Double throat cuts

[David Orsam]

I don't see how that fact supports any theory.
Hebbert made the notes, according to some who analyzed the handwriting, he used a pocket book presumably.
In what way does it support one theory as opposed to another?

Well let's recap the discussion.

When I pointed out that Bond's notes were split into two - an in-situ examination and a post-mortem examination - you told me that this was perfectly normal and I should look at Dr Phillips' report in the McKenzie case.

But the Phillips report in the McKenzie case is broken down into an in-situ examination and a post-mortem examination in the mortuary.

When I asked you why this was not the case for the Kelly murder you suddenly changed your mind and told me that the Kelly murder was not normal so it will all be different!

My point is that the fact that the notes of Bond's post-mortem examination start on a new page is consistent with it being a different examination conducted at a different time and place.

[Wickerman]

What do you mean by "Bond did not conduct his own separate post-mortem"?

Because you seemed to suggest Bond conducting a P.M. first, then Phillips doing a second P.M. on the same day - Friday.
My reply was to suggest what took place occurred in parallel not sequentially, because both were informal.

How do you interpret the sentence in his 10 November report which states: "I have also made a Post Mortem Examination of the mutilated remains..."?

He is referring back to his examination of the previous day.
How likely is it that two surgeons would conduct their own post-mortems, in parallel, which are totally different in nature.
Phillips is conducting a P.M. for the coroner, while Bond is doing no more than investigating the skill exhibited in the mutilations. One is formal, the other informal.

And why do you now refer to a "Coroners post-mortem"? What other kind of post-mortem is there?

Various kinds, even today a hospital can conduct a post-mortem limited to a cause if by the effect of disease on the death of the victim.
P.M.'s can be conducted for a number of limited reasons, but are not subject to specific requirements, a Coroners P.M. is expected to meet very specific requirements.

[David Orsam]

I think the main difference between both our views is that while I am attempting to blend what we know from inquest testimony, Dr Bonds notes & the various press articles, you seem to want to stick with what the doctors said & wrote, while challenging the press coverage.
Maybe I'm wrong but it does seem that way to me.

Well of course you are wrong. I am also "blending" from inquest testimony and Dr Bond's notes and, indeed, all the available evidence.

As for press articles, well they don't all support you Jon.

Take the Morning Advertiser of 10 November (which you previously quoted):

"Dr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of police, soon arrived, and was followed by Dr. Bond, of Westminster, divisional surgeon of the A division, Dr. J. R. Gabe, of Mecklenburgh-square, and two or three other surgeons. They made a preliminary examination of the body..."

That is EXACTLY what I am saying occurred.

[David Orsam]

While Dr Bond's notes entitled Post Mortem Examination 'could' have been a record of what took place on Saturday, I seriously doubt it. On Saturday Phillips is in charge of the Coroners post-mortem for the inquest. I very much doubt any other doctor present would be allowed to conduct his own post-mortem in parallel. My view is that they were present as observers.

Well, you see, equally, I very much doubt that any other doctor would be allowed to conduct his own post-mortem in the room on the Friday, in duplication of a post-mortem that was going to take place the next day. That's why I'm thinking that the post-mortem on the Saturday was jointly conducted by Phillips and Bond.

[David Orsam]

I have two questions.
As you mentioned the last page of Bond's first examination, is on the first three pages.
Do those notes end in the middle of the page, or at the end?
Likewise, with the last page of the next four, for the P.M.
Do the notes end in the middle of the page, or at the end.

I ask to be sure there is no reason to believe pages are missing for each group of notes.

Okay this is page 1.

[David Orsam]

This is page 3.

There are four unused lines at the foot of the page.

[David Orsam]

This is page 4.

[Wickerman]

Are you referring to this story in the Daily Chronicle of 10 November:

"Half an hour later he [Phillips] was joined by Dr. Bond, the Chief Surgeon of the Metropolitan Police, and together they commenced a post-mortem examination on the spot as soon as the requisite authority had been obtained.”

Please tell me. If Phillips (and Bond) had obtained the requisite authority from the coroner to conduct a joint post-mortem examination in the room, why did Phillips need to conduct a second post-mortem examination in the mortuary?

Permission to examine the body must be obtained from the Coroner who holds jurisdiction on that body.
This has nothing to do with the formal P.M. required for the inquest, which will be the purview of Dr Phillips.

There is another point.
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.

[David Orsam]

Right, he does not say "cursory"

Thank you.

he described a "cursory" examination

I disagree. The fact is that he doesn't describe ANY form of examination. All he does is tell the coroner and the jury what the immediate cause of death was - something he concluded from his examination (which he does not describe in any way other than to use the word "subsequent").

[David Orsam]

Because you seemed to suggest Bond conducting a P.M. first, then Phillips doing a second P.M. on the same day - Friday.

No, absolutely not. I've never suggested that. I'm saying that (it's possible that) Bond conducted a preliminary, or in-situ, examination on the Friday and the post-mortem was conducted on the Saturday (in accordance with normal procedure).

[David Orsam]

He is referring back to his examination of the previous day.
How likely is it that two surgeons would conduct their own post-mortems, in parallel, which are totally different in nature.
Phillips is conducting a P.M. for the coroner, while Bond is doing no more than investigating the skill exhibited in the mutilations. One is formal, the other informal.

So, to be clear, you are saying that Bond did NOT conduct a post-mortem examination?

Just investigating the mutilations.

Why did he note the contents of the stomach?

[David Orsam]

Permission to examine the body must be obtained from the Coroner who holds jurisdiction on that body.

But we're getting nowhere. If Bond just got permission to examine the body in-situ, as reflected by the first three pages of his notes, then those three pages might tell us what kind of examination Bond was carrying out on the Friday. Might they not?

[David Orsam]

There is another point.
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?

Except that Phillips did not describe a visual examination.

[Joshua Rogan]

Permission to examine the body must be obtained from the Coroner who holds jurisdiction on that body.
This has nothing to do with the formal P.M. required for the inquest, which will be the purview of Dr Phillips.

There is another point.
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.

Spitalfields was in Coroner Baxter's district, wasn't it? The body only came under McDonald's jurisdiction once it was moved to Shoreditch mortuary.

[Wickerman]

No, absolutely not. I've never suggested that. I'm saying that (it's possible that) Bond conducted a preliminary, or in-situ, examination on the Friday and the post-mortem was conducted on the Saturday (in accordance with normal procedure).

This is what you wrote on post 226.

"What I deduce is that it would be rather odd for Bond to carry out one post-mortem examination and for Phillips to then replicate his work with a second (identical?) post-mortem examination."

Which suggests two separate P.M.'s in sequence.
You then continue to mention a third, on Saturday morning.

"But if that did happen, why did Bond attend at Phillips's post-mortem examination in the mortuary? Having done what was asked of him on Friday, why did he not scoot back off to Westminster to write his report that same evening?"

If that is not what you meant, then surely you can see why I read it that way.