Double throat cuts

[Wickerman]

David, there is no point in you claiming the glass is half full, if I am claiming it is half empty.

The difference above is you do not accept that when a doctor makes a cursory, meaning visual, examination it is not a "preliminary" examination. Yet we both know what "preliminary" means.

If any doctor accesses the situation of a corpse and the circumstances of the crime at a crime scene it is an examination, like it or not.

Of course he had taken into account the results of the full post-mortem, that was never in dispute. The issue was that he was able to determine the cause on his "subsequent" in his words, or "preliminary", in the words of the press, examination after he entered the room.
He is telling the court his first impressions were correct.

[David Orsam]

David, seriously, the man actually tells the court which details led him to that conclusion.

".....the large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the paliasse, pillow, sheet, at that top corner nearest the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery which was the immediate cause of her death was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head & neck in the top right hand corner."

Yes I can read Jon but there is nothing in that passage that says this was a "cursory" or "preliminary" examination which are the two words you used.

If you had said Phillips "immediately" worked out the cause of death then that would be reasonable, but there is nothing to indicate it was during a cursory or preliminary examination unless you want to argue that the entire examination up to 4pm was a cursory or preliminary one. Do you?

There is nothing to misunderstand there. He doesn't need to cut her open.

Well he needs to complete his examination before he can confirm his initial opinion as to cause of death doesn't he?

I understand your reluctance to have Phillips arrive at that conclusion so early that afternoon, you want him to be unsure until the very end - close to 4:00 pm.

I don't "want" anything Jon. But it seems obvious to me that he is only going to give an opinion at the inquest based on his entire examination of the body.

Have you ever driven into a garage and told a mechanic the troubles you are having with the car?
You give him the symptoms and immediately he can tell you what is wrong.
Professionals do not always need to dissect the subject, sometimes experience tells them what is wrong.

Yes, perhaps Phillips worked it all out immediately during his examination of the body. But he doesn't say he did this during a cursory examination. You are putting words into his mouth.

The extent of the wounds to her neck, the amount of blood, the position of the body, speak volumes. As he knows the results of the post-mortem conducted later that day merely confirmed his first impressions then he has no reservation about informing the court that he was able to correctly determine the cause of death on his arrival.

Thank you, so he WAS taking into account the results of his entire examination in his evidence to the court!

But you seem to think he was telling a little story in chronological order. "First the door was forced open, then I entered the room, then I noticed the position of the furniture, then I formed an opinion about the cause of death, then I ---" at which point you seem to think the coroner leapt in and said "No, Dr Phillips do not tell us any more of this interesting chronological sequence of events, you must not tell us what happened next!".

That's not what was happening. The coroner wanted to know the cause of death - whether it took Dr Phillips 5 seconds or 5 hours to work it out, and whether he worked it out in the room or at the mortuary - just the cause of death and nothing at all about the mutilations.

However, if the later post-mortem had suggested she was first poisoned, then he would not have said what he did, as he could not determine that on his first examination.

Well that's what I mean. What if he changed his mind after what you refer to as his "cursory" examination? He wasn't telling a story in chronological order which is what you seem to think was going on. All he tells us is that he entered the room at 1.30pm and then carried out a "subsequent examination".

If you call that examination a "cursory" or "preliminary" examination you are going further than evidence properly allows.

[Wickerman]

No he's not saying that at all Jon. You are confusing two things, namely (a) the position of the furniture which he saw when he entered the room and (b) the results of his subsequent examination of the body.

One can't come to a proper conclusion about the cause of death, sufficient to state at an inquest, until one has carried out a full post-mortem examination.

You are misunderstanding what Phillips was being asked to do at the inquest and it's leading you down a wrong (garden) path.

David, seriously, the man actually tells the court which details led him to that conclusion.

".....the large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the paliasse, pillow, sheet, at that top corner nearest the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery which was the immediate cause of her death was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head & neck in the top right hand corner."

There is nothing to misunderstand there. He doesn't need to cut her open.

I understand your reluctance to have Phillips arrive at that conclusion so early that afternoon, you want him to be unsure until the very end - close to 4:00 pm.

