Double throat cuts

[David Orsam]

As you can see the observation "comparatively cold" is not a precise value.

I didn't say it was a precise value. I said he had to touch the body to find out that it was cold. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

Neither was the record made by Phillips at the scene in the McKenzie case - "temp. moderate".

That is a reference, surely, to the air temperature. I'm referring to that part of the notes of Phillips' in situ examination where he wrote:

Temp. of body
Warmth still perceptible under right cheek
Body still warm where covered. Where exposed quite cold.

How did he know there was warmth on the right cheek or under the clothing if he didn't touch those parts of the body? And how did he know the exposed parts were quite cold if he didn't touch them?

Virchow's new standard, Post Mortem Examinations, in English published 1885, made no mention of the need to take a body temperature.

What do the standards pertaining to Post Mortem Examinations have to do with this discussion?

I'm talking about the checking of the body temperature during the in situ examination, prior to the PM.

You must surely know that. And to do that a doctor needed to touch the body, right?

So, all things considered your objection that he needs to touch the body to take the temperature, is mute.
Just plain wrong.

I think you'll find that my objection is not mute at all and that I am plain right.

[Wickerman]

It seems to me that your original claim was badly worded - you meant no more than that he could not have conducted a PM without the coroner's permission - and that's that.

Well, I think that is what I originally said, but then we became sidetracked in to discussing potential reasons's why.

But yes, long story short - that is the bottom line.

[Wickerman]

Medical mercenaries!

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Wickerman]

Dr Llewellyn, according to the Morning Advertiser 1st Sept, after having examined Polly Nichol's body in Buck's Row "...made a second examination of the body in the mortuary, and on that based his conclusion, but will make no formal post mortem examination until he receives the coroner's orders."

You'll notice Joshua, that this second examination was not physical but purely visual. What Llewellyn tells us is that he looked at the wound to the abdomen, seeing as how he had no idea it existed. In other words his first preliminary examination was incomplete.
Have you found any source that mentions a physical examination of the body prior to the formal P.M.?

[Wickerman]

No, you are reading that wrong. The summons referred to in S.21(1) is to attend at the inquest. It doesn't say "to attend the body". S.21(2) gives the Coroner the right to direct the medical witness to conduct a post-mortem.

Yes, I know. There are two issues contained within that clause.
It is a shame no definition for what constitutes "legally qualified" is provided in this context, but a regular MD can attend the victim, but he may not have the knowledge to be able to ascertain the cause of death. That only stands to reason.
So, we can assume "legally qualified" means the medical man summoned by the Coroner will have the experience to answer all relevant questions.
That is the issue I was drawing attention to.

Well exactly. So that's why we didn't need the MEPO documents that you referred to earlier to know that the doctor would always wait for authorisation from the Coroner before starting a post-mortem. If he didn't wait for it, he didn't get paid! It's as simple as that.

You are now introducing a reason for the delay. I never took issue with a reason, yes of course he isn't going to get paid, but the issue was a question of whether the press report could be trusted.
You have just admitted it could. This is consistent with the press mentioning the doctors having to wait.

You are thinking of the Daily Chronicle report:

"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.”

But, to the extent that the "requisite authority" was a reference to the coroner, this report was wrong wasn't it?

No.

We know that firstly because Swanson states in respect of Dr Bond's examination that the Coroner's consent "was not asked for or necessary".

No David, you are taking that statement out of context.

The line which precedes that statement tells us that "the examination was with the consent of Dr. Phillips". Naturally because he has been given custody of the body on behalf of the Coroner. Therefore, no need to disturb the Coroner over this issue.
Which only serves to demonstrate how confused the different levels of officials were on this issue of consent.

Just a footnote on this point.
Dr. Bond appeared twice, once on Friday, once on Saturday.
We cannot know which appearance Swanson is referring to, though I suspect the Saturday appearance, as that makes more sense.

Secondly because the coroner was hardly likely to direct that two PMs be conducted.

