Double throat cuts

[David Orsam]

However, this is what Dr. Brownfield wrote to Chief surgeon M'Kellar.

My Dear sir.
I have to inform you with regard to the case my lett. that I received the Coroner's order overnight and made PM examination at 9 o'clock following morning...."

Which demonstrates the authority being granted, by and to whom.

But that's authority for the PM. I'm not asking about that. I'm asking about the in situ examination (because that's what you said Phillips might have needed permission to do if he was playing it "by the book").

Anderson complained to Monro that "this issue may arise again at any moment, and I submit it to you for prompt and definite solution".
So, as I said, it was a contentious issue not fully understood at various levels of authority.

No, Jon, they perfectly understood the normal situation with regard to surgeons carrying out examinations. What they didn't fully understand was what happened if you wanted a second opinion.

[David Orsam]

The issue is not what the word means in any dictionary, but what did Phillips mean by using the word.

Yes and he never at any time used it to mean "immediately"!!!

[Wickerman]

Of course it's different Jon. It raises an issue about whether two sets of fees need to paid to the two doctors involved for one thing (something that is mentioned in the correspondence).

You are referring to one communication concerning fees. This was not Anderson's point, he was trying to clear up who has overall authority, the Coroner or the police.

[David Orsam]

You are referring to one communication concerning fees. This was not Anderson's point, he was trying to clear up who has overall authority, the Coroner or the police.

Yes, but only in the context of the coroner's complaint that the police were "sending down doctor after doctor without his sanction".

No-one was investigating the situation with regard to the normal course of events where a doctor examined the body after a murder and reported to the coroner. Everyone knew the rules there.

It was only where the police interfered with the normal course and asked for another doctor to become involved. THEN and only then was there an unresolved issue as to whether the police had the right to do it without the coroner's approval.

The coroner was responsible for fees (where doctors gave evidence at his inquest) which is why that was an important sub issue.

[Wickerman]

Yes and he never at any time used it to mean "immediately"!!!

Of course not, silly me, why would the killer pull the body towards him on the bed to continue the mutilations after just slicing her throat.
Lets put the kettle on first.....
good grief...

[David Orsam]

Of course not, silly me, why would the killer pull the body towards him on the bed to continue the mutilations after just slicing her throat.
Lets put the kettle on first.....
good grief...

Or start the fire and melt the spout of the kettle?

Who knows? How can the doctor possibly say?

As usual, you are reading things into someone's testimony which isn't there. The doctor doesn't say "the killer pulled the body towards him on the bed to continue the mutilations" does he? Nor does he say this happened immediately after the cutting of the throat.

The whole point is that Phillips is not giving a time frame otherwise he would have said: "I am sure the body was removed from one side of the bed to the other immediately after the throat was cut". But he doesn't say it so you mustn't infer it.

This is how the Daily Telegraph reported the doctor's evidence:

"Deceased had only an under-linen garment upon her, and by subsequent examination I am sure the body had been removed, after the injury which caused death from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition previously mentioned".

After Jon, not immediately after.

[Wickerman]

The coroner was responsible for fees (where doctors gave evidence at his inquest) which is why that was an important sub issue.

The coroner is responsible for the fees of all witnesses whom he calls to appear at the inquest.
If he doesn't call the doctor, then he pays no fee. So no, that is not the concern, the coroner is entirely in control of his fees.

As spelled out in one of those communications:
"the Coroner's strictures (restriction) upon the action of the Police in sending down doctor after doctor without his sanction.........and asks for authoritative decision as to the claim of the Coroner to control the action of Police".

This is a question of who's in charge here, and Anderson didn't like it.

[David Orsam]

The coroner is responsible for the fees of all witnesses whom he calls to appear at the inquest.
If he doesn't call the doctor, then he pays no fee. So no, that is not the concern, the coroner is entirely in control of his fees.

No, he's not in reality Jon. You are missing the point entirely. The coroner gets placed in an impossible position if multiple doctors examine the body and come to different conclusions. It throws his inquest into confusion. That is precisely what happened in the case of Rose Millett.

The coroner had to call Dr Brownfield (and his assistant Harris) AND Dr Bond to his inquest.

Here is what Baxter said at the inquest as reported in the Times:

"After Dr. Brownfield and his assistant, duly qualified men, came to the conclusion that this was a case of homicidal strangulation, some one had a suspicion that that evidence was not satisfactory. At all events, they heard that doctor after doctor went down to view the body without his knowledge or sanction as coroner. He did not wish to make that a personal matter, but he had never received such treatment before. Of the five doctors who saw the body, Dr. Bond was the only one who considered the case was not one of murder."

Again, in "the Rainham Mystery":

"Mr Bond gave evidence but it was at the instigation of the Police and the Coroner was not consulted. I believe the Coroner paid Mr Bond his fee for attending the inquest but his bill for everything else was sent to Assistant Commissioner who referred it to Receiver for payment".

It's nowhere near as simple an issue as you like to make it out to be.

