Double throat cuts

[Wickerman]

Sorry, where do I admit that the press report could be trusted?

And you're missing the point. I was saying no more than that we didn't need the MEPO docs that you referred me to in order to know that the doctor would always wait for authorisation from the Coroner before starting a post-mortem. That's the only point I was making in the part of my post that you quoted and that you were purporting to respond to.

Then why do you contest the press report that they waited for the required authority to conduct that P.M. at 2 pm?

[David Orsam]

This "fantasy" was quoted to you already, so no I cannot take credit for something I have not created.

"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."
Daily News, 10 Nov. 1888.

Even today post-mortems can be limited in nature for several reasons.

So where in that Daily News report does it say that the post-mortem was limited to the investigation of the removed organs? I can't see it anywhere.

[Wickerman]

But when you say "Yes, I know" in the first sentence, are you thereby agreeing that you did read the Act wrong?

I replied "yes I know" because I know what the act says.
Also, I made no argument concerned solely with "attending the body". It was the necessary experience of the medical man so engaged that I was pointing to.

[David Orsam]

This tunnel vision serves no purpose. At the very beginning I said the doctor who first attended a body is expected to announce if life is extinct, which involves touching the body.

No Jon it wasn't "at the very beginning" when you said this. At the very beginning you said that Dr Phillips wasn't allowed to touch the body without permission. It wasn't true, as I understand you have now accepted. You worded it badly. You meant to say he couldn't conduct a post-mortem without permission.

Why you keep repeating the point (tunnel vision like?) about what a doctor is normally expected to do in announcing life extinct I have no idea because it didn't apply to Dr Phillips in the case of the Kelly murder.

Post 331.
"Any doctor, even a regular MD, can attend a crime scene, if only to pronounce life extinct.
David, in order to make that determination the doctor has to touch the body to check for a pulse. I explained this in a previous post."

I literally have no idea why you have posted this again.

It's also very odd that you can't seem to accept that a doctor has to touch the body to check the temperature during an in-situ examination.

Why do you keep returning to the same topic, are you looking for a different answer?

I haven't been "returning to the same topic". I've just been replying to your evasive and somewhat incomprehensible posts.

But I think we've sorted it out now. You didn't mean to say that Dr Phillips needed permission to touch the body. So that's that.

[Wickerman]

The notion of a PM "limited to the investigation of the removed organs" is a fantasy on your part. There is no such thing in reality. Nor is there any evidence of such a PM being described or conducted.

This "fantasy" was quoted to you already, so no I cannot take credit for something I have not created.

"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."
Daily News, 10 Nov. 1888.

Even today post-mortems can be limited in nature for several reasons.

And if you look at the first three pages of Dr Bond's notes of the in situ examination (i.e. not under the heading of postmortem) you will see that the removed organs are dealt with there.

Which is quite consistent with those notes being from his first visual examination on entering the room at 2 pm, before they get down to the business of conducting a P.M., referred to above.

[Wickerman]

I didn't say it was a precise value. I said he had to touch the body to find out that it was cold. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?



That is a reference, surely, to the air temperature. I'm referring to that part of the notes of Phillips' in situ examination where he wrote:

Temp. of body
Warmth still perceptible under right cheek
Body still warm where covered. Where exposed quite cold.

How did he know there was warmth on the right cheek or under the clothing if he didn't touch those parts of the body? And how did he know the exposed parts were quite cold if he didn't touch them?



What do the standards pertaining to Post Mortem Examinations have to do with this discussion?

I'm talking about the checking of the body temperature during the in situ examination, prior to the PM.

You must surely know that. And to do that a doctor needed to touch the body, right?



I think you'll find that my objection is not mute at all and that I am plain right.

This tunnel vision serves no purpose. At the very beginning I said the doctor who first attended a body is expected to announce if life is extinct, which involves touching the body.

Post 331.
"Any doctor, even a regular MD, can attend a crime scene, if only to pronounce life extinct.
David, in order to make that determination the doctor has to touch the body to check for a pulse. I explained this in a previous post."


Why do you keep returning to the same topic, are you looking for a different answer?

[David Orsam]

Well, I think that is what I originally said, but then we became sidetracked in to discussing potential reasons's why.

Actually, no. What you said to me in #328 was:

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

But yes, long story short - that is the bottom line.

Right, thank you.

[David Orsam]

What I was pointing out was that, 'because' there is no provision for a fee (of two guineas) to be paid for your in-situ examination, the doctors would need to wait for approval.

But that doesn't make any sense at all Jon.

With there being no fee for the in-situ examination, the doctors don't need to wait for any approval to commence such an examination.

I can't work out what you are saying here.

[David Orsam]

All indications are that the press version of a P.M. conducted at 2 pm on Friday is correct.

It's simply not true to say "All indications". In fact, I can't really think of any. You rely totally on the version of events set out in the Times and Daily Chronicle.

On the other hand, there are indications that the press version of a preliminary examination conducted at 2pm on Friday is correct.

[David Orsam]

The Coroner's officer is not an independent agent,

On what basis do you say that in the context of removing the body?

And how do you explain this comment in the Evening Post on 12 November:

"When the coroner’s officer came into play he could not take the body to the same place, or he would have lost his hold upon it, so he took it to Shoreditch and kept it in Mr. Macdonald’s district."