Bond did not appear in a capacity of medical witness. It was purely at the behest of Anderson to obtain evidence for the police to better understand the skill level of the killer.

Thirdly, although not entirely conclusive, we may add that the coroner didn't become involved until jurisdiction was fixed which didn't happen until the coroner's officer decided which mortuary to take the body to.

The Coroner's officer is not an independent agent, for the Coroner's officer to show up with the transportation for the body, then the officer must have been from Shoreditch. Meaning this issue of jurisdiction was already cleared up.

And of course I don't accept that PM was conducted on the Friday so no consent from a coroner was needed for the (in situ) examination that was conducted.

All indications are that the press version of a P.M. conducted at 2 pm on Friday is correct.

No, I haven't said there was such a fee. In the absence of a PM, the fee was to attend to give evidence at the inquest.

What I was pointing out was that, 'because' there is no provision for a fee (of two guineas) to be paid for your in-situ examination, the doctors would need to wait for approval.

[Wickerman]

I'm going to take that as an admission that there was no reason why a doctor would have to "look but not touch" during an in situ examination.

I would say waiting for the OK from the Coroner is reason enough.
Phillips even noted that he awaited "instructions from Coroner to make a P.M." in his notes on McKenzie.

With the Millers Court Murder being so special, it would call for extraordinary measures, and the usual visual (being a preliminary) examination was not sufficient before dispatching the body to a mortuary.
It is therefore justifiable for Phillips to send word to the Coroner for permission to conduct a P.M. on the spot limited to the investigation of removed organs and the gathering together of those organs pursuant to a Coroner's P.M. the following day.

[Wickerman]

Another surreal response. It's right there in black and white Jon.

"The body was comparatively cold at 2 o'clock".

You're not saying that Dr Bond drilled a hole into Kelly's skull at 2pm to get the temperature of the brain are you?

The reason for taking the body temperature from the brain of a body with a mutilated torso is, that it is assumed the head is the only intact and sizeable limb from which a reliable temperature can still be obtained. However, this was at a time when the specific temp. was used for calculations, which must be a later period to 1888.

As you can see the observation "comparatively cold" is not a precise value. Neither was the record made by Phillips at the scene in the McKenzie case - "temp. moderate".
Virchow's new standard, Post Mortem Examinations, in English published 1885, made no mention of the need to take a body temperature.
So, all things considered your objection that he needs to touch the body to take the temperature, is mute.
Just plain wrong.

[David Orsam]

I would have thought you could see that was a general statement.

But what was the purpose of this "general statement" in the context of our discussion? I don't understand.

In other words any medical doctor can attend a body at a crime scene, if only to pronounce life extinct. Which, will entail touching the body.
That though, is my understanding of the extent of the physical contact a regular MD is allowed to have with a body, especially in cases where there are obvious signs of foul play.

If any further physical contact is required the doctor in attendance must have at least a FRCS or a LRCP, or something of that nature. Which is what the Coroners Act is alluding to as "legally qualified".

I don't know where you are getting this from but it doesn't matter does it unless you are saying that Dr Phillips was not "legally qualified"?

You said that Phillips could look but not touch while he was in Kelly's room - to touch he required permission of the coroner - so a situation involving any other doctor in the world, at any other location, at any other time in history is irrelevant to what we were discussing.

It seems to me that your original claim was badly worded - you meant no more than that he could not have conducted a PM without the coroner's permission - and that's that.

[Wickerman]

I have no idea why you say that Jon. You were the one who raised the issue of a checking of pulse. For what purpose I cannot imagine. I was simply making the point that this did not apply at Millers Court.

I would have thought you could see that was a general statement. In other words any medical doctor can attend a body at a crime scene, if only to pronounce life extinct. Which, will entail touching the body.
That though, is my understanding of the extent of the physical contact a regular MD is allowed to have with a body, especially in cases where there are obvious signs of foul play.

If any further physical contact is required the doctor in attendance must have at least a FRCS or a LRCP, or something of that nature. Which is what the Coroners Act is alluding to as "legally qualified".
Today, it is the same, any MD can pronounce life extinct, but that same MD does not conduct a PM. It's not a fair comparison I know, as we are more specialized today, but the principal is the same.

