Originally posted by Wickerman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Double throat cuts
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostIn 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.
"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?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostGood 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
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.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostYou 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.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostHave 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.
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?
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?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View Post(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.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostYes, 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.
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.Last edited by David Orsam; 07-19-2017, 05:46 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostWe'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.
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?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostTalk 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."
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.Last edited by Wickerman; 07-19-2017, 05:27 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostAnd from the MEPO files we have been debating it looks like the Doctor did need permission to conduct a P.M.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostI 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.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostThis 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.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostHow 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.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
"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.
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.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: