Double throat cuts

[Wickerman]

Which were not convincing or supported by sources as I recall.



I'm talking about a formal post-mortem examination Jon. The one you told me that there are "strict guidelines" for. And you can forget who the PM is carried out for. I'm only interested in what the examination actually consisted of. The notes of Dr Bond under the heading "Postmortem Examination" read remarkably like a formal post-mortem examination to me. How do they read to you?

And if Dr Bond conducted a formal post-mortem examination on the Friday, why would Dr Phillips repeat that same examination on the Saturday?

It surely makes no sense. I could understand it if the first PM was being challenged or someone wanted a second opinion or something like that. But simply repeating two identical PMs on two consecutive days is very odd.

Now you have confused me.

How does this report figure into your view of events?

As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/times/18881112.html

[Wickerman]

Quite possibly this just adds the cherry to your cake.

Shortly after four o'clock yesterday a covered van was driven to Miller's-court, and in a few minutes the remains were placed in a shell and quietly removed to the mortuary adjoining Shoreditch Church to await the inquest, at the Shoreditch Town Hall, on Monday.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_telegraph/dt881110.html

From what you've laid out it can be accepted that Dr. Bond was involved in an examination on Friday, and appeared at the Coroner's PM on Saturday.

That, provisionally established, how does this impact the role of Dr. Phillips, and the sequence of events as attributed to him on Friday?

[David Orsam]

Not at all, for the reason's I gave elsewhere.

Which were not convincing or supported by sources as I recall.

As I pointed out at the very beginning, any physical examination of a body is a post-mortem. But the only P.M. conducted according to strict guidelines is the one for the Coroner.
There is no duplication.

I'm talking about a formal post-mortem examination Jon. The one you told me that there are "strict guidelines" for. And you can forget who the PM is carried out for. I'm only interested in what the examination actually consisted of. The notes of Dr Bond under the heading "Postmortem Examination" read remarkably like a formal post-mortem examination to me. How do they read to you?

And if Dr Bond conducted a formal post-mortem examination on the Friday, why would Dr Phillips repeat that same examination on the Saturday?

It surely makes no sense. I could understand it if the first PM was being challenged or someone wanted a second opinion or something like that. But simply repeating two identical PMs on two consecutive days is very odd.

[David Orsam]

Also, I'm not saying two doctors "cannot" conduct a P.M., obviously as there were approx. six doctors in the room at 2 pm on Friday.

I'm pointing out that the formal postmortem procedure is a sequential examination. One that follows strict guidelines.
He begins with an external examination, from head to foot. Then opens the head to examine the brain, etc., after which he opens the thorax to investigate the lungs, heart, etc. Finally the abdomen, the organs of which again are examined in a particular order.
This procedure is not suited for two people to do separate examinations on the same body, at the same time.

Well on the one hand you seem to accept that two doctors can conduct a PM, on the other hand you seem to be saying they can't!

This is from the British Medical Journal of 1910:

"There is nothing to prevent a coroner from directing two registered practitioners to make a post-mortem examination jointly, and in that case each would be entitled to the same fee, namely two guineas..."

Here is a reference to an actual joint examination on the body of the murdered James Dalziel, carried out in Glasgow in 1924, in a book by Andrew Davis called "City of Gangs":

"Dr John Anderson and Dr Andrew Allison, who jointly conducted the post-mortem examination at the Victoria infirmary...."

Reference to a joint post-mortem carried out on the murder of a baby in Leeds in 2015:

"Death of a 14-week-old girl in March 2012. Post-mortem examination jointly conducted by two pathologists resulted in the recording of two different probable causes of death"

http://www.oscb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Serious-Case-Reviews.pdf

You haven't got a leg to stand on Jon.

[David Orsam]

No David, this is where you are doing what you accuse me of - filling words in to suit your argument.

No I'm not.

The first three pages make no mention of an examination, and rightly so, because there is no examination involved in surveying the scene.

So the first three pages make "no mention" of an examination do they?

Well a copy of the first page is reproduced below (for the second time in this thread) and the very first words at the top of the page are "Notes of Examination of body of woman..."

How does that equate to "no mention" of an examination?

Those notes are, as recorded, just describing the position of the body.
That...is not an examination.

Firstly, those notes are not "just describing the position of the body". They set out where the various organs were located. Precisely what the Daily News report said the doctors were doing that afternoon.