[Joshua Rogan]

Medical mercenaries!

[David Orsam]

Yes, and it was perfectly possible for a doctor to conduct a post-mortem examination without the permission of the coroner.

The 1887 Act actually envisages this for it says (at 22(1)):

"Any fee or remuneration shall not be paid to a medical practitioner for the performance of a post-mortem examination instituted without the previous direction of the coroner."

So the doctor could conduct the PM, he just wouldn't get paid if he did it before obtaining the coroner's consent!

[Joshua Rogan]

Dr Llewellyn, according to the Morning Advertiser 1st Sept, after having examined Polly Nichol's body in Buck's Row "...made a second examination of the body in the mortuary, and on that based his conclusion, but will make no formal post mortem examination until he receives the coroner's orders."

[David Orsam]

It's a little more detailed than that.
S 21 (1).
That medical practitioner must be legally qualified, and that it is the Coroner who summons a legally qualified medical practitioner to attend the body, and in S 21 (2), to conduct a P.M.

No, you are reading that wrong. The summons referred to in S.21(1) is to attend at the inquest. It doesn't say "to attend the body". S.21(2) gives the Coroner the right to direct the medical witness to conduct a post-mortem.

In practice, with a suspected homicide, what happened, as we know from the Ripper murders, is that it was the police who would normally ask either the doctor nearest to the scene of the crime, or the divisional surgeon, to attend the body. That doctor would then normally be summoned to attend as a witness and (if required by the coroner) instructed to conduct a post-mortem. Or the coroner, if he wished, could summon another doctor and instruct that other doctor to conduct the post-mortem.

And in S 22 (1) the Coroner shall not pay for a P.M. conducted without his consent.

Well exactly. So that's why we didn't need the MEPO documents that you referred to earlier to know that the doctor would always wait for authorisation from the Coroner before starting a post-mortem. If he didn't wait for it, he didn't get paid! It's as simple as that.

That is the permission we have been talking about, and which was mentioned by the press.

You are thinking of the Daily Chronicle report:

"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.”

But, to the extent that the "requisite authority" was a reference to the coroner, this report was wrong wasn't it? We know that firstly because Swanson states in respect of Dr Bond's examination that the Coroner's consent "was not asked for or necessary". Secondly because the coroner was hardly likely to direct that two PMs be conducted. Thirdly, although not entirely conclusive, we may add that the coroner didn't become involved until jurisdiction was fixed which didn't happen until the coroner's officer decided which mortuary to take the body to. You've mentioned that the coroner's officer turned up at 4pm so it seems unlikely to me that anyone knew which coroner to ask at 2pm. And of course I don't accept that PM was conducted on the Friday so no consent from a coroner was needed for the (in situ) examination that was conducted.

The Coroner makes no provision for the payment of a fee for an examination conducted at the crime scene.

No, I haven't said there was such a fee. In the absence of a PM, the fee was to attend to give evidence at the inquest.

[David Orsam]

How on earth do you deduce that?

You said:

"The coroner is responsible for the fees of all witnesses whom he calls to appear at the inquest.
If he doesn't call the doctor, then he pays no fee. So no, that is not the concern, the coroner is entirely in control of his fees."

The Rainham Mystery provides an example where the Coroner was not "entirely in control" of his fees. He ended up paying two doctors for attending at the inquest when he would obviously have preferred to pay only one. This is the type of thing that is causing the problem raised by Baxter.

[David Orsam]

I wrote:
Yes, Swanson is pointing out that regardless of the fact Bond was not called by the Coroner, therefore not obligated to pay any fee, he still did so.

Yes, I had the name wrong. What happened is exactly how we read the report, he still paid the fee, though he didn't have to.

But that's the whole point. The Coroner didn't WANT to be paying two sets of fees to two sets of medical witnesses. He he was complaining to the police that they were involving too many doctors!