Double throat cuts

[David Orsam]

What was normal about Millers Court?

Yes of course that's a reasonable point but what I'm saying is that bearing in mind that the normal procedure is for an in-situ examination followed by a post-mortem examination in the mortuary can we be absolutely sure that this is not what happened at Miller's Court?

If you think we can be sure, then how?

[David Orsam]

Most dead bodies do not need to be put back together before they are moved to the mortuary. That process seemed to involve several medical professionals who no doubt were interested in the how & why these organs were removed.

Why can't you think that through yourself?

There's just no need for that kind of comment Jon.

What I'm wondering is whether the main aim of the doctors on the afternoon of 9 November was to establish whether any organs had been removed and, if so, what organs. That was specifically to assist the police in their investigation. And then the proper post-mortem examination - where notes were taken in the normal manner - was conducted the next morning at the mortuary.

I fail to see why this is not a reasonable suggestion, and one worthy of consideration. Just because some newspapers said something different is surely not a reason to discard it.

[Michael W Richards]

I believe that it was reported that Marys remains were placed in a small wooden box when they were removed from the room, and that a "Volte Face" was done Saturday. I don't think the objective in the room was to identify each extracted organ to ensure all were there, just to catalogue what was where and the condition, and position, of the corpse. The photos we have don't seem to direct attention to the various materials between Marys legs, or even on the table, but the photo we do have apparently had glass negatives that indicated that the glass slides were numbered "of" 6. One of those would I assume been taken from the foot of the bed, to go with the right side, left side ones that we have today..

[John G]

Ah, so Phillips didn't give an opinion then?
Sorry, I thought you said he did.

It appears Phillips was consistent in his dealings with the press - no comment!

The only legitimate opinion we receive from Phillips is his inquest testimony. He described the room & the body after he entered on that Friday afternoon.
After a cursory (preliminary?) 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?

Yes, which means we're left with Dr Bond's opinion that Kelly's murderer demonstrated no skill whatsoever. Dr Phillips clearly does not contradict him in respect of Kelly, therefore I think Dr Bond's conclusions should be accepted.

I, of course, accept that Dr Bond also considered that no skill had been demonstrated in any of the other C5 victims, however, not only is he contradicted in this regard but he was not present at the Post mortems. Therefore, in respect of the other C5 victims, his opinion should be treated with caution.

[Wickerman]

hi Wickerman
how does the autopsy taking place in Millers court help your well dressed man theory?

No idea, do you see connection?

[Wickerman]

Well at least you now seem to understand what I have been saying the whole time.

I was clarifying my position, not yours.

You can't just swipe it away with your hand and say "time consuming". You do need to qualify your statements with "I think" or "I believe" or "according to" or whatever. Anything else is poor form. Of course, there are footnotes in books. But not in posts.

These quotes have been posted so many times, on so many different threads, they may begin to write themselves if we are not careful.
I referred to nothing that was not common knowledge among the frequent flyers on Casebook. Maybe I was mistaken to think you were familiar enough with where the activity of Dr Philips is recorded.

It can be very intimidating when someone makes unqualified statements as if they were established facts on the boards.

Then why didn't you just ask?

In response, in a post addressed to me, you said this:

"Dr. Phillips did make a preliminary examination on entering the room at 1:30, after which the photographer appears to have been permitted to enter, prior to the post-mortem beginning at 2:00 pm."

Precisely, because in his inquest testimony he says just that, after entering the room he made an examination.
Then in the press his role is elaborated by admitting the photographer, prior to the post-mortem accompanied by his peers.
There is nothing there to change.

Finally, and I hope this really is final, I note that in on 15 January 2016, on JTR Forums, after referring to the "legally bound autopsy" conducted on the Saturday morning, you posted this:

"However, there were two previous examinations, if we can trust the press."

I don't know how "if we can trust the press" has, in 17 months, become "we CAN trust the press". You got it right in JTR Forums so why not get in right in here?

Then you knew my position all along, yet you choose not to ask if my source was the press.
That reads to me as being intentionally confrontational, as you were aware of what I had wrote on the subject before.

(What did I say about following me around?)

You have embarked on a wild goose chase, which can only be for your own amusement.

[David Orsam]

These quotes have been posted so many times, on so many different threads, they may begin to write themselves if we are not careful.
I referred to nothing that was not common knowledge among the frequent flyers on Casebook. Maybe I was mistaken to think you were familiar enough with where the activity of Dr Philips is recorded.

You were, indeed, so mistaken.

[David Orsam]

Then why didn't you just ask?

