Double throat cuts

[David Orsam]

What ever you say.

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.

[David Orsam]

In this case that would be pointless.
The conventional way of obtaining a 'body temperature' for a body mutilated to this extent was to drill into the skull and get the temp. of the brain.

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?

[David Orsam]

Good grief David, obviously there's no need to check for a pulse at Millers Court.
Its replies like this that suggest to me you are just playing games here.

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.

[Wickerman]

The central point for our purposes is that the debate they were having has nothing to do with normal procedure in a suspected murder case whereby a Coroner has the power to direct the medical officer who carried out the in situ examination to conduct a post-mortem examination, because that was governed under law by the Coroner's Act and it was clearly and undoubtedly the responsibility of the Coroner.

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.

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

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

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

[Wickerman]

You are confused. It wasn't Swanson who wrote that it was Hare.

And it shows that the reluctant Coroner, who did not seek Bond's involvement, did end up paying Bond a fee for his attendance at the inquest, thus disproving everything you've said.

How on earth do you deduce that?

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.

[Wickerman]

Have you forgotten, Jon, that Dr Phillips already declared life extinct in the case of Kelly by looking through the window? So he didn't need to check for a pulse on this occasion.

Good grief David, obviously there's no need to check for a pulse at Millers Court.
Its replies like this that suggest to me you are just playing games here.

But he would have had to touch the body to check the body temperature wouldn't he?

In this case that would be pointless.
The conventional way of obtaining a 'body temperature' for a body mutilated to this extent was to drill into the skull and get the temp. of the brain.

Your comments about "this is the extent of his contact with the body" seem to be from someone making it up as he goes along. If not, where does it come from?

What ever you say.

[David Orsam]

(Bond took it upon himself to conduct a second P.M.)
"This is the basis of the Coroner's complaint that "the Asistant Comr. sent down Doctor after Doctor without his sanction"; and this claim on the part of the Coroner to control the action of the police in cases of supposed homicide raises a question of such great practical importance that I think an authoritative decision upon it should be obtained.
No one is more ready than I am to spare the susceptibilities (or even to humour the vanity) of any official, but my estimate of the position and duty of the Commissioner of Police is wholly inconsistent with the idea that he must obtain the sanction of the Coroner before taking steps imperatively necessary for the investigation of a crime."

This is a power struggle, pure and simple, nothing more.

It's not a power struggle at all. It goes no wider than the issue of whether the police have a right to instruct additional medical officers if they feel the need to do so in a murder investigation. That's all. Baxter was annoyed by it whereas Anderson thought he should be able to do it. That was the only issue being discussed.

The central point for our purposes is that the debate they were having has nothing to do with normal procedure in a suspected murder case whereby a Coroner has the power to direct the medical officer who carried out the in situ examination to conduct a post-mortem examination, because that was governed under law by the Coroner's Act and it was clearly and undoubtedly the responsibility of the Coroner.

[David Orsam]

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.
He was not compelled to pay Bond the fee as Bond appeared at the behest of the police, so any cost was theirs, not the Coroners.

You are confused. It wasn't Swanson who wrote that it was Hare.

And it shows that the reluctant Coroner, who did not seek Bond's involvement, did end up paying Bond a fee for his attendance at the inquest, thus disproving everything you've said.

[David Orsam]

We've been over this before.
Any doctor, even a regular MD, can attend a crime scene, if only to pronounce life extinct.

David, in order to make that determination the doctor has to touch the body to check for a pulse. I explained this in a previous post.
That, though, is the extent of his contact with the body unless....he is authorized by the Coroner to examine the body, or touch any other part of the body which might compromise evidence.

Have you forgotten, Jon, that Dr Phillips already declared life extinct in the case of Kelly by looking through the window? So he didn't need to check for a pulse on this occasion.

But he would have had to touch the body to check the body temperature wouldn't he?

Your comments about "this is the extent of his contact with the body" seem to be from someone making it up as he goes along. If not, where does it come from?

[Wickerman]

Talk about reading things wrong Jon! Did you even read my post that you have just replied to.

I said:

"And a doctor can't make a proper in-situ examination without touching the body, can he? I mean, at the very least he has to check the body temperature."

We've been over this before.
Any doctor, even a regular MD, can attend a crime scene, if only to pronounce life extinct.

David, in order to make that determination the doctor has to touch the body to check for a pulse. I explained this in a previous post.
That, though, is the extent of his contact with the body unless....he is authorized by the Coroner to examine the body, or touch any other part of the body which might compromise evidence.

