Double throat cuts

[David Orsam]

I was offering that caveat for two reason's.
First, I suspect that Bond was sent to Millers Court on Friday by Anderson, not invited by Phillips, who may not have known of Bond's private assignment.
Second, at the Coroner's P.M. on Saturday, Phillips should be the sole surgeon conducting the P.M. for the inquest. Brown & Bond being present as observers only.
Can't be certain on either count, but that is the reason.

Well my thinking is that if the coroner's consent for Bond's examination was asked for in respect of the Friday exam it would be somewhat obtuse of Swanson to report to his superiors that the coroner's consent was NOT asked for but he only meant on the Saturday.

[Wickerman]

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

I was offering that caveat for two reason's.
First, I suspect that Bond was sent to Millers Court on Friday by Anderson, not invited by Phillips, who may not have known of Bond's private assignment.
Second, at the Coroner's P.M. on Saturday, Phillips should be the sole surgeon conducting the P.M. for the inquest. Brown & Bond being present as observers only.
Can't be certain on either count, but that is the reason.

[David Orsam]

You must have missed my post 331, where I made that very argument.

"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.
That, though, is the extent of his contact with the body unless....he is authorized by the Coroner to examine the body, or touch any other part of the body which might compromise evidence."
http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=331

I disagree with both of you. The law would assume that a lawfully qualified doctor making a post-mortem examination would do so with requisite care and would not compromise any evidence. And when a coroner gives permission for a PM he's never in any kind of position to check that evidence might be compromised in a particular case.

No, I believe the reason that permission is supposed to be sought is to ensure that the ratepayers (via the coroner) don't end up paying doctors' fees for PMs which don't need to be conducted.

That's why the doctor doesn't get paid if he conducts a PM without permission.

[Wickerman]

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?

You must have missed my post 331, where I made that very argument.

"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.
That, though, is the extent of his contact with the body unless....he is authorized by the Coroner to examine the body, or touch any other part of the body which might compromise evidence."

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=422695&postcount=331

[David Orsam]

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

I'll just paste it in again shall I:

"Firstly because Swanson states in respect of Dr Bond's examination that the Coroner's consent "was not asked for or necessary". Secondly because the coroner was hardly likely to direct that two PMs be conducted. Thirdly, although not entirely conclusive, we may add that the coroner didn't become involved until jurisdiction was fixed which didn't happen until the coroner's officer decided which mortuary to take the body to. You've mentioned that the coroner's officer turned up at 4pm so it seems unlikely to me that anyone knew which coroner to ask at 2pm. And of course I don't accept that PM was conducted on the Friday so no consent from a coroner was needed for the (in situ) examination that was conducted."

[David Orsam]

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.

But it's also consistent with the notes being his entire examination in the room between 2pm and 4pm before getting down to the business of conducting a PM in the mortuary.

Because, after all, that's what would normally happen. It's the standard procedure. So chances are that's what happened on this occasion as well.

[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.