I did ask but I shouldn't have had to. Had you written it correctly in the first place I might not even have replied at all and we wouldn't have needed a 100 post discussion about it.

[David Orsam]

Precisely, because in his inquest testimony he says just that, after entering the room he made an examination.

But you are wrong! He simply does not say that. He does not say "After entering the room I made an examination". On the contrary, he speaks about entering the room then refers to his "subsequent examination".

It's one thing to form your own interpretation but another to misrepresent the evidence.

Then in the press his role is elaborated by admitting the photographer, prior to the post-mortem accompanied by his peers.
There is nothing there to change.

How long do you think it would have taken the photographer to take six photographs of the interior from different angles incidentally?

[David Orsam]

Then you knew my position all along, yet you choose not to ask if my source was the press.

Absolutely not! I only did the search today after your mention of the word the word "autopsy" yesterday.

That reads to me as being intentionally confrontational, as you were aware of what I had wrote on the subject before.

So now you know you read it wrong.

(What did I say about following me around?)

You said something that was untrue.

You have embarked on a wild goose chase, which can only be for your own amusement.

Not at all. You don't seem to be au fait with proper academic standards. You cut out sections of text without making clear that you have done so and you repeatedly state assumptions as fact. I'm trying to help you here. I know it's only an internet forum but we should try and keep standards as high as possible don't you think?

[Wickerman]

But the press used various different terms to describe the examinations.

I think you are just playing semantics now. We agreed some time ago that a preliminary examination could be a visual one. You are not telling me that if Dr Phillips had spent a couple of minutes looking at the Kelly's body in the room before the photographs were taken that would have meant he had carried out a post-mortem are you?

That's just silly. I know what the words 'post-mortem' mean but A post-mortem is different from ANY examination.

Even today at least two different types of post-mortem are recognised, yet the same name is retained.

When the press referred to two different types of examination but called them both "post-mortem" (the first at 2 pm Friday, the second at 7.30 Saturday morning), there is bound to be confusion.
Good enough reason to apply different terminology.

[Robert St Devil]

How long do you think it would have taken the photographer to take six photographs of the interior from different angles incidentally?

I've been wondering about this point... ever since the post about the environment not being conducive for photography.

[Wickerman]

Yes of course that's a reasonable point but what I'm saying is that bearing in mind that the normal procedure is for an in-situ examination followed by a post-mortem examination in the mortuary can we be absolutely sure that this is not what happened at Miller's Court?

If you think we can be sure, then how?

Yes, normally there would be a cursory examination followed by a Coroners post-mortem.

The Coroners post-mortem occurred on Saturday morning, as recorded in the press.

Yet we are also dealing with two examinations mentioned by the press on Friday.
From what I understand you say there might be only one examination on Friday, yet you call it a post-mortem.

Phillips tells you that he conducted a subsequent examination on entering the room at 1.30 pm.
Yet Bond tells us a post-mortem began on Friday at 2 pm.

Where is your in-situ (cursory?) examination, if it isn't the one mentioned by Phillips?

[David Orsam]

Even today at least two different types of post-mortem are recognised, yet the same name is retained.

When the press referred to two different types of examination but called them both "post-mortem" (the first at 2 pm Friday, the second at 7.30 Saturday morning), there is bound to be confusion.

Yes, and even more so when the Echo tells us that:

"Dr. Bond, of Westminster Hospital, is now...in the room with the other doctors; and the body is now being photographed. A post-mortem examination will afterwards be made in the same room."

So that, I think, takes us up to three examinations - or three post-mortems - in one day.

Although, according to the earlier London Evening Post of 9 November:

"Mr. Bond of Westminster Hospital, was in the room with the other doctors and the body was photographed. A post mortem examination will be made."

Which leaves open as to whether it was to be in the room or the mortuary.

But those are examples of why I'm not interested in what the press call it. I'm only interested in what the doctors called it.

And Dr Bond has a separate heading in his "report" of "Postmortem Examination" which to my mind creates the reasonable suspicion that his report refers to two separate examinations, possibly in two separate locations, in exactly the same way that Dr Phillips' report on the Mackenzie murder, to which you drew my attention, does.

[Wickerman]

Not at all. You don't seem to be au fait with proper academic standards. You cut out sections of text without making clear that you have done so and you repeatedly state assumptions as fact. I'm trying to help you here. I know it's only an internet forum but we should try and keep standards as high as possible don't you think?

Seeing as how you are quite adept with the search routine, perhaps you can locate any one time I have claimed these events as a 'fact'?

You can take this challenge as in the same vein as you claiming I have not produced sources.
Produce your source!!!