[David Orsam]

And from the MEPO files we have been debating it looks like the Doctor did need permission to conduct a P.M.

The surreal nature of your posts continues. The fact that a doctor conducts a PM under the authority of (or with the permission of) the coroner has absolutely nothing to do with the MEPO files we have been debating which are all about what happens when the police ask for a second opinion.

[David Orsam]

I wrote the Doctor made a visual examination BECAUSE he MAY have had to wait for permission to TOUCH the body - that means conduct that P.M. at 2 o'clock.

Talk about reading things wrong Jon! Did you even read my post that you have just replied to.

I said:

"And a doctor can't make a proper in-situ examination without touching the body, can he? I mean, at the very least he has to check the body temperature."

That's in response to you saying: "without that he can only look, but not touch?"

Okay if you expressed yourself badly - and meant to refer to a post-mortem examination when you said "look but not touch" - then just say so but please don't accuse me of reading anything wrong when I'm not.

[Wickerman]

This conversation gets more surreal every post you make Jon.

I have just asked you about the position regarding in situ examinations.

And you certainly did suggest that a doctor needed permission to make an in situ examination.

Have you really forgotten what you said in #248:

"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."

That's the very post I quoted from you in my #291 to start off this chain of discussion when I asked you what you meant by "the book". I even worded my question very deliberately as follows:

"Jon, what is the basis of your belief that Phillips would have needed permission from the coroner before touching Kelly's body in her room on Friday?"

You gave me a long answer in #298 but did not dispute the premise of my post. And a doctor can't make a proper in-situ examination without touching the body, can he? I mean, at the very least he has to check the body temperature. So I have no idea why you object to my statement: "I'm asking about the in situ examination (because that's what you said Phillips might have needed permission to do if he was playing it "by the book")."

That's why I can hardly believe my eyes now.

Everything there is perfectly correct, you are just reading it wrong.

I wrote the Doctor made a visual examination BECAUSE he MAY have had to wait for permission to TOUCH the body - that means conduct that P.M. at 2 o'clock.
That is exactly what this says below:

"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?

And from the MEPO files we have been debating it looks like the Doctor did need permission to conduct a P.M.

[David Orsam]

How soon you forget.

To quote the press source again:
"...together they commenced a post-mortem on the spot as soon as the requisite authority had been obtained".

The question arose out of the use of the term "post-mortem" for this examination at 2 pm on Friday.
No-one has suggested they needed permission to make a preliminary/visual/cursory examination.

This conversation gets more surreal every post you make Jon.

I have just asked you about the position regarding in situ examinations.

And you certainly did suggest that a doctor needed permission to make an in situ examination.

Have you really forgotten what you said in #248:

"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."

That's the very post I quoted from you in my #291 to start off this chain of discussion when I asked you what you meant by "the book". I even worded my question very deliberately as follows:

"Jon, what is the basis of your belief that Phillips would have needed permission from the coroner before touching Kelly's body in her room on Friday?"

You gave me a long answer in #298 but did not dispute the premise of my post. And a doctor can't make a proper in-situ examination without touching the body, can he? I mean, at the very least he has to check the body temperature. So I have no idea why you object to my statement: "I'm asking about the in situ examination (because that's what you said Phillips might have needed permission to do if he was playing it "by the book")."

That's why I can hardly believe my eyes now.

[Wickerman]

"Mr Bond gave evidence but it was at the instigation of the Police and the Coroner was not consulted. I believe the Coroner paid Mr Bond his fee for attending the inquest but his bill for everything else was sent to Assistant Commissioner who referred it to Receiver for payment".

It's nowhere near as simple an issue as you like to make it out to be.

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.
He was not compelled to pay Bond the fee as Bond appeared at the behest of the police, so any cost was theirs, not the Coroners.

However, Anderson puts this in perspective.

(Bond took it upon himself to conduct a second P.M.)
"This is the basis of the Coroner's complaint that "the Asistant Comr. sent down Doctor after Doctor without his sanction"; and this claim on the part of the Coroner to control the action of the police in cases of supposed homicide raises a question of such great practical importance that I think an authoritative decision upon it should be obtained.
No one is more ready than I am to spare the susceptibilities (or even to humour the vanity) of any official, but my estimate of the position and duty of the Commissioner of Police is wholly inconsistent with the idea that he must obtain the sanction of the Coroner before taking steps imperatively necessary for the investigation of a crime."

This is a power struggle, pure and simple, nothing more.