Double throat cuts

[Wickerman]

On the subject of "Double cuts to the throat", the lacerations to Kelly's throat seem to obscure any attempt, at least by Bond, to provide a meaningful description. Though he is able to make the point that evidence exists of "two deep cuts".

"The neck was cut through the skin & other tissues right down to the vertebrae the 5th & 6th being deeply notched."

http://www.casebook.org/official_documents/pm-kelly.html

Which raises the question if this is purely coincidental, one cut extending across two vertebrae, or two separate cuts, - an indication the same hand was at work?

[Wickerman]

It unsettled you! Do you have any idea what it did to me! I nearly had to go lie down to recover, but then I realised he was attributing to me something I didn't say. Never mind.

True to form though - "T'was ever thus"

[PaulB]

Thats what I always understood. This is a bit unsettling having Trevor speak in favour of an opinion by Paul....

It unsettled you! Do you have any idea what it did to me! I nearly had to go lie down to recover, but then I realised he was attributing to me something I didn't say. Never mind.

[PaulB]

According to what Paul Begg suggests that is the case, and he is never wrong

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I can understand why it may appear to you that I am never wrong, Trevor, but there have been two or three times when my omnipotence has slipped just slightly. I am sometime misquoted too. I'm not saying that I have been misquoted in this instance, of course, although I think it entirely possible that if you take the trouble to check back you'll see I suggested Dr. Bond's notes were written down by his assistant, Dr. Hebbert.

[Pierre]

Believe it or not, Jon, I have known exactly what your argument is the whole time - the article in the Times of 10 November was the first thing you drew to my attention - and I have always said it is possible but by no means an established fact.

My interpretation of the Times article of Monday 12 November is that it is actually correcting what it said on the Saturday. Far from a post-mortem examination "of the most exhaustive character" having taken place in the room on the Friday, the newspaper has now been informed that it had been only a "cursory" examination; the exhaustive post-mortem, it now realises, occurred on the Saturday morning.

As for no-one else participating in this debate, I suspect there might have been more involvement if the medical examinations had been the actual topic of this thread. Perhaps it should return now to the subject of double throat cuts.

That would be nice.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

Believe it or not, Jon, I have known exactly what your argument is the whole time - the article in the Times of 10 November was the first thing you drew to my attention - and I have always said it is possible but by no means an established fact.

My interpretation of the Times article of Monday 12 November is that it is actually correcting what it said on the Saturday. Far from a post-mortem examination "of the most exhaustive character" having taken place in the room on the Friday, the newspaper has now been informed that it had been only a "cursory" examination; the exhaustive post-mortem, it now realises, occurred on the Saturday morning.

As for no-one else participating in this debate, I suspect there might have been more involvement if the medical examinations had been the actual topic of this thread. Perhaps it should return now to the subject of double throat cuts.

[Wickerman]

How have I managed to do that?

Doesn't it support what I've been saying all along? Namely that the "first examination", i.e. the one on Friday between 2pm and 4pm, was a preliminary examination only (as per the first three pages of Dr Bond's notes) whereas the examination on Saturday morning was a proper post-mortem examination (as per the last four pages of Dr Bond's notes).

It does, but this (below) suits my interpretation, from the same newspaper (Times), on Saturday.

"Dr Phillips, on his arrival, carefully examined the body of the dead woman, and later on made a second examination in company with Dr Bond, from Westminster, Dr Gordon Brown, from the City, Dr Duke from Spitalfields, and Dr Phillip's assistant......
As already stated, the post-mortem examination was of the most exhaustive character, and surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for and placed as closely as possible in its natural position."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/times/18881110.html

So the article I posted to you is only comparing two similar types of examinations, not suggesting they were of a different nature. Friday's took 2 hrs, Saturday's 2.5 hrs., but the same paper identifies both examinations as the same type.

This is why I feel the role of Dr Phillips has not changed from the position I offered at the beginning of our debate.
Phillips and Bond had different responsibilities in this case and that is reflected in the terminology.

The testimony of Phillips at the inquest is quite consistent with the article above, him only describing a visual examination on entering the room.
You have adjusted what was commonly assumed to be the role of Dr. Bond, but not affected the role of Dr. Phillips. Which is still of value because this issue has never been explored to the best of my knowledge, at any time. It's just a shame few others were inclined to offer an opinion in this debate.

The preliminary exam. as identified in the press is still the one which took place prior to the admission of the photographer, and a P.M. followed at 2 pm that same day.
For Bond this P.M. was merely an examination in his notes due to his responsibilities being of a less complex nature when compared to Phillips.

[David Orsam]

Now you have confused me.

How have I managed to do that?

How does this report figure into your view of events?

As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case.
http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881112.html

Doesn't it support what I've been saying all along? Namely that the "first examination", i.e. the one on Friday between 2pm and 4pm, was a preliminary examination only (as per the first three pages of Dr Bond's notes) whereas the examination on Saturday morning was a proper post-mortem examination (as per the last four pages of Dr Bond's notes).

[David Orsam]

From what you've laid out it can be accepted that Dr. Bond was involved in an examination on Friday, and appeared at the Coroner's PM on Saturday.

I wasn't even aware that either of those facts were ever in doubt (nor that I've done anything to place Bond at the Saturday PM).

That, provisionally established, how does this impact the role of Dr. Phillips, and the sequence of events as attributed to him on Friday?

Given that the above two facts you mention have always been known and agreed by both of us, I refer you to all the previous 200 posts or so that I have made on this subject.

[Wickerman]

Which were not convincing or supported by sources as I recall.



