Double throat cuts

[Wickerman]

But that's authority for the PM. I'm not asking about that. 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").

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.

[David Orsam]

As spelled out in one of those communications:
"the Coroner's strictures (restriction) upon the action of the Police in sending down doctor after doctor without his sanction.........and asks for authoritative decision as to the claim of the Coroner to control the action of Police".

This is a question of who's in charge here, and Anderson didn't like it.

Only in cases where multiple doctors were sent (by the police) to examine bodies. It didn't go any further than that.

[David Orsam]

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.

No, he's not in reality Jon. You are missing the point entirely. The coroner gets placed in an impossible position if multiple doctors examine the body and come to different conclusions. It throws his inquest into confusion. That is precisely what happened in the case of Rose Millett.

The coroner had to call Dr Brownfield (and his assistant Harris) AND Dr Bond to his inquest.

Here is what Baxter said at the inquest as reported in the Times:

"After Dr. Brownfield and his assistant, duly qualified men, came to the conclusion that this was a case of homicidal strangulation, some one had a suspicion that that evidence was not satisfactory. At all events, they heard that doctor after doctor went down to view the body without his knowledge or sanction as coroner. He did not wish to make that a personal matter, but he had never received such treatment before. Of the five doctors who saw the body, Dr. Bond was the only one who considered the case was not one of murder."

Again, in "the Rainham Mystery":

"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.

[Wickerman]

The coroner was responsible for fees (where doctors gave evidence at his inquest) which is why that was an important sub issue.

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.

As spelled out in one of those communications:
"the Coroner's strictures (restriction) upon the action of the Police in sending down doctor after doctor without his sanction.........and asks for authoritative decision as to the claim of the Coroner to control the action of Police".

This is a question of who's in charge here, and Anderson didn't like it.

[David Orsam]

Of course not, silly me, why would the killer pull the body towards him on the bed to continue the mutilations after just slicing her throat.
Lets put the kettle on first.....
good grief...

Or start the fire and melt the spout of the kettle?

Who knows? How can the doctor possibly say?

As usual, you are reading things into someone's testimony which isn't there. The doctor doesn't say "the killer pulled the body towards him on the bed to continue the mutilations" does he? Nor does he say this happened immediately after the cutting of the throat.

The whole point is that Phillips is not giving a time frame otherwise he would have said: "I am sure the body was removed from one side of the bed to the other immediately after the throat was cut". But he doesn't say it so you mustn't infer it.

This is how the Daily Telegraph reported the doctor's evidence:

"Deceased had only an under-linen garment upon her, and by subsequent examination I am sure the body had been removed, after the injury which caused death from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition previously mentioned".

After Jon, not immediately after.

[Wickerman]

Yes and he never at any time used it to mean "immediately"!!!

Of course not, silly me, why would the killer pull the body towards him on the bed to continue the mutilations after just slicing her throat.
Lets put the kettle on first.....
good grief...

[David Orsam]

You are referring to one communication concerning fees. This was not Anderson's point, he was trying to clear up who has overall authority, the Coroner or the police.

Yes, but only in the context of the coroner's complaint that the police were "sending down doctor after doctor without his sanction".

No-one was investigating the situation with regard to the normal course of events where a doctor examined the body after a murder and reported to the coroner. Everyone knew the rules there.

It was only where the police interfered with the normal course and asked for another doctor to become involved. THEN and only then was there an unresolved issue as to whether the police had the right to do it without the coroner's approval.

The coroner was responsible for fees (where doctors gave evidence at his inquest) which is why that was an important sub issue.

[Wickerman]

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).

You are referring to one communication concerning fees. This was not Anderson's point, he was trying to clear up who has overall authority, the Coroner or the police.

[David Orsam]

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

Yes and he never at any time used it to mean "immediately"!!!

[David Orsam]

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.

But that's authority for the PM. I'm not asking about that. 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").

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.

No, Jon, they perfectly understood the normal situation with regard to surgeons carrying out examinations. What they didn't fully understand was what happened if you wanted a second opinion.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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".