Double throat cuts

[David Orsam]

This question arose some years ago while debating the Tabram murder. Accusations were made that Killeen, who conducted the post-mortem was not qualified to do so. (The argument was intended to merely cast doubt on his conclusions, to enable the proposers to advance their theory).

We unearthed a few contemporary sources which explained that beyond pronouncing life extinct no medical man was permitted to conduct an examination of a body without the express permission of the coroner for that district.
The coroner held a list of competent physicians within his jurisdiction whom he knew were sufficiently qualified to conduct an examination of a body.

Typically, the police became aware of whom to bring to a crime scene who was both sufficiently qualified and had the unwritten consent to conduct an examination. Simply a means of expediting the situation but the required paperwork became a matter of formality. The coroner always provided the written authority even after the body had been moved to the morgue.

The specific titles of these sources are likely in the archives if they have survived.
When I say 'by the book', I am of course talking figuratively.

I do not doubt for a moment that Phillips held carte-blanche authority in the Whitechapel/Spitalfields districts. I just though I might throw that in, just in case there had been some uncertainty that morning that we are not aware of.

You're confusing me now. If Phillips held "carte-blanche" authority then he obviously didn't need to wait to obtain the coroner's permission to conduct an in-situ examination in Kelly's room did he?

And the statement that "no medical man was permitted to conduct an examination of a body without the express permission of the coroner for that district" isn't quite properly worded because you either mean advance permission (i.e. carte-blanche permission) or retrospective permission - not express permission in each case.

Can we agree that Phillips didn't need to obtain express permission from the coroner in advance before touching the body or embarking on any kind of preliminary examination in Kelly's room during the afternoon of 9 November?

[David Orsam]

And that!, is precisely the type of uncertainty I just referred to.

Phillips will have had automatic authority from both Baxter & Macdonald, but he still needs to know where the body is to be dispatched and to whom he must communicate with.
The press seems to indicate that permission was required, this may or may not be true.

There are official Home Office communications on this very subject. Coroners complaining about medical men attending a body without his permission, and Anderson complaining that he should not need to wait for permission from a coroner when conducting an investigation.

I think it was Swanson who mentions Bond obtaining permission from Phillips to attend a P.M., but not being aware that a coroners consent was required?

Permission seemed to be a contentious issue at the time.

Do you have the references to the Home Office communications?

[David Orsam]

Well, I asked because you seem to drop the arguemnt concerning Phillips when you couldn't justify his use of "subsequent" being consistently "about 30 minutes?" later.

I can only assume you are joking here Jon.

As I've said all along, his use of the word "subsequent" is perfectly consistent with an examination at 2pm, after the photographs were taken.

[David Orsam]

If you concede that "subsequent" means nothing more than "following", no specific time implied, then you have no cause to object to the press version.

I don't know why I keep having to repeat this Jon, but I've never objected to the press version.

What I have consistently said is what we don't know if the press version is right or wrong. So you can't say, or give the impression, that it is definitely right as an established fact, which is what you have done repeatedly.

[David Orsam]

At that point you seemed to shift to Dr Bond and his involvement in this case. I was wondering if you felt more confident in pursuing your argument with Bond instead of Phillips. But, I had to wonder how this same argument with Bond necessarily helps your previous argument with Phillips.

It is quite possible that Bond did record his PM notes after the Sat. morning P.M., but how does that impact whether Phillips conducted one or two examinations on Friday?, aand then by extension the press record of that day.
Bond arrived after Phillips had entered the room, according to the press. And nothing written or spoken by either doctor changes the press interpretation of events.

"It is quite possible that Bond did record his PM notes after the Sat. morning P.M." - Thank you for at least one concession!

If you cast your mind back Jon - and if you have been reading my posts properly - you will remember that I have accepted both possibilities but due to Phillips' use of the word "subsequent", and due to the fact that the photographs must have been taken between 1.30pm and 2pm, and as we know for a fact that an examination of the body was carried out at 2pm following Bond's arrival, I have tended to think that Phillips' examination took place at 2pm (and that Phillips and Bond were talking about the same examination).

But that isn't really the point of the discussion because I don't care much, or even at all, whether it was at 1.30pm or 2pm. What I object is to you repeatedly saying that it WAS at, or just after, 1.30pm as if it is an established fact.

[Wickerman]

You're confusing me now. If Phillips held "carte-blanche" authority then he obviously didn't need to wait to obtain the coroner's permission to conduct an in-situ examination in Kelly's room did he?

As I already alluded to. The press were under the impression that some permission was being waited for. This may have been due to the belief that a communication from the coroner was anticipated by the officials - police or doctors.
That communication may have been merely to direct the body to the correct morgue, not actual permission at all.
However, we also read that the cart which arrived at Millers Court at 4:00 pm was brought by the coroners officer.