I'm talking about a formal post-mortem examination Jon. The one you told me that there are "strict guidelines" for. And you can forget who the PM is carried out for. I'm only interested in what the examination actually consisted of. The notes of Dr Bond under the heading "Postmortem Examination" read remarkably like a formal post-mortem examination to me. How do they read to you?

And if Dr Bond conducted a formal post-mortem examination on the Friday, why would Dr Phillips repeat that same examination on the Saturday?

It surely makes no sense. I could understand it if the first PM was being challenged or someone wanted a second opinion or something like that. But simply repeating two identical PMs on two consecutive days is very odd.

Now you have confused me.

How does this report figure into your view of events?

As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/times/18881112.html

[Wickerman]

Quite possibly this just adds the cherry to your cake.

Shortly after four o'clock yesterday a covered van was driven to Miller's-court, and in a few minutes the remains were placed in a shell and quietly removed to the mortuary adjoining Shoreditch Church to await the inquest, at the Shoreditch Town Hall, on Monday.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_telegraph/dt881110.html

From what you've laid out it can be accepted that Dr. Bond was involved in an examination on Friday, and appeared at the Coroner's PM on Saturday.

That, provisionally established, how does this impact the role of Dr. Phillips, and the sequence of events as attributed to him on Friday?

[David Orsam]

Not at all, for the reason's I gave elsewhere.

Which were not convincing or supported by sources as I recall.

As I pointed out at the very beginning, any physical examination of a body is a post-mortem. But the only P.M. conducted according to strict guidelines is the one for the Coroner.
There is no duplication.

I'm talking about a formal post-mortem examination Jon. The one you told me that there are "strict guidelines" for. And you can forget who the PM is carried out for. I'm only interested in what the examination actually consisted of. The notes of Dr Bond under the heading "Postmortem Examination" read remarkably like a formal post-mortem examination to me. How do they read to you?

And if Dr Bond conducted a formal post-mortem examination on the Friday, why would Dr Phillips repeat that same examination on the Saturday?

It surely makes no sense. I could understand it if the first PM was being challenged or someone wanted a second opinion or something like that. But simply repeating two identical PMs on two consecutive days is very odd.

[David Orsam]

Also, I'm not saying two doctors "cannot" conduct a P.M., obviously as there were approx. six doctors in the room at 2 pm on Friday.

I'm pointing out that the formal postmortem procedure is a sequential examination. One that follows strict guidelines.
He begins with an external examination, from head to foot. Then opens the head to examine the brain, etc., after which he opens the thorax to investigate the lungs, heart, etc. Finally the abdomen, the organs of which again are examined in a particular order.
This procedure is not suited for two people to do separate examinations on the same body, at the same time.

Well on the one hand you seem to accept that two doctors can conduct a PM, on the other hand you seem to be saying they can't!

This is from the British Medical Journal of 1910:

"There is nothing to prevent a coroner from directing two registered practitioners to make a post-mortem examination jointly, and in that case each would be entitled to the same fee, namely two guineas..."

Here is a reference to an actual joint examination on the body of the murdered James Dalziel, carried out in Glasgow in 1924, in a book by Andrew Davis called "City of Gangs":

"Dr John Anderson and Dr Andrew Allison, who jointly conducted the post-mortem examination at the Victoria infirmary...."

Reference to a joint post-mortem carried out on the murder of a baby in Leeds in 2015:

"Death of a 14-week-old girl in March 2012. Post-mortem examination jointly conducted by two pathologists resulted in the recording of two different probable causes of death"

http://www.oscb.org.uk/wp-content/up...se-Reviews.pdf

You haven't got a leg to stand on Jon.

[David Orsam]

No David, this is where you are doing what you accuse me of - filling words in to suit your argument.

No I'm not.

The first three pages make no mention of an examination, and rightly so, because there is no examination involved in surveying the scene.

So the first three pages make "no mention" of an examination do they?

Well a copy of the first page is reproduced below (for the second time in this thread) and the very first words at the top of the page are "Notes of Examination of body of woman..."

How does that equate to "no mention" of an examination?

Those notes are, as recorded, just describing the position of the body.
That...is not an examination.

Firstly, those notes are not "just describing the position of the body". They set out where the various organs were located. Precisely what the Daily News report said the doctors were doing that afternoon.

Secondly, if it is not an examination why are the notes entitled "Notes of Examination"?

[Wickerman]

I don't even understand the logic behind that conclusion. The telephone message says that he was conducting an "examination" (not post-mortem examination). The first three pages of his notes refer to an "examination" (not a post-mortem examination).

No David, this is where you are doing what you accuse me of - filling words in to suit your argument.

The first three pages make no mention of an examination, and rightly so, because there is no examination involved in surveying the scene.
Those notes are, as recorded, just describing the position of the body.
That...is not an examination.

Also, I'm not saying two doctors "cannot" conduct a P.M., obviously as there were approx. six doctors in the room at 2 pm on Friday.

I'm pointing out that the formal postmortem procedure is a sequential examination. One that follows strict guidelines.
He begins with an external examination, from head to foot. Then opens the head to examine the brain, etc., after which he opens the thorax to investigate the lungs, heart, etc. Finally the abdomen, the organs of which again are examined in a particular order.
This procedure is not suited for two people to do separate examinations on the same body, at the same time.

Further, it seems very unusual for there to be TWO post-mortems whereby the first would inevitably duplicate the work of the second.

Not at all, for the reason's I gave elsewhere.
As I pointed out at the very beginning, any physical examination of a body is a post-mortem. But the only P.M. conducted according to strict guidelines is the one for the Coroner.
There is no duplication.