Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Double throat cuts

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

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Doesn't this message fall in line with what I am suggesting?
    I would say no for two reasons. Firstly, because, by your account, Dr Bond could have written his report on Friday (and should have done given the pressure for it to be completed). Secondly, because it says that his report couldn't be written until the "medical officers" had completed their enquiry. I'm suggesting that this is why Dr Bond went to the post-mortem at the mortuary rather than idle curiosity or "professional interest".

    Comment


    • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
      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?
      I do, but as the first three pages clearly assign his observations to the 9th, then your attempt to assign the later four pages to another day requires something more than an idea.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
        Well let's recap the discussion.

        When I pointed out that Bond's notes were split into two - an in-situ examination and a post-mortem examination - you told me that this was perfectly normal and I should look at Dr Phillips' report in the McKenzie case.
        I stand by that.

        But the Phillips report in the McKenzie case is broken down into an in-situ examination and a post-mortem examination in the mortuary.
        This again is normal, its what we expect in the vast majority of cases.

        When I asked you why this was not the case for the Kelly murder you suddenly changed your mind and told me that the Kelly murder was not normal so it will all be different!
        That is not a change of mind.
        You were suggesting the Kelly case should be conducted 'normally', that your assumption is based upon a normal procedure.
        I was saying the circumstances were not normal in that case. Meaning, Dr Bond's 'post mortem' is not the official post mortem, so the circumstances are quite different.
        The normal procedure applies to Phillips, not Bond.

        My point is that the fact that the notes of Bond's post-mortem examination start on a new page is consistent with it being a different examination conducted at a different time and place.
        But it is also consistent with a change in subject, from visual examination to post mortem.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
          I do, but as the first three pages clearly assign his observations to the 9th, then your attempt to assign the later four pages to another day requires something more than an idea.
          It's not just an "idea" though. Post-mortem examinations were normally carried out in mortuaries when one was available in a district, were they not?

          So that's primarily what makes me think that normal procedure would have applied in this case.

          And, as I've also asked, would Dr Bond really have analysed the contents of the stomach (which has nothing to do with mutilations by the way) in Kelly's room rather than at the mortuary?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
            Meaning, Dr Bond's 'post mortem' is not the official post mortem, so the circumstances are quite different.
            Was it a post-mortem examination or not?

            And what are you saying. That Dr Bond analysed the stomach contents on Friday and Dr Phillips carried out the same analysis on Saturday?

            They duplicated each other's work then?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
              That is not a change of mind.
              In which case, why did you refer me to Dr Phillips' report of the McKenzie case in the first place?

              You did refer me to it and as soon as I started to draw comparisons with Phillips' report in the Kelly case you told me the McKenzie case was "normal" but the Kelly case was not, so I couldn't do it!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                Well of course you are wrong. I am also "blending" from inquest testimony and Dr Bond's notes and, indeed, all the available evidence.

                As for press articles, well they don't all support you Jon.

                Take the Morning Advertiser of 10 November (which you previously quoted):

                "Dr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of police, soon arrived, and was followed by Dr. Bond, of Westminster, divisional surgeon of the A division, Dr. J. R. Gabe, of Mecklenburgh-square, and two or three other surgeons. They made a preliminary examination of the body..."

                That is EXACTLY what I am saying occurred.
                Fair enough, but that only raises the question of defining what they meant by "Preliminary Examination".
                Are you aware that this was an agency story, and the same story appeared in the Daily News of the same date, yet the Daily News, in a later paragraph report:
                "The Central News states, ........... A post mortem examination was held by the medical authorities summoned by the police, and the surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for, and placed as closely as possible in its natural position."
                http://www.casebook.org/press_report...l?printer=true

                So the Morning Advertiser did not publish the whole story.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                  Fair enough, but that only raises the question of defining what they meant by "Preliminary Examination".
                  Are you aware that this was an agency story, and the same story appeared in the Daily News of the same date, yet the Daily News, in a later paragraph report:
                  "The Central News states, ........... A post mortem examination was held by the medical authorities summoned by the police, and the surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for, and placed as closely as possible in its natural position."
                  http://www.casebook.org/press_report...l?printer=true

                  So the Morning Advertiser did not publish the whole story.
                  It's not a case of the Morning Advertiser not publishing the whole story. It's a case of the Daily News using a press agency report that the Morning Advertiser did not.

                  We just go back to the use of language here Jon. As we both know, every examination after death is carried out "post mortem" so the Central News could easily have been referring to the examination which is also referred to in the first three pages of Dr Bond's notes.

