Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Double throat cuts

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    David.

    Dr Bond was not conducting an official post-mortem.
    What he was doing came at the behest of Anderson, and with the consent of Phillips. His was a private examination, in so far as the Coroner was concerned.
    Bond was still using the correct procedure, and terminology, in beginning his report with the usual cursory examination. Then jointly with Dr Phillips, he investigated the wounds and making his own notes, as Phillips would make his own notes.
    That is what I deduce from what we know. And yes some of it is derived from press reports, and other from official paperwork.
    Okay you are deducing one thing and I'm deducing another.

    What I deduce is that it would be rather odd for Bond to carry out one post-mortem examination and for Phillips to then replicate his work with a second (identical?) post-mortem examination. But if that did happen, why did Bond attend at Phillips's post-mortem examination in the mortuary? Having done what was asked of him on Friday, why did he not scoot back off to Westminster to write his report that same evening?

    I also deduce that Bond would not have sent his report to Anderson on 10th November until the completion of all the examinations. I mean, what if something emerged during the examination in the mortuary which required Bond to correct his views? And if Bond attended the mortuary examination, I can't see why he wouldn't have taken any notes.

    Having examined the original examination notes of Dr Bond (on microfilm), which appear to have been written on seven pieces of card (from the shape), I note that the first 3 cards describe the in-situ examination and the next 4 cards describe the post-mortem examination. In other words, the heading of "Postmortem Examination" is on a new card. I think it provides support for my belief that this examination might have been the one carried out at the mortuary.
    Last edited by David Orsam; 07-18-2017, 06:20 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
      I understand that it is your view Jon. You are perfectly entitled to it. But what you haven't done is support it with evidence sufficient to prove it in my opinion. And the expression "cursory examination" never came out of Dr Phillips own mouth, which is what you said earlier.
      Proof, is not possible at this late date.
      Cursory, is brief and not detailed.
      Call it visual if you like, preliminary is also an acceptable substitute.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
        Sorry? When did I admit this? I never said anything of the sort. I said that the normal procedure would be for an in situ examination followed by a post-mortem examination at the mortuary. I'm asking you how we can be sure that the normal procedure was not followed on this occasion.
        At the scene, the in-situ examination is often brief, and largely visual.
        Yes he may touch the body, he may feel the pulse to pronounce the body dead. But the in-situ examination at the crime scene falls in to the category of cursory, visual and preliminary.
        This I believe is what you accepted.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
          Okay you are deducing one thing and I'm deducing another.

          What I deduce is that it would be rather odd for Bond to carry out one post-mortem examination and for Phillips to then replicate his work with a second (identical?) post-mortem examination.
          Bond did not conduct his own separate post-mortem. Phillips (c/w Mr Clark?), Dukes, Brown, Hebbert (who took the notes for Bond?), and Gabe were all present, according to the press.
          One account does say that the doctors requested permission to do this, presumably from Mcdonald.

          A Coroners post-mortem would be conducted Saturday morning at 7:30 am.


          But if that did happen, why did Bond attend at Phillips's post-mortem examination in the mortuary? Having done what was asked of him on Friday, why did he not scoot back off to Westminster to write his report that same evening?
          Professional interest?
          The most significant murder in recent history is bound to be the source of numerous questions from both the authorities and the medical men.

          I also deduce that Bond would not have sent his report to Anderson on 10th November until the completion of all the examinations. I mean, what if something emerged during the examination in the mortuary which required Bond to correct his views?
          The Coroners post-mortem on Saturday morning was concluded just after noon. Still plenty of time for him to write up his notes to Anderson.
          The fact he sent his notes off on the same day might suggest nothing else was uncovered at the Coroners post-mortem.
          Besides, Dr bond's notes only concern themselves with the mutilations, as requested. That was the extent of his professional obligation to Anderson.

          And if Bond attended the mortuary examination, I can't see why he wouldn't have taken any notes.
          He may have, but any notes by any other medical men have gone the same way as Phillips's post-mortem notes. None have survived.

          Having examined the original examination notes of Dr Bond (on microfilm), which appear to have been written on seven pieces of card (from the shape), I note that the first 3 cards describe the in-situ examination and the next 4 cards describe the post-mortem examination. In other words, the heading of "Postmortem Examination" is on a new card. I think it provides support for my belief that this examination might have been the one carried out at the mortuary.
          I don't see how that fact supports any theory.
          Hebbert made the notes, according to some who analyzed the handwriting, he used a pocket book presumably.
          In what way does it support one theory as opposed to another?
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
            Proof, is not possible at this late date.
            Yes, that's what I'm saying. There isn't enough available material to prove what happened in that room.

            That's why I keep making the point that while what you say is quite possible it is not certain.

            But when I ask you to say the same about my point of view you refuse to do it.