That suggests total independence does it not?

for the Coroner's officer to show up with the transportation for the body, then the officer must have been from Shoreditch. Meaning this issue of jurisdiction was already cleared up.

I don't believe that's true, at least not if the Star is to be believed. I thought the whole point was that Dorset Street fell into the part of Middlesex (the North Eastern Division) which was Macdonald's jurisdiction. But the body could have been taken by the coroner's officer to the mortuary at Old Montague Street which would then have placed it in Baxter's jurisdiction or the Shoreditch mortuary, thus placing it in Macdonald's jurisdiction. So until the coroner's officer made a decision as to which mortuary it would go to, no-one could have known who the responsible coroner was going to be.

Anyway, you have to show that jurisdiction was cleared up prior to 2pm if you are going to make this point work.

[Joshua Rogan]

You'll notice Joshua, that this second examination was not physical but purely visual. What Llewellyn tells us is that he looked at the wound to the abdomen, seeing as how he had no idea it existed. In other words his first preliminary examination was incomplete.
Have you found any source that mentions a physical examination of the body prior to the formal P.M.?

I've not found any others, Jon, but then, truth to tell, I haven't really been looking.

Surely the reason that a coroner's permission has to be sought before a proper post mortem exam is performed, is not simply because the body is touched - I'm sure any medical exam involves a degree of touching, poking and prodding - but that it is destructive, ie that further damage is done to the body in the form of removal and biopsies of the major organs, etc.
No?

[David Orsam]

No David, you are taking that statement out of context.

The line which precedes that statement tells us that "the examination was with the consent of Dr. Phillips". Naturally because he has been given custody of the body on behalf of the Coroner. Therefore, no need to disturb the Coroner over this issue.

Once again you are reading things into a document that are not there. Swanson doesn't say that the fact that Phillips gave consent meant that the coroner's consent was not necessary. That's an inference on your part but it is not stated.

On the contrary, Swanson is saying that there is nothing in the reports which shows that the Coroner's consent was necessary.

Which only serves to demonstrate how confused the different levels of officials were on this issue of consent.

Not at all. It only goes to show that you are reading the document wrong.

Just a footnote on this point.
Dr. Bond appeared twice, once on Friday, once on Saturday.
We cannot know which appearance Swanson is referring to, though I suspect the Saturday appearance, as that makes more sense.

I find it very amusing that you say this. But I disagree. He must be talking about the whole of Bond's involvement.

Bond did not appear in a capacity of medical witness. It was purely at the behest of Anderson to obtain evidence for the police to better understand the skill level of the killer.

I know that. And that is why it wasn't a very good example to meet the objection raised by the Coroner in respect of the Poplar murder but the Commissioner (who obviously wasn't on top of the details) had asked "What was done in the Whitechapel case...?" and Swanson, therefore, had to deal with it.

[David Orsam]

You are now introducing a reason for the delay. I never took issue with a reason, yes of course he isn't going to get paid, but the issue was a question of whether the press report could be trusted.
You have just admitted it could. This is consistent with the press mentioning the doctors having to wait.

Sorry, where do I admit that the press report could be trusted?

And you're missing the point. I was saying no more than that we didn't need the MEPO docs that you referred me to in order to know that the doctor would always wait for authorisation from the Coroner before starting a post-mortem. That's the only point I was making in the part of my post that you quoted and that you were purporting to respond to.

[David Orsam]

Yes, I know. There are two issues contained within that clause.
It is a shame no definition for what constitutes "legally qualified" is provided in this context, but a regular MD can attend the victim, but he may not have the knowledge to be able to ascertain the cause of death. That only stands to reason.
So, we can assume "legally qualified" means the medical man summoned by the Coroner will have the experience to answer all relevant questions.
That is the issue I was drawing attention to.

That part of your post does not appear to respond to the part of my post that you have quoted and were purporting to reply to.

I said:

"No, you are reading that wrong. The summons referred to in S.21(1) is to attend at the inquest. It doesn't say "to attend the body". S.21(2) gives the Coroner the right to direct the medical witness to conduct a post-mortem."

Your response is dealing with the issue of what it means to be legally qualified. A different point entirely.

But when you say "Yes, I know" in the first sentence, are you thereby agreeing that you did read the Act wrong?

[David Orsam]

I would say waiting for the OK from the Coroner is reason enough.
Phillips even noted that he awaited "instructions from Coroner to make a P.M." in his notes on McKenzie.

Yes I know. He awaited instructions to make a PM. Not to touch the body. He'd already touched the body to check the body temperature.

With the Millers Court Murder being so special, it would call for extraordinary measures, and the usual visual (being a preliminary) examination was not sufficient before dispatching the body to a mortuary.
It is therefore justifiable for Phillips to send word to the Coroner for permission to conduct a P.M. on the spot limited to the investigation of removed organs and the gathering together of those organs pursuant to a Coroner's P.M. the following day.

The notion of a PM "limited to the investigation of the removed organs" is a fantasy on your part. There is no such thing in reality. Nor is there any evidence of such a PM being described or conducted.

And if you look at the first three pages of Dr Bond's notes of the in situ examination (i.e. not under the heading of postmortem) you will see that the removed organs are dealt with there.