Secondly, if it is not an examination why are the notes entitled "Notes of Examination"?

[Wickerman]

I don't even understand the logic behind that conclusion. The telephone message says that he was conducting an "examination" (not post-mortem examination). The first three pages of his notes refer to an "examination" (not a post-mortem examination).

No David, this is where you are doing what you accuse me of - filling words in to suit your argument.

The first three pages make no mention of an examination, and rightly so, because there is no examination involved in surveying the scene.
Those notes are, as recorded, just describing the position of the body.
That...is not an examination.

Also, I'm not saying two doctors "cannot" conduct a P.M., obviously as there were approx. six doctors in the room at 2 pm on Friday.

I'm pointing out that the formal postmortem procedure is a sequential examination. One that follows strict guidelines.
He begins with an external examination, from head to foot. Then opens the head to examine the brain, etc., after which he opens the thorax to investigate the lungs, heart, etc. Finally the abdomen, the organs of which again are examined in a particular order.
This procedure is not suited for two people to do separate examinations on the same body, at the same time.

Further, it seems very unusual for there to be TWO post-mortems whereby the first would inevitably duplicate the work of the second.

Not at all, for the reason's I gave elsewhere.
As I pointed out at the very beginning, any physical examination of a body is a post-mortem. But the only P.M. conducted according to strict guidelines is the one for the Coroner.
There is no duplication.

[David Orsam]

In part because what is being described is not the whole scope of a conventional P.M., and that will take place the next day.

But Jon you are doing this thing again where you fill in gaps and make something read what you want it to read.

It is only in hindsight that you can say that it is being described that the "conventional P.M...will take place the next day". You don't get a inkling of that from the Daily News which says that post mortem examination "was held". And then all it says is that the surgeons did not finish the post-mortem examination until every organ was accounted for. It doesn't say that accounting for every organ was the purpose of the post-mortem examination.

Further, I note that the Daily News of the same date also says:

"the door was broken open and a closer examination of the body was made. Dr. Phillips had by this time been joined by other medical gentlemen, including Dr. Dukes and Dr. Bond, of Westminster Hospital."

Dr Bond didn't arrive until 2pm. So that's another one chalked up for me!

[David Orsam]

I have posted it precisely because you cannot seem to read that I knew pages ago that a doctor will touch the body to pronounce life extinct.
Now, are you going to accuse me again of not accepting it!

You have misunderstood entirely.

Let me set out how the discussion between us hypothetically would/could have gone:

Jon: Dr Phillips could only look but not touch the body without permission of the coroner.

David: But he had to touch the body to pronounce life extinct!

Jon: No, you dumbass, he had already pronounced life extinct when looking through the window.

So do you see why I referred instead to Phillips having to check the temperature of the body?

And, as far as I could tell, until you conceded that your original "look but not touch" was badly worded and referred to the PM, it seemed that you had modified your argument slightly from "Dr Phillips could look but not touch" to "Dr Phillips could look but not touch, apart from to pronounce life extinct".

I wasn't accepting the modified argument either. Bizarrely, even to this very moment you still haven't expressly accepted that Dr Phillips could touch the body to check the body temperature (in fact, in one post, you positively disputed that he could do so).

From that I conclude that you are not very willing to accept when you are wrong, which is a shame.

p.s. I'm sure you wouldn't really have called me a "dumbass".

Moving on then?

Yes, please.

[David Orsam]

Well, there are several. Which include the phone message on 9.11.88, which indicated Bond was "engaged in making his examination".

No, that's no good because it works for me too. I agree that there was an examination conducted at 2pm but not a PM examination. It was, I am suggesting, a preliminary in situ examination. So the telephone message is consistent with that. And you will note that the telephone message does NOT say that Bond was engaged in making a Post Mortem examination. The fact that Bond didn't write his report on 9 November, despite the apparent urgency, indicates that his PM had not, in fact, been conducted at that stage.

Your best point, if you don't mind me saying so, is that Bond refers in his 10 November report to the fact that HE had made a Post Mortem Examination (as opposed to him and Phillips doing it jointly). I regard that as probably being loose wording on his part but it's nevertheless the only real point I see that supports your newspaper articles.

The first three pages of notes are not entitled "examination", just "position of body", because that was not his examination.

It is the last four pages which are entitled "Postmortem Examination", which is what Bond was doing on that Friday. The phone message confirms that.

