Double throat cuts

[David Orsam]

You failed to detail it out clearly.

I thought I was very clear. The short point is that while Dr Bond refers in his 10 November report to an "examination" at 2pm in which he discovered rigor mortis had set in, it's not entirely clear if he is talking here about the post-mortem examination as opposed to the standard in situ examination.

This is reinforced by his 16 November "report" in which he has a separate heading for "Postmortem examination" which follows the details of the in situ examination.

Rather than jump all over this Jon, just consider what I'm saying. I'm not saying it's conclusive but it is, I think, a credible argument.

[David Orsam]

Like I said before, he was able to determine the cause of death in his cursory examination, after entering the room.

He might have been able to do this but you don't know that this is what actually happened. He didn't use the expression "cursory examination" so you are simply fabricating the evidence once again.

His reply to the Coroner would have been different if the eventual post-mortem had turned up another cause.
It's just that simple.

But this doesn't help us as to whether Phillips determined the cause of death virtually as soon as he entered the room at 1.30pm or during the examination at 2pm.

[Wickerman]

Bearing in mind the meaning of the word "subsequent" I would have thought that yours is the least likely explanation. If it was only "a minute or two", there was no need to even use the word. That's why I personally concluded that the examination he was referring to was probably at 2pm.

You'll also notice he says:
"I am sure the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death...."

Ok, so she is killed at the far side of the bed, and rather than immediately pull her body towards him to begin the mutilations, you would have him wait for 30 minutes?, before he pulled her towards himself?
"Subsequent" = "about 30 minutes", right?

You'll excuse me if I disagree.

I have no idea why we are still discussing it.

(I think it's because you can't accept that I could possibly be right.)

You'll excuse me if I disagree.

[David Orsam]

You'll also notice he says:
"I am sure the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death...."

Ok, so she is killed at the far side of the bed, and rather than immediately pull her body towards him to begin the mutilations, you would have him wait for 30 minutes?, before he pulled her towards himself?
"Subsequent" = "about 30 minutes", right?

You'll excuse me if I disagree.

You can disagree - of course you can - but I'm suggesting he has to wait 30 minutes because the photographer is taking his photographs. No doubt the police officers in the room also wanted (and needed) to look at the body before they left the doctors to do their work. I just happen to think he waited until he was ready (with the other doctors) to commence the examination rather than jump in and have a snoop around.

p.s. "rather than immediately pull her body towards him to begin the mutilations" - Freudian slip I assume?

[Wickerman]

I thought I was very clear. The short point is that while Dr Bond refers in his 10 November report to an "examination" at 2pm in which he discovered rigor mortis had set in, it's not entirely clear if he is talking here about the post-mortem examination as opposed to the standard in situ examination.

I have not heard anyone else be confused by this.
The examination he is referring to is his own at 2 pm.

This is reinforced by his 16 November "report" in which he has a separate heading for "Postmortem examination" which follows the details of the in situ examination.

Rather than jump all over this Jon, just consider what I'm saying. I'm not saying it's conclusive but it is, I think, a credible argument.

It strikes me you have a habit of seeing what is not there.

Bond made a preliminary examination, then conducted his own post-mortem.
This is what Phillips did with McKenzie, first the preliminary examination, followed by his post-mortem.
You have no basis for your argument.

[Wickerman]

You can disagree - of course you can - but I'm suggesting he has to wait 30 minutes because the photographer is taking his photographs.

Don't you think you should find out how many photographs were taken inside, and how long that might take before you try to use the required time to support an argument?
And this is the same guy who is presuming to teach me something?

That aside, how long would it take for him to look closer at the wounds, and perhaps pull the bed away from the wall?
Two minutes, three?

No doubt the police officers in the room also wanted (and needed) to look at the body before they left the doctors to do their work. I just happen to think he waited until he was ready (with the other doctors) to commence the examination rather than jump in and have a snoop around.

p.s. "rather than immediately pull her body towards him to begin the mutilations" - Freudian slip I assume?

What does subsequent mean here, expressed as a time-line?
"I am sure the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death...."

You feel quite sure what "subsequent" meant in the first usage, so what about the second?

[Robert St Devil]

I think the post was saying roughly that the photographer left around 4-4:30pm when the light (and, indeed, the body) started to go. This was in a room with north facing windows in a north facing yard in November, so the light was never going to be great. But if he turned up and started snapping away at 1:30pm, that's about three hours of daylight, so roughly one photo every half hour.

i remember the neighbor saying that she looked in on the ghastly sight when she went for water, so the curtains must have been opened by then. Possibly ,more light, for the photographer?

[David Orsam]

I have not heard anyone else be confused by this.
The examination he is referring to is his own at 2 pm.

What does "anyone else" have to do with this?

Baldly stating that he is referring to the 2pm examination and the reason for this is because you say so isn't helping me at all.

Why does he insert the heading "Postmortem examination" into his "report" a quarter of the way into the "report" rather than at the top? That's the question that hasn't been answered.

[David Orsam]

It strikes me you have a habit of seeing what is not there.

Bond made a preliminary examination, then conducted his own post-mortem.
This is what Phillips did with McKenzie, first the preliminary examination, followed by his post-mortem.
You have no basis for your argument.

It strikes me that you have a habit of not being able to properly challenge any of your own assumptions.

What Phillips did with McKenzie is conduct a preliminary examination in situ and then a post-mortem at the mortuary, as reflected in his notes.