Have you ever driven into a garage and told a mechanic the troubles you are having with the car?
You give him the symptoms and immediately he can tell you what is wrong.
Professionals do not always need to dissect the subject, sometimes experience tells them what is wrong.

The extent of the wounds to her neck, the amount of blood, the position of the body, speak volumes. As he knows the results of the post-mortem conducted later that day merely confirmed his first impressions then he has no reservation about informing the court that he was able to correctly determine the cause of death on his arrival.

However, if the later post-mortem had suggested she was first poisoned, then he would not have said what he did, as he could not determine that on his first examination.

[David Orsam]

David, it is your prerogative to interpret Phillips's "subsequent examination" as you wish. However, there is no escaping the fact he described each detail which contributed to his conclusion, and all those details are visual. Purely, the position of her body, the location of the blood, and the condition of the sheets, pillow, etc.
Nothing that required an in-depth examination which a post-mortem would provide.

In other words he is saying it was kind of obvious from what he saw after he entered the room.

No he's not saying that at all Jon. You are confusing two things, namely (a) the position of the furniture which he saw when he entered the room and (b) the results of his subsequent examination of the body.

One can't come to a proper conclusion about the cause of death, sufficient to state at an inquest, until one has carried out a full post-mortem examination.

You are misunderstanding what Phillips was being asked to do at the inquest and it's leading you down a wrong (garden) path.

[Wickerman]

I feel the need to step in again here Jon.

The coroner only wanted his jury to hear evidence from Phillips about the immediate cause of Kelly's death. So that is all the evidence Phillips gave. The coroner expressly stopped Phillips from giving any further evidence about what he found during his examination.

Phillips did NOT say that he came to his conclusions about the immediate cause of death from a cursory (or preliminary) examination. Indeed, a moment's thought tells us that it would be ridiculous if he only gave evidence at the inquest based on some kind of "cursory" or "preliminary" examination rather than from his full (post mortem) examination. He would, of course, have given his considered opinion to the coroner as to the cause of death.

David, it is your prerogative to interpret Phillips's "subsequent examination" as you wish. However, there is no escaping the fact he described each detail which contributed to his conclusion, and all those details are visual. Purely, the position of her body, the location of the blood, and the condition of the sheets, pillow, etc.
Nothing that required an in-depth examination which a post-mortem would provide.

In other words he is saying it was kind of obvious from what he saw after he entered the room.

[David Orsam]

After a cursory (preliminary?) examination he determined she had died from a cut to the throat. That is all we know from Phillips's own mouth, isn't it?

I feel the need to step in again here Jon.

The coroner only wanted his jury to hear evidence from Phillips about the immediate cause of Kelly's death. So that is all the evidence Phillips gave. The coroner expressly stopped Phillips from giving any further evidence about what he found during his examination.

Phillips did NOT say that he came to his conclusions about the immediate cause of death from a cursory (or preliminary) examination. Indeed, a moment's thought tells us that it would be ridiculous if he only gave evidence at the inquest based on some kind of "cursory" or "preliminary" examination rather than from his full (post mortem) examination. He would, of course, have given his considered opinion to the coroner as to the cause of death.

[Wickerman]

Didn't Bond say he produced his report in conjunction with Phillips?

The press reported that yes, the article suggested Phillips agreed with most of Bond's conclusions. We still have no opinion from Phillips himself beyond an occasional claim by a reporter to be offering one.

My position basically is that each doctor had his own definition of 'skill'.

[Joshua Rogan]

I do not remember reading any opinion by Phillips on the level of skill displayed at Millers court. Can you point one out?

Didn't Bond say he produced his report in conjunction with Phillips?

[Wickerman]

And by not giving an opinion he presumably didn't feel the need to contradict Dr Bond!

Ah, so Phillips didn't give an opinion then?
Sorry, I thought you said he did.

It appears Phillips was consistent in his dealings with the press - no comment!

The only legitimate opinion we receive from Phillips is his inquest testimony. He described the room & the body after he entered on that Friday afternoon.
After a cursory (preliminary?) examination he determined she had died from a cut to the throat. That is all we know from Phillips's own mouth, isn't it?

[Sam Flynn]

Both you, I and everyone else, are in that same boat. Even worse in fact, because we do not even have access to the autopsy notes on those murders.

So, in truth, how can we second guess the opinions of those doctors?

I'm not second-guessing anything. I'm going by the surviving testimony of, among others, Drs Llewellyn, Bagster Phillips, Brown and - yes - Bond. And, by testmony, I mean that I'm taking into account such autopsy notes as survive, and also what was recorded at the inquests in official and press sources.

Read objectively, it is beyond question that the killer's mutilations and eviscerations were crude and inconsistent, and that very little skill - and certainly not any significant skill - was in evidence in any one of the "C4" murders.

[John G]

I do not remember reading any opinion by Phillips on the level of skill displayed at Millers court. Can you point one out?

And by not giving an opinion he presumably didn't feel the need to contradict Dr Bond!

[Wickerman]

Despite what (some of) the doctors may have said, I struggle to see evidence of any particular skill; on the contrary, the Ripper seems to have made a god-awful mess of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, in differing degrees. Of the "C4" (canonical evisceration victims), I suppose the best case that could be made for some amount of "skill" is the single (albeit extremely ragged) incision he made in Eddowes' abdomen. In terms of how the mutilations and/or eviscerations were executed, there is very little consistency throughout the series, which strongly suggests that whoever did it was not possessed of anything like technique. I would expect a significantly skilled person to have shown significantly more consistency.

Gareth.

Do you recall Bond pointing out that he had only seen the notes to the previous murders?
Notes being the autopsy reports.
He was admitting to being somewhat inhibited by not being present at those autopsies.

Both you, I and everyone else, are in that same boat. Even worse in fact, because we do not even have access to the autopsy notes on those murders.

So, in truth, how can we second guess the opinions of those doctors?

[Sam Flynn]

In respect of the other C5 victims who were eviscerated, a significant amount of skill was apparent

Despite what (some of) the doctors may have said, I struggle to see evidence of any particular skill; on the contrary, the Ripper seems to have made a god-awful mess of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, in differing degrees. Of the "C4" (canonical evisceration victims), I suppose the best case that could be made for some amount of "skill" is the single (albeit extremely ragged) incision he made in Eddowes' abdomen. In terms of how the mutilations and/or eviscerations were executed, there is very little consistency throughout the series, which strongly suggests that whoever did it was not possessed of anything like technique. I would expect a significantly skilled person to have shown significantly more consistency.

[Wickerman]

I think Dr Bond's overall conclusions were distorted by the fact that he believed Kelly to be a JtR victim but hadn't had the opportunity to view any of the other victims, i.e. on that basis he assumed that the same lack of skill would be apparent with the other victims. This was clearly an error.

Thus, Dr Phillips, for example, did carry out the post mortem on Chapman and Dr Bond was, in respect of this victim, reliant on his [Dr Phillips'] notes. As Dr Phillips concluded that the perpetrator had demonstrated a significant level of skill Dr Bond was really in no position to contradict him.

Finally, I would point out that, in respect of Kelly, Dr Phillips did not contradict Dr Bond, i.e. by suggesting that Kelly's perpetrator had demonstrated skill.

I do not remember reading any opinion by Phillips on the level of skill displayed at Millers court. Can you point one out?

[John G]

Certainly, but other doctors who saw previous victims said they observed a degree of skill.

It's a subjective opinion.

I think Dr Bond's overall conclusions were distorted by the fact that he believed Kelly to be a JtR victim but hadn't had the opportunity to view any of the other victims, i.e. on that basis he assumed that the same lack of skill would be apparent with the other victims. This was clearly an error.

Thus, Dr Phillips, for example, did carry out the post mortem on Chapman and Dr Bond was, in respect of this victim, reliant on his [Dr Phillips'] notes. As Dr Phillips concluded that the perpetrator had demonstrated a significant level of skill Dr Bond was really in no position to contradict him.

Finally, I would point out that, in respect of Kelly, Dr Phillips did not contradict Dr Bond, i.e. by suggesting that Kelly's perpetrator had demonstrated skill.