                  And did I not say earlier that what I think the doctors were mainly doing in the room during Friday afternoon was precisely what the Central News report says they were doing, namely accounting for every organ? And this corresponds to what is on page 2 of Dr Bond's notes, namely the paragraph beginning "The viscera were found..."

                  So all you've really done is supported my version of events.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                    Well, I wonder, did Dr Bond really examine the abdominal cavity and the stomach attached to the intestines while in Mary Kelly's room. It seems like something a medical examiner would only do in a mortuary doesn't it?
                    Normally, the abdominal cavity is opened by the medical examiner, but again, this case if different, the cavity was already open to view. Plus the fact mention is made of the remains of the stomach, which seems to indicate the stomach had been wounded and the contents spilled out. So again, he is examining the wounds as he is in the rest of his P.M. notes.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                      I would say no for two reasons. Firstly, because, by your account, Dr Bond could have written his report on Friday (and should have done given the pressure for it to be completed). Secondly, because it says that his report couldn't be written until the "medical officers" had completed their enquiry. I'm suggesting that this is why Dr Bond went to the post-mortem at the mortuary rather than idle curiosity or "professional interest".
                      He may have written his undated notes on Friday, but he has not written his report to which they will be attached. This report he intends? to write after the Coroners P.M. on Saturday.
                      I'm viewing Bonds presence at this post-mortem (I believe Dr Brown was there too), more as an observer than a participant.
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                        Normally, the abdominal cavity is opened by the medical examiner, but again, this case if different, the cavity was already open to view. Plus the fact mention is made of the remains of the stomach, which seems to indicate the stomach had been wounded and the contents spilled out. So again, he is examining the wounds as he is in the rest of his P.M. notes.
                        The last sentence is, frankly, nonsense - he was talking about the contents of the stomach, not the wound to the stomach - and I see that you've now changed "mutilations" which is what you previously said Bond was looking for to "wounds".

                        But let's clarify. Do you think Dr Bond made an analysis of the stomach contents during his Friday examination and then Dr Phillips duplicated this analysis on the Saturday?

                        Or do you think Dr Phillips said: "Nah, I won't bother doing that in the PM. It's already been done"?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                          In which case, why did you refer me to Dr Phillips' report of the McKenzie case in the first place?

                          You did refer me to it and as soon as I started to draw comparisons with Phillips' report in the Kelly case you told me the McKenzie case was "normal" but the Kelly case was not, so I couldn't do it!
                          Because David, you had asked:
                          "what is the purpose of the heading "Postmortem Examination" after the first five paragrahs?"

                          This was all I was responding to, but then you looked for some other aspect of the report and basically changed the subject. Which had nothing to do with the original question you posed.

                          The McKenzie paperwork was normal in that it begins with a visual examination, followed by a post-mortem.
                          This is what we find in the Kelly case with Bond's paperwork, and also with Phillips, except his report has not survived.

                          The difference, because Kelly was all cut to pieces, is that there was an intermediate P.M. where she had to be put back together so the body would be complete for the Coroner's P.M. on Saturday.
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                            Because David, you had asked:
                            "what is the purpose of the heading "Postmortem Examination" after the first five paragrahs?"
                            But if the Kelly PM is not normal how did it help in any way to refer me to a PM report of another victim?

                            And I'm sure that if you look at the PM report of any other victim you will inevitably see that the heading "Postmortem Examination" will refer to an examination in a mortuary.

                            So it's hardly unreasonable of me to think that this is what Bond is indicating in his notes.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                              But if the Kelly PM is not normal how did it help in any way to refer me to a PM report of another victim?

                              And I'm sure that if you look at the PM report of any other victim you will inevitably see that the heading "Postmortem Examination" will refer to an examination in a mortuary.

                              So it's hardly unreasonable of me to think that this is what Bond is indicating in his notes.
                              It is worth mentioning that notes made at the time of both events were not made by Phillips or Bond, and Bonds report to Anderson was compliled by Dr Gabe.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 07-19-2017, 01:20 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                It is worth mentioning that notes made at the time of both events were not made by Phillips or Bond.
                                Well there would have been two sets of notes. The original post-mortem or autopsy notes (depending on your preference) and then, what appears to have been sent to Anderson, the summary of those notes.

                                The original notes would not, for example, have stated "The body was lying naked" but "body naked" or similar.

                                The identity of the person who physically wrote down the words isn't important is it? Many letters were sent during the period in the handwriting of someone else (i.e. amanuensis).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X