Can we agree that Phillips didn't need to obtain express permission from the coroner in advance before touching the body or embarking on any kind of preliminary examination in Kelly's room during the afternoon of 9 November?

Yes.

[David Orsam]

Yes.

Thank you.

[Wickerman]

Do you have the references to the Home Office communications?

I'll append the relevant page in Stewart's 'Ultimate' hdbk 2000 edition, in brackets, if it helps.

- MEPO 3/143 No. 98122 (pg 428)
- MEPO 3/143 f, B. (pg 428)
- MEPO 3/143 ff. E-J (pg 436)
- MEPO 3/143 f K (pg 436)
- MEPO 3/143 f O (pg 437)

[David Orsam]

I'll append the relevant page in Stewart's 'Ultimate' hdbk 2000 edition, in brackets, if it helps.

- MEPO 3/143 No. 98122 (pg 428)
- MEPO 3/143 f, B. (pg 428)
- MEPO 3/143 ff. E-J (pg 436)
- MEPO 3/143 f K (pg 436)
- MEPO 3/143 f O (pg 437)

But that's a different issue Jon. That's all about whether to consult the coroner if the police want a second medical opinion.

As to that, Swanson reports that in the Kelly case, prior to Dr Bond examining the body, "the reports do not shew that the Coroner's consent was asked for or necessary" so that rather conclusively deals with that.

[Wickerman]

I can only assume you are joking here Jon.

As I've said all along, his use of the word "subsequent" is perfectly consistent with an examination at 2pm, after the photographs were taken.

The point is, it is equally consistent with "immediately", or "following", and not only in the first usage, but in the second usage also.

First - "I remained until about 1.30 when the door was broken open............and from my subsequent examination"
Second - " I am sure the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death"

Whereas in your argument it is only consistent in one usage out of the two.
That alone should be an indication that your interpretation is wrong.

To reword them both plainly.
- On entering at 1.30 I immediately examined the room/body, etc..
- The body had been moved immediately following the cut to the throat.

Therefore, "subsequently", as used by Phillips is not so readily applicable to him waiting 30 minutes to examine the body.

[David Orsam]

The point is, it is equally consistent with "immediately", or "following", and not only in the first usage, but in the second usage also.

First - "I remained until about 1.30 when the door was broken open............and from my subsequent examination"
Second - " I am sure the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death"

Whereas in your argument it is only consistent in one usage out of the two.
That alone should be an indication that your interpretation is wrong.

To reword them both plainly.
- On entering at 1.30 I immediately examined the room/body, etc..
- The body had been moved immediately following the cut to the throat.

Therefore, "subsequently", as used by Phillips is not so readily applicable to him waiting 30 minutes to examine the body.

I know what "subsequently" means Jon and it does not mean "immediately".

[Wickerman]

But that's a different issue Jon. That's all about whether to consult the coroner if the police want a second medical opinion.

The issue of a doctor examining the body, whether first or second opinion is the same. How can you say it is a different issue, the function is the same?

As to that, Swanson reports that in the Kelly case, prior to Dr Bond examining the body, "the reports do not shew that the Coroner's consent was asked for or necessary" so that rather conclusively deals with that.

Swanson is making a point that once authority is handed to the surgeon (Phillips), there is no need to approach the Coroner for further consent. The body is now the responsibility of the surgeon so authorized by the Coroner.
Hence, Bond obtained permission from Dr Phillips.

However, this is what Dr. Brownfield wrote to Chief surgeon M'Kellar.

My Dear sir.
I have to inform you with regard to the case my lett. that I received the Coroner's order overnight and made PM examination at 9 o'clock following morning...."

Which demonstrates the authority being granted, by and to whom.

Anderson complained to Monro that "this issue may arise again at any moment, and I submit it to you for prompt and definite solution".
So, as I said, it was a contentious issue not fully understood at various levels of authority.

[Wickerman]

I know what "subsequently" means Jon and it does not mean "immediately".

The issue is not what the word means in any dictionary, but what did Phillips mean by using the word.

[David Orsam]

The issue of a doctor examining the body, whether first or second opinion is the same. How can you say it is a different issue, the function is the same?

Of course it's different Jon. It raises an issue about whether two sets of fees need to paid to the two doctors involved for one thing (something that is mentioned in the correspondence).

[David Orsam]

Swanson is making a point that once authority is handed to the surgeon (Phillips), there is no need to approach the Coroner for further consent. The body is now the responsibility of the surgeon so authorized by the Coroner.
Hence, Bond obtained permission from Dr Phillips.

I'm sorry Jon but he's not making that point at all.

The question was raised by the Commissioner as to what the practice has been "with regard to the Coroner being consulted when police think it advisable to make another medical opinion". The point made by Swanson was that, in the case of Kelly, the Coroner's consent was "not asked for or necessary". He does mention that Phillips consented to Bond's involvement but there is nothing in that comment which means he is saying that the general rule is that if you ask the surgeon you don't need to ask the coroner.