Originally posted by Wickerman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Double throat cuts
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostRight, he does not say "cursory"
Originally posted by Wickerman View Posthe described a "cursory" examination
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostAre you referring to this story in the Daily Chronicle of 10 November:
"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.”
Please tell me. If Phillips (and Bond) had obtained the requisite authority from the coroner to conduct a joint post-mortem examination in the room, why did Phillips need to conduct a second post-mortem examination in the mortuary?
This has nothing to do with the formal P.M. required for the inquest, which will be the purview of Dr Phillips.
There is another point.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostI have two questions.
As you mentioned the last page of Bond's first examination, is on the first three pages.
Do those notes end in the middle of the page, or at the end?
Likewise, with the last page of the next four, for the P.M.
Do the notes end in the middle of the page, or at the end.
I ask to be sure there is no reason to believe pages are missing for each group of notes.Last edited by David Orsam; 07-18-2017, 10:55 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostWhile Dr Bond's notes entitled Post Mortem Examination 'could' have been a record of what took place on Saturday, I seriously doubt it. On Saturday Phillips is in charge of the Coroners post-mortem for the inquest. I very much doubt any other doctor present would be allowed to conduct his own post-mortem in parallel. My view is that they were present as observers.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostI think the main difference between both our views is that while I am attempting to blend what we know from inquest testimony, Dr Bonds notes & the various press articles, you seem to want to stick with what the doctors said & wrote, while challenging the press coverage.
Maybe I'm wrong but it does seem that way to me.
As for press articles, well they don't all support you Jon.
Take the Morning Advertiser of 10 November (which you previously quoted):
"Dr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of police, soon arrived, and was followed by Dr. Bond, of Westminster, divisional surgeon of the A division, Dr. J. R. Gabe, of Mecklenburgh-square, and two or three other surgeons. They made a preliminary examination of the body..."
That is EXACTLY what I am saying occurred.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostWhat do you mean by "Bond did not conduct his own separate post-mortem"?
My reply was to suggest what took place occurred in parallel not sequentially, because both were informal.
How do you interpret the sentence in his 10 November report which states: "I have also made a Post Mortem Examination of the mutilated remains..."?
How likely is it that two surgeons would conduct their own post-mortems, in parallel, which are totally different in nature.
Phillips is conducting a P.M. for the coroner, while Bond is doing no more than investigating the skill exhibited in the mutilations. One is formal, the other informal.
And why do you now refer to a "Coroners post-mortem"? What other kind of post-mortem is there?
P.M.'s can be conducted for a number of limited reasons, but are not subject to specific requirements, a Coroners P.M. is expected to meet very specific requirements.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostI don't see how that fact supports any theory.
Hebbert made the notes, according to some who analyzed the handwriting, he used a pocket book presumably.
In what way does it support one theory as opposed to another?
When I pointed out that Bond's notes were split into two - an in-situ examination and a post-mortem examination - you told me that this was perfectly normal and I should look at Dr Phillips' report in the McKenzie case.
But the Phillips report in the McKenzie case is broken down into an in-situ examination and a post-mortem examination in the mortuary.
When I asked you why this was not the case for the Kelly murder you suddenly changed your mind and told me that the Kelly murder was not normal so it will all be different!
My point is that the fact that the notes of Bond's post-mortem examination start on a new page is consistent with it being a different examination conducted at a different time and place.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostHe may have, but any notes by any other medical men have gone the same way as Phillips's post-mortem notes. None have survived.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostBesides, Dr bond's notes only concern themselves with the mutilations, as requested. That was the extent of his professional obligation to Anderson.
"The body was lying naked in the middle of the bed, the shoulders flat, but the axis of the body included to the left side of the bed."
What does that have to do with the mutilations?
And what about this:
"In the abdominal cavity was some partly digested food of fish & potatoes & similar food was found in the remains of the stomach attached to the intestines".
What does that have to do with the mutilations?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostWhat I call it, or what you call it, is irrelevant. It's what it was called by Dr Phillips in 1888 which is important and at no time did he refer to a "cursory" or even a "preliminary" examination. So it must be valid for me to object when you claim that the expression "cursory examination" came from Dr Phillips' own mouth, no?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostThe fact he sent his notes off on the same day might suggest nothing else was uncovered at the Coroners post-mortem.
How do we know the entire section under "Postmortem Examination" wasn't written in the afternoon on Saturday?
And the same for his entire report of 10 November.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostProfessional interest?
The most significant murder in recent history is bound to be the source of numerous questions from both the authorities and the medical men.
As you are no doubt aware, there is a note of telephone message in the Home Office files of the police response to a request for that report as follows:
'Body is believed to be that of a prostitute much mutilated. Dr Bond is at present engaged in making his Examination - but his report has not yet been received. Full report cannot be furnished until medical officers have completed enquiry.'
Note 'medical officers' plural. And Bond did not furnish his report on 9 November. It wasn't written until the next day. That suggests to me, not that he had a mere professional interest in the Saturday morning post-mortem examination, but that he could not submit his report until it was completed. What does it suggest to you?
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: