sections.

"Rigor Mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination"

Obviously, this is the Friday post-mortem at 2:00 pm. That is what I am saying.

His first line in this report which you previously quoted:
"I have also made a Post Mortem Examination of the mutilated remains of a woman found yesterday in a small room in Dorset Street".

As he took part in two post-mortems, this line could refer to either. Regardless, it does not help solve our debate.

[David Orsam]

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.

Again you show that you haven't understood what I've been saying to you in about 100 posts.

I'm not saying there's no value in press reports in general and I'm not saying there is no value in this report.

What I'm saying is that the fact that it has been reported does not mean it is established fact. You continually treat it as established fact. You do not qualify or caveat the statement that there were these two examinations.

Do you understand? It's you I'm "attacking" Not the newspaper reports!

[David Orsam]

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

No, I've told you on countless occasions that I think that this is one possible interpretation of the evidence. For me the most probable one. I fully accept it is possible that there were two examinations but it is not certain. It is not an established fact. So you should stop saying it was!

[David Orsam]

We need to be sure we are discussing the same sections.

"Rigor Mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination"

Obviously, this is the Friday post-mortem at 2:00 pm. That is what I am saying.

Well I entirely agree that it was an examination at 2.00pm but I'm questioning whether Dr Bond was referring to it as a "post-mortem" examination.

His first line in this report which you previously quoted:
"I have also made a Post Mortem Examination of the mutilated remains of a woman found yesterday in a small room in Dorset Street".

As he took part in two post-mortems, this line could refer to either. Regardless, it does not help solve our debate.

No, I appreciate that, which is why I'm wondering why he headed a portion only of his 16 November "report" as "Postmortem Examination". Do you have an answer for this?

[David Orsam]

Do you understand? It's you I'm "attacking" Not the newspaper reports!

Sorry to be so blunt by the way but I felt I needed to get the message across.

[Wickerman]

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?

You ask a lot of questions David.

It's convention.
First the victim & scene are described as found.
Then the examination is recorded in detail.

Take a look at Phillips's examination of McKenzie. Thankfully we have this prime example of how it should be done.

[Wickerman]

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?

Because of other reports taken into account.

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.

Completely separate paragraph, separate heading, nothing to do with the subject at hand.

[David Orsam]

You ask a lot of questions David.

It's convention.
First the victim & scene are described as found.
Then the examination is recorded in detail.

Take a look at Phillips's examination of McKenzie. Thankfully we have this prime example of how it should be done.

Sorry, Jon, doesn't Phillip's report of his McKenzie examination support exactly what I have been saying?

Firstly, as you say, Phillips describes the victim and scene as found but then there is a new heading:

"Exn of body at mortuary".

In other words, he is describing two completely separate examinations at two separate locations.

That is precisely what I am suggesting Dr Bond is doing in his 16 November "report". Firstly reporting what he saw during his examination in 13 Miller's Court. Then reporting the post-mortem examination at the mortuary.

Sorry to be a pain with my questions (let me know if they are too difficult for you) but why could not Dr Bond be doing the very same thing in his "report"?

[Wickerman]

You are once again getting it all the wrong way round.

I'm not dismissing anything.

I'm asking you why you are accepting the newspaper report without corroboration and without qualification.

Do you see the difference?

It's precisely because there are other press reports, even though some get specific details wrong, these details are correctly presented in other versions.
That is what collating is, obtaining an overview of the whole scenario and determining from what we have the apparent sequence of events.

[David Orsam]

Because of other reports taken into account.

You mean in the Times? But how do we know the reporters didn't discuss what was going on between them? Perhaps there was a rumour floating around as to what was happening in the room.

It's no way good enough to mark it down as established fact is it?

Completely separate paragraph, separate heading, nothing to do with the subject at hand.

As I'm sure you know, Jon, a series of dots, or ellipsis, should be used to indicate the existence of an intervening paragraph not quoted, separate subject or not.

[David Orsam]

It's precisely because there are other press reports, even though some get specific details wrong, these details are correctly presented in other versions.
That is what collating is, obtaining an overview of the whole scenario and determining from what we have the apparent sequence of events.

Well it's funny but when I asked you to set out your sources originally you only produced the Times (and the same story in the Star). You've obviously found a new story but that clearly wasn't what you were basing your original conclusion on.

Problem is there are also reports which say something different.

And given that both reports - the one in the Western Mail and the one in the Times - might have come from the same source, all you are potentially doing is corroborating a mistake with the same mistake. It's not good enough Jon.

[Wickerman]

What I'm saying is that the fact that it has been reported does not mean it is established fact. You continually treat it as established fact. You do not qualify or caveat the statement that there were these two examinations.

Do you understand? It's you I'm "attacking" Not the newspaper reports!

See, you are putting words in my mouth now.

At no point have I ever referred to this subject as an established fact. I've never used the word 'fact', that is your assumption.
We've been over this before.
I posted press quotes, you saw them.
I get the impression you just enjoy wasting people's time going round and round in circles.

[Wickerman]

Sorry, Jon, doesn't Phillip's report of his McKenzie examination support exactly what I have been saying?

Firstly, as you say, Phillips describes the victim and scene as found but then there is a new heading:

"Exn of body at mortuary".

In other words, he is describing two completely separate examinations at two separate locations.

That is precisely what I am suggesting Dr Bond is doing in his 16 November "report". Firstly reporting what he saw during his examination in 13 Miller's Court. Then reporting the post-mortem examination at the mortuary.

Sorry to be a pain with my questions (let me know if they are too difficult for you) but why could not Dr Bond be doing the very same thing in his "report"?

Location has nothing to do with it for goodness sake's man, both reports describe two separate functions. The first an overview, the second the examination.
Phillips isn't going to examine McKenze on the sidewalk. Of course the location changed, besides Phillips then conducted an autopsy for the inquest.

At Millers court the doctors had to be sure all her parts were found before they packed her off to the mortuary. The location stayed the same, its a post-mortem, but not an autopsy.

[Wickerman]

As I'm sure you know, Jon, a series of dots, or ellipsis, should be used to indicate the existence of an intervening paragraph not quoted, separate subject or not.

That is when you are quoting from the same paragraph, not from the same page.
Are you drifting off topic again?