I don't even understand the logic behind that conclusion. The telephone message says that he was conducting an "examination" (not post-mortem examination). The first three pages of his notes refer to an "examination" (not a post-mortem examination). So how the telephone message "confirms" that Bond was conducting a "Postmortem Examination" on the Friday I have no idea.

A formal post-mortem for the inquest is a very methodical and sequential examination. Two people do not investigate the body in parallel as there is good reason to complete one investigation before commencing on another. Bond would only be an observer.

I disagree that two people cannot conduct a post-mortem. Further, it seems very unusual for there to be TWO post-mortems whereby the first would inevitably duplicate the work of the second. Aside from the mutilations, I don't suppose Phillips had ever been in a situation where he was conducting a PM examination on a body which had already been opened up for a PM examination the previous day.

[Wickerman]

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.

In part because what is being described is not the whole scope of a conventional P.M., and that will take place the next day.

[Wickerman]

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.

I have posted it precisely because you cannot seem to read that I knew pages ago that a doctor will touch the body to pronounce life extinct.
Now, are you going to accuse me again of not accepting it!

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.

Moving on then?

[David Orsam]

What does "same place" refer to?

It's referring to Old Montague Street, where the body of Nichols was taken.

The full extract can be found in my #262 in this thread.

On the contrary, a Coroner's officer works for a Coroner, not any Coroner, or he would be a Coroner's officer.

If you are suggesting the position is an independent one then perhaps you need to demonstrate that.

Yes, I'm perfectly aware of what you say and wasn't suggesting that a coroner's officer works for any coroner. The demonstration I gave was the quote from the Evening Post which suggests that it was the coroner's officer who decided where the body was taken, not the coroner.

We find exactly the same thing in the Star of 10 November:

"If he [the coroner's officer] had taken it to Old Montague-street, it would have gone from his control, so he took it to Shoreditch, which is within his district."

The suggestion there again is that the coroner's officer kept the body in his district, and that it was his decision to do so.

[Wickerman]

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.

Perhaps if you drop this "in-situ examination" you will be able to follow me more clearly.

I had suggested that they were waiting for permission to conduct the P.M., not waiting to conduct any preliminary/visual/cursory examination.
Both Phillips, & when he arrived Bond, were able to do that by themselves.

You might be better able to follow me if we adopted the same terminology.

From my perspective my "Preliminary/visual/Cursory examination" is the same as your "in-situ examination".
The reason being a P.M. is not "normally" conducted at a crime scene.

I 'think', that after Phillips looked through the window he knew this case would be different, so he may have sent word to the Coroner for permission to conduct a P.M. limited to the location and replacement of the organs in order to better facilitate a P.M. for the inquest, knowing he could not do that in this room.
In order to have the Coroner's P.M. run as smoothly as possible it is necessary to have the body complete, so any investigation of potentially missing parts needs to be done today (Friday).

When Phillips entered the room at 1:30 he surveyed the scene, then made a visual examination, he may have had the bed moved, but he was able to draw certain conclusions from that visual exam.

Next, the photographer was permitted to enter.

At some point prior to 2 pm, Dr Bond arrived and entered, his initial observations are noted down under the heading "Position of Body".

Approx 5-6 other doctors arrived and entered the room and at 2 pm this limited P.M. commenced.
The details of which are noted by Bond under the heading "Postmortem examination".
(Note: if you think those notes were actually the result of the Coroners P.M. on Sat. morning - fine, I have no problem with that. However, that does not mean what took place at 2 pm Friday was not a post-mortem)

Limited P.M's are conducted today all the time, it is quite conventional.

[Wickerman]

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.

Well, there are several. Which include the phone message on 9.11.88, which indicated Bond was "engaged in making his examination".
The first three pages of notes are not entitled "examination", just "position of body", because that was not his examination.

It is the last four pages which are entitled "Postmortem Examination", which is what Bond was doing on that Friday. The phone message confirms that.

A formal post-mortem for the inquest is a very methodical and sequential examination. Two people do not investigate the body in parallel as there is good reason to complete one investigation before commencing on another. Bond would only be an observer.

[Wickerman]

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."

What does "same place" refer to?

That suggests total independence does it not?

On the contrary, a Coroner's officer works for a Coroner, not any Coroner, or he would be a Coroner's officer.

If you are suggesting the position is an independent one then perhaps you need to demonstrate that.