Double throat cuts

[David Orsam]

and Bonds report to Anderson was compliled by Dr Gabe.

Are you quite sure you mean Dr Gabe?

[Trevor Marriott]

Are you quite sure you mean Dr Gabe?

According to what Paul Begg suggests that is the case, and he is never wrong

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

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

You mean Dr Hebbert.
S.G.Ryan wrote three articles for Criminologist magazine concluding that Dr Bond's report to Anderson was written by Dr Hebbert. Ryan based his conclusion on handwriting comparisons.

[Wickerman]

You mean Dr Hebbert.
S.G.Ryan wrote three articles for Criminologist magazine concluding that Dr Bond's report to Anderson was written by Dr Hebbert. Ryan based his conclusion on handwriting comparisons.

Thats what I always understood. This is a bit unsettling having Trevor speak in favour of an opinion by Paul....

[Wickerman]

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"?

David.

Dr Bond's pages entitle Post Mortem concern themselves with "cuts", every sentence observes cuts, sequentially; to the face, to the neck, air passage, breasts, abdomen, thigh, calf, arms, thumb, but you select the last sentence to claim I was wrong?

Anderson wrote that Bond was selected to give his opinion specifically to address the levels of skill and anatomical knowledge displayed by the killer, as these details have become so debatable throughout the series.
That is the extent of Bond's purview in all these cases.

The only detail noted by Bond (Hebbert), that is to some degree in your favor is the line that begins: "On opening the thorax", which is a recognisable post-mortem procedure which would most certainly have been done by Phillips on Saturday morning.
The question then becomes, is that point alone sufficient to sway your argument?
I am not so sure because, as the press report, the point of this examination at 2 pm was to make sure all her organs were found and replaced where possible, then they may have opened the thorax to see if anything was missing as part of this procedure.
So, while that single detail is in your favor, by itself it is not conclusive.

[David Orsam]

The visual examination described by Phillips may have been due to him waiting for word back from Mcdonald, without that he can only look, but not touch?

Apparently, Philips was a real stickler for doing things by the book.

Jon, what is the basis of your belief that Phillips would have needed permission from the coroner before touching Kelly's body in her room on Friday?

What "book" are you referring to in the above post?

[Wickerman]

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.

If, just for arguments sake, the post-mortem in Bond's notes did occur Saturday morning, and by extension his visual notes represent what he saw at 2 pm on Friday.
How does that impact the role of Dr Phillips in being involved in three different examinations - two on Friday and one on Saturday?
1 - Preliminary exam. after his entrance at 1:30 - Friday.
2 - The informal post-mortem at 2 :00 - Friday, accompanied by his peers, to locate and replace all her organs.
3 - The Coroner's post-mortem at 7:30 am Saturday.

[Robert St Devil]

I might be mis-remembering here but I though it had been suggested that Spitalfields (Dorset street) was actually in Macdonalds jurisdiction?

The Nov 10 ed. of Aberdeen Evening Express cites a Central News correspondent:

The scene of the murder is very near to the city boundary, which in this neighborhood twists about in a most erratic manner.

[David Orsam]

If, just for arguments sake, the post-mortem in Bond's notes did occur Saturday morning, and by extension his visual notes represent what he saw at 2 pm on Friday.
How does that impact the role of Dr Phillips in being involved in three different examinations - two on Friday and one on Saturday?
1 - Preliminary exam. after his entrance at 1:30 - Friday.
2 - The informal post-mortem at 2 :00 - Friday, accompanied by his peers, to locate and replace all her organs.
3 - The Coroner's post-mortem at 7:30 am Saturday.

Well Jon I don't know if you are doing this deliberately but you must be aware that from very the start I have been challenging your "Preliminary exam. after his entrance at 1.30 - Friday".

I am suggesting there were only two examinations.

One at 2pm, conducted in-situ, jointly by Phillips and Bond, with all the other doctors.

Then one (the post-mortem examination) on the Saturday morning.

Just two Jon.