My question to you is why did Bond not do exactly the same thing? Where is the evidence to suggest he did anything different?

I appreciate that you've always believed that the report reflects the Friday examination but I'm challenging that belief and want to know the basis of it.

[David Orsam]

Don't you think you should find out how many photographs were taken inside, and how long that might take before you try to use the required time to support an argument?

Don't be silly Jon, how can I possibly do that?

That aside, how long would it take for him to look closer at the wounds, and perhaps pull the bed away from the wall?
Two minutes, three?

What I am saying is not so much that he didn't have sufficient time but that he wouldn't have done anything in a rush, bearing in mind that he had already established Kelly was dead. I'm suggesting he would have waited for the photographs to be taken, cleared the room of police and commenced a proper examination, along with the other doctors, with notes being taken, rather than just leaping in, moving things around and snooping about for a bit.

What does subsequent mean here, expressed as a time-line?
"I am sure the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death...."

You feel quite sure what "subsequent" meant in the first usage, so what about the second?

It means after the injury Jon. Not at the same time. Just like the examination was conducted after he entered the room, not at the time he entered the room.

[Wickerman]

What does "anyone else" have to do with this?

Baldly stating that he is referring to the 2pm examination and the reason for this is because you say so isn't helping me at all.

Why does he insert the heading "Postmortem examination" into his "report" a quarter of the way into the "report" rather than at the top? That's the question that hasn't been answered.

David.

Dr Bond was not conducting an official post-mortem.
What he was doing came at the behest of Anderson, and with the consent of Phillips. His was a private examination, in so far as the Coroner was concerned.
Bond was still using the correct procedure, and terminology, in beginning his report with the usual cursory examination. Then jointly with Dr Phillips, he investigated the wounds and making his own notes, as Phillips would make his own notes.
That is what I deduce from what we know. And yes some of it is derived from press reports, and other from official paperwork.

[Wickerman]

Don't be silly Jon, how can I possibly do that?

Exactly, you know you cannot, so you should not try to include it in support of your argument.
The number of photographs, and the time it might take is, inadmissible in this debate, to coin a phrase.

I'm suggesting he would have waited for the photographs to be taken, cleared the room of police and commenced a proper examination, along with the other doctors, with notes being taken, rather than just leaping in, moving things around and snooping about for a bit.

And my view is that he entered the room along with Abberline, and a few other officials at 1:30 pm.
He made a cursory examination of the room and the body. Someone in the room moved the bed so he could make a closer investigation of the throat wound and blood on the floor.
The officials then leave and allow the photographer to record the scene, under the direction of Phillips.
Meanwhile Bond arrives along with other doctors and they filter in as the photographer is ushered out, possibly leaving his equipment in place.
At 2:00 pm the doctors get to work identifying the mutilations, locating the organs, discussing what took place, and sequentially how this was done. This took almost 2 hours.

It means after the injury Jon. Not at the same time. Just like the examination was conducted after he entered the room, not at the time he entered the room.

"After" is good enough, "at the same time" was never proposed.
It is only obvious that his observation will begin as he opened the door, but those were observations of the room, not the wounds or the source of blood, and the pool of blood which would not have been visible as he opened the door. Not until the bed was moved.
His "subsequent examination" was conducted after he entered the room.
There is no need to attempt to place a time value on this as any suggested number will be the subject of criticism.

Which leaves open for you the question of whether this "subsequent" examination was really a post-mortem. Yet, by your own admission the correct procedure was for a doctor to make a visual examination prior to any post-mortem. And this "subsequent" examination was definitely visual.

As Phillips makes no mention in his "subsequent" examination of any required steps; no incisions, no organ placement, no dissection, it is simply a visual examination then there are no grounds to suggest it was a post-mortem.

[David Orsam]

Exactly, you know you cannot, so you should not try to include it in support of your argument.

I wasn't including it support of my argument. My argument is that it must have taken some time to take the photographs and that the photographs were most likely taken before anything was disturbed. I do not know how long it would have taken though.

The number of photographs, and the time it might take is, inadmissible in this debate, to coin a phrase.

I was doing no more than wondering how long it would take for a photographer to take six photographs in 1888. A perfectly legitimate question.

[David Orsam]

And my view is that he entered the room along with Abberline, and a few other officials at 1:30 pm.
He made a cursory examination of the room and the body. Someone in the room moved the bed so he could make a closer investigation of the throat wound and blood on the floor.
The officials then leave and allow the photographer to record the scene, under the direction of Phillips.
Meanwhile Bond arrives along with other doctors and they filter in as the photographer is ushered out, possibly leaving his equipment in place.
At 2:00 pm the doctors get to work identifying the mutilations, locating the organs, discussing what took place, and sequentially how this was done. This took almost 2 hours.

I understand that it is your view Jon. You are perfectly entitled to it. But what you haven't done is support it with evidence sufficient to prove it in my opinion. And the expression "cursory examination" never came out of Dr Phillips own mouth, which is what you said earlier.

[David Orsam]

Yet, by your own admission the correct procedure was for a doctor to make a visual examination prior to any post-mortem.

Sorry? When did I admit this? I never said anything of the sort. I said that the normal procedure would be for an in situ examination followed by a post-mortem examination at the mortuary. I'm asking you how we can be sure that the normal procedure was not followed on this occasion.