            Well let's try it. Do you agree that what I have been saying is quite possible?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
              Cursory, is brief and not detailed.
              Call it visual if you like, preliminary is also an acceptable substitute.
              What I call it, or what you call it, is irrelevant. It's what it was called by Dr Phillips in 1888 which is important and at no time did he refer to a "cursory" or even a "preliminary" examination. So it must be valid for me to object when you claim that the expression "cursory examination" came from Dr Phillips' own mouth, no?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                At the scene, the in-situ examination is often brief, and largely visual.
                Yes he may touch the body, he may feel the pulse to pronounce the body dead. But the in-situ examination at the crime scene falls in to the category of cursory, visual and preliminary.
                This I believe is what you accepted.
                No, as to the last sentence, you are wrong and, I think, confused. I have never defined what constitutes an in-situ examination.

                When I was referring to a visual examination it was in the context of what YOU meant by "preliminary examination".

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                  Bond did not conduct his own separate post-mortem. Phillips (c/w Mr Clark?), Dukes, Brown, Hebbert (who took the notes for Bond?), and Gabe were all present, according to the press.
                  One account does say that the doctors requested permission to do this, presumably from Mcdonald.

                  A Coroners post-mortem would be conducted Saturday morning at 7:30 am.
                  What do you mean by "Bond did not conduct his own separate post-mortem"?

                  How do you interpret the sentence in his 10 November report which states: "I have also made a Post Mortem Examination of the mutilated remains..."?

                  And how do you interpret the heading in his 16 November "report": "Postmortem Examination".

                  If Bond didn't conduct it, who did? If it was Phillips, why did he conduct a second one?

                  And why do you now refer to a "Coroners post-mortem"? What other kind of post-mortem is there?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                    One account does say that the doctors requested permission to do this, presumably from Mcdonald.
                    Are you referring to this story in the Daily Chronicle of 10 November:

                    "Half an hour later he [Phillips] 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.

                    Please tell me. If Phillips (and Bond) had obtained the requisite authority from the coroner to conduct a joint post-mortem examination in the room, why did Phillips need to conduct a second post-mortem examination in the mortuary?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                      Yes, that's what I'm saying. There isn't enough available material to prove what happened in that room.

                      That's why I keep making the point that while what you say is quite possible it is not certain.

                      But when I ask you to say the same about my point of view you refuse to do it.

                      Well let's try it. Do you agree that what I have been saying is quite possible?
                      I think the main difference between both our views is that while I am attempting to blend what we know from inquest testimony, Dr Bonds notes & the various press articles, you seem to want to stick with what the doctors said & wrote, while challenging the press coverage.
                      Maybe I'm wrong but it does seem that way to me.

                      One other comment.
                      While Dr Bond's notes entitled Post Mortem Examination 'could' have been a record of what took place on Saturday, I seriously doubt it. On Saturday Phillips is in charge of the Coroners post-mortem for the inquest. I very much doubt any other doctor present would be allowed to conduct his own post-mortem in parallel. My view is that they were present as observers.

                      I have two questions.
                      As you mentioned the last page of Bond's first examination, is on the first three pages.
                      Do those notes end in the middle of the page, or at the end?
                      Likewise, with the last page of the next four, for the P.M.
                      Do the notes end in the middle of the page, or at the end.

                      I ask to be sure there is no reason to believe pages are missing for each group of notes.
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                        Professional interest?
                        The most significant murder in recent history is bound to be the source of numerous questions from both the authorities and the medical men.
                        The thing is, Jon, Bond's report was required ASAP.

                        As you are no doubt aware, there is a note of telephone message in the Home Office files of the police response to a request for that report as follows:

                        'Body is believed to be that of a prostitute much mutilated. Dr Bond is at present engaged in making his Examination - but his report has not yet been received. Full report cannot be furnished until medical officers have completed enquiry.'

                        Note 'medical officers' plural. And Bond did not furnish his report on 9 November. It wasn't written until the next day. That suggests to me, not that he had a mere professional interest in the Saturday morning post-mortem examination, but that he could not submit his report until it was completed. What does it suggest to you?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                          The fact he sent his notes off on the same day might suggest nothing else was uncovered at the Coroners post-mortem.
                          How does that suggest any such thing?

                          How do we know the entire section under "Postmortem Examination" wasn't written in the afternoon on Saturday?

                          And the same for his entire report of 10 November.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                            What I call it, or what you call it, is irrelevant. It's what it was called by Dr Phillips in 1888 which is important and at no time did he refer to a "cursory" or even a "preliminary" examination. So it must be valid for me to object when you claim that the expression "cursory examination" came from Dr Phillips' own mouth, no?
                            Right, he does not say "cursory", he described a "cursory" examination, he doesn't call it anything but an examination.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                              Besides, Dr bond's notes only concern themselves with the mutilations, as requested. That was the extent of his professional obligation to Anderson.
                              Really? Look at the first sentence.

                              "The body was lying naked in the middle of the bed, the shoulders flat, but the axis of the body included to the left side of the bed."

                              What does that have to do with the mutilations?

                              And what about this:

                              "In the abdominal cavity was some partly digested food of fish & potatoes & similar food was found in the remains of the stomach attached to the intestines".

                              What does that have to do with the mutilations?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                                He may have, but any notes by any other medical men have gone the same way as Phillips's post-mortem notes. None have survived.
                                But you understand that I am suggesting that the notes under the heading of "Postmortem Examination" might be a summary of Bond's notes (or Hebbert's notes if you prefer) of the Saturday post-mortem, right?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X