[Joshua Rogan]

For what it's worth, according to the Evening News 8th Sept;

"Macdonald held an inquest, yesterday afternoon, at the Paul's Head public-house, Spitalfields, on the body of Joseph Meckleburg"

[Trevor Marriott]

You mean Dr Hebbert.
S.G.Ryan wrote three articles for Criminologist magazine concluding that Dr Bond's report to Anderson was written by Dr Hebbert. Ryan based his conclusion on handwriting comparisons.

Yes you are right, my mistake thank you for clarifying that

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

For what it's worth, according to the Evening News 8th Sept;

"Macdonald held an inquest, yesterday afternoon, at the Paul's Head public-house, Spitalfields, on the body of Joseph Meckleburg"

For me, the question is at what point did Macdonald take on jurisdiction of the Kelly murder.

Was it as soon as the body was discovered (supposedly in his jurisdiction) or was it only when the body was taken to the mortuary in his jurisdiction (or at least directed to be taken to the mortuary by the coroner's officer)?

The newspapers seem to be saying (and Macdonald seems to agree) that until a decision was made about the mortuary, the issue of which coroner had jurisdiction was uncertain.

[Wickerman]

Jon, what is the basis of your belief that Phillips would have needed permission from the coroner before touching Kelly's body in her room on Friday?

What "book" are you referring to in the above post?

This question arose some years ago while debating the Tabram murder. Accusations were made that Killeen, who conducted the post-mortem was not qualified to do so. (The argument was intended to merely cast doubt on his conclusions, to enable the proposers to advance their theory).

We unearthed a few contemporary sources which explained that beyond pronouncing life extinct no medical man was permitted to conduct an examination of a body without the express permission of the coroner for that district.
The coroner held a list of competent physicians within his jurisdiction whom he knew were sufficiently qualified to conduct an examination of a body.

Typically, the police became aware of whom to bring to a crime scene who was both sufficiently qualified and had the unwritten consent to conduct an examination. Simply a means of expediting the situation but the required paperwork became a matter of formality. The coroner always provided the written authority even after the body had been moved to the morgue.

The specific titles of these sources are likely in the archives if they have survived.
When I say 'by the book', I am of course talking figuratively.

I do not doubt for a moment that Phillips held carte-blanche authority in the Whitechapel/Spitalfields districts. I just though I might throw that in, just in case there had been some uncertainty that morning that we are not aware of.

[Wickerman]

For me, the question is at what point did Macdonald take on jurisdiction of the Kelly murder.

And that!, is precisely the type of uncertainty I just referred to.

Phillips will have had automatic authority from both Baxter & Macdonald, but he still needs to know where the body is to be dispatched and to whom he must communicate with.
The press seems to indicate that permission was required, this may or may not be true.

There are official Home Office communications on this very subject. Coroners complaining about medical men attending a body without his permission, and Anderson complaining that he should not need to wait for permission from a coroner when conducting an investigation.

I think it was Swanson who mentions Bond obtaining permission from Phillips to attend a P.M., but not being aware that a coroners consent was required?

Permission seemed to be a contentious issue at the time.

[Wickerman]

Well Jon I don't know if you are doing this deliberately but you must be aware that from very the start I have been challenging your "Preliminary exam. after his entrance at 1.30 - Friday".

I am suggesting there were only two examinations.

One at 2pm, conducted in-situ, jointly by Phillips and Bond, with all the other doctors.

Then one (the post-mortem examination) on the Saturday morning.

Just two Jon.

Well, I asked because you seem to drop the arguemnt concerning Phillips when you couldn't justify his use of "subsequent" being consistently "about 30 minutes?" later.
Clearly it wasn't in the second example, so why should it be in his first example?
If you concede that "subsequent" means nothing more than "following", no specific time implied, then you have no cause to object to the press version.

At that point you seemed to shift to Dr Bond and his involvement in this case. I was wondering if you felt more confident in pursuing your argument with Bond instead of Phillips. But, I had to wonder how this same argument with Bond necessarily helps your previous argument with Phillips.

It is quite possible that Bond did record his PM notes after the Sat. morning P.M., but how does that impact whether Phillips conducted one or two examinations on Friday?, aand then by extension the press record of that day.
Bond arrived after Phillips had entered the room, according to the press. And nothing written or spoken by either doctor changes the press interpretation of events.