[David Orsam]

As spelled out in one of those communications:
"the Coroner's strictures (restriction) upon the action of the Police in sending down doctor after doctor without his sanction.........and asks for authoritative decision as to the claim of the Coroner to control the action of Police".

This is a question of who's in charge here, and Anderson didn't like it.

Only in cases where multiple doctors were sent (by the police) to examine bodies. It didn't go any further than that.

[Wickerman]

But that's authority for the PM. I'm not asking about that. I'm asking about the in situ examination (because that's what you said Phillips might have needed permission to do if he was playing it "by the book").

How soon you forget.

To quote the press source again:
"...together they commenced a post-mortem on the spot as soon as the requisite authority had been obtained".

The question arose out of the use of the term "post-mortem" for this examination at 2 pm on Friday.
No-one has suggested they needed permission to make a preliminary/visual/cursory examination.

[Wickerman]

"Mr Bond gave evidence but it was at the instigation of the Police and the Coroner was not consulted. I believe the Coroner paid Mr Bond his fee for attending the inquest but his bill for everything else was sent to Assistant Commissioner who referred it to Receiver for payment".

It's nowhere near as simple an issue as you like to make it out to be.

Yes, Swanson is pointing out that regardless of the fact Bond was not called by the Coroner, therefore not obligated to pay any fee, he still did so.
He was not compelled to pay Bond the fee as Bond appeared at the behest of the police, so any cost was theirs, not the Coroners.

However, Anderson puts this in perspective.

(Bond took it upon himself to conduct a second P.M.)
"This is the basis of the Coroner's complaint that "the Asistant Comr. sent down Doctor after Doctor without his sanction"; and this claim on the part of the Coroner to control the action of the police in cases of supposed homicide raises a question of such great practical importance that I think an authoritative decision upon it should be obtained.
No one is more ready than I am to spare the susceptibilities (or even to humour the vanity) of any official, but my estimate of the position and duty of the Commissioner of Police is wholly inconsistent with the idea that he must obtain the sanction of the Coroner before taking steps imperatively necessary for the investigation of a crime."

This is a power struggle, pure and simple, nothing more.

[David Orsam]

How soon you forget.

To quote the press source again:
"...together they commenced a post-mortem on the spot as soon as the requisite authority had been obtained".

The question arose out of the use of the term "post-mortem" for this examination at 2 pm on Friday.
No-one has suggested they needed permission to make a preliminary/visual/cursory examination.

This conversation gets more surreal every post you make Jon.

I have just asked you about the position regarding in situ examinations.

And you certainly did suggest that a doctor needed permission to make an in situ examination.

Have you really forgotten what you said in #248:

"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."

That's the very post I quoted from you in my #291 to start off this chain of discussion when I asked you what you meant by "the book". I even worded my question very deliberately as follows:

"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?"

You gave me a long answer in #298 but did not dispute the premise of my post. And a doctor can't make a proper in-situ examination without touching the body, can he? I mean, at the very least he has to check the body temperature. So I have no idea why you object to my statement: "I'm asking about the in situ examination (because that's what you said Phillips might have needed permission to do if he was playing it "by the book")."

That's why I can hardly believe my eyes now.

[Wickerman]

This conversation gets more surreal every post you make Jon.

I have just asked you about the position regarding in situ examinations.

And you certainly did suggest that a doctor needed permission to make an in situ examination.

Have you really forgotten what you said in #248:

"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."

That's the very post I quoted from you in my #291 to start off this chain of discussion when I asked you what you meant by "the book". I even worded my question very deliberately as follows:

"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?"

You gave me a long answer in #298 but did not dispute the premise of my post. And a doctor can't make a proper in-situ examination without touching the body, can he? I mean, at the very least he has to check the body temperature. So I have no idea why you object to my statement: "I'm asking about the in situ examination (because that's what you said Phillips might have needed permission to do if he was playing it "by the book")."

That's why I can hardly believe my eyes now.

Everything there is perfectly correct, you are just reading it wrong.

I wrote the Doctor made a visual examination BECAUSE he MAY have had to wait for permission to TOUCH the body - that means conduct that P.M. at 2 o'clock.
That is exactly what this says below:

"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?

And from the MEPO files we have been debating it looks like the Doctor did need permission to conduct a P.M.

[David Orsam]

I wrote the Doctor made a visual examination BECAUSE he MAY have had to wait for permission to TOUCH the body - that means conduct that P.M. at 2 o'clock.

Talk about reading things wrong Jon! Did you even read my post that you have just replied to.

I said:

"And a doctor can't make a proper in-situ examination without touching the body, can he? I mean, at the very least he has to check the body temperature."

That's in response to you saying: "without that he can only look, but not touch?"

Okay if you expressed yourself badly - and meant to refer to a post-mortem examination when you said "look but not touch" - then just say so but please don't accuse me of reading anything wrong when I'm not.

[David Orsam]

And from the MEPO files we have been debating it looks like the Doctor did need permission to conduct a P.M.

The surreal nature of your posts continues. The fact that a doctor conducts a PM under the authority of (or with the permission of) the coroner has absolutely nothing to do with the MEPO files we have been debating which are all about what happens when the police ask for a second opinion.