Double throat cuts

[Wickerman]

You are once again getting it all the wrong way round.

I'm not dismissing anything.

I'm asking you why you are accepting the newspaper report without corroboration and without qualification.

Do you see the difference?

It's precisely because there are other press reports, even though some get specific details wrong, these details are correctly presented in other versions.
That is what collating is, obtaining an overview of the whole scenario and determining from what we have the apparent sequence of events.

[David Orsam]

You ask a lot of questions David.

It's convention.
First the victim & scene are described as found.
Then the examination is recorded in detail.

Take a look at Phillips's examination of McKenzie. Thankfully we have this prime example of how it should be done.

Sorry, Jon, doesn't Phillip's report of his McKenzie examination support exactly what I have been saying?

Firstly, as you say, Phillips describes the victim and scene as found but then there is a new heading:

"Exn of body at mortuary".

In other words, he is describing two completely separate examinations at two separate locations.

That is precisely what I am suggesting Dr Bond is doing in his 16 November "report". Firstly reporting what he saw during his examination in 13 Miller's Court. Then reporting the post-mortem examination at the mortuary.

Sorry to be a pain with my questions (let me know if they are too difficult for you) but why could not Dr Bond be doing the very same thing in his "report"?

[Wickerman]

But it's bang on the subject. Yes, every newspaper has both correct and incorrect information. So how do you know that the newspaper was correct on this occasion when it referred to a preliminary examination being carried out by Dr Duke, meaning Dr Phillips?

Because of other reports taken into account.

I never said you should have mentioned Warren. What you should have done was indicate by the use of dots that you had omitted to reproduce a section of the report, as you must know.

Completely separate paragraph, separate heading, nothing to do with the subject at hand.

[Wickerman]

I see, so if his "report" (to take your description) is entirely of the post-mortem examination, what is the purpose of the heading "Postmortem Examination" after the first five paragrahs?

You ask a lot of questions David.

It's convention.
First the victim & scene are described as found.
Then the examination is recorded in detail.

Take a look at Phillips's examination of McKenzie. Thankfully we have this prime example of how it should be done.

[David Orsam]

Do you understand? It's you I'm "attacking" Not the newspaper reports!

Sorry to be so blunt by the way but I felt I needed to get the message across.

[David Orsam]

We need to be sure we are discussing the same sections.

"Rigor Mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination"

Obviously, this is the Friday post-mortem at 2:00 pm. That is what I am saying.

Well I entirely agree that it was an examination at 2.00pm but I'm questioning whether Dr Bond was referring to it as a "post-mortem" examination.

His first line in this report which you previously quoted:
"I have also made a Post Mortem Examination of the mutilated remains of a woman found yesterday in a small room in Dorset Street".

As he took part in two post-mortems, this line could refer to either. Regardless, it does not help solve our debate.

No, I appreciate that, which is why I'm wondering why he headed a portion only of his 16 November "report" as "Postmortem Examination". Do you have an answer for this?

[David Orsam]

From what I see David, you are the one who "thinks" there was only one.

No, I've told you on countless occasions that I think that this is one possible interpretation of the evidence. For me the most probable one. I fully accept it is possible that there were two examinations but it is not certain. It is not an established fact. So you should stop saying it was!

[David Orsam]

So, there is no value in press reports unless their reports are all first-hand accounts? Well, that's the end of the press as we know it.

Again you show that you haven't understood what I've been saying to you in about 100 posts.

I'm not saying there's no value in press reports in general and I'm not saying there is no value in this report.

What I'm saying is that the fact that it has been reported does not mean it is established fact. You continually treat it as established fact. You do not qualify or caveat the statement that there were these two examinations.

Do you understand? It's you I'm "attacking" Not the newspaper reports!

[Wickerman]

I'm a little bit worried you are not reading my posts properly. Bond says that rigor-mortis was increasing after his visit at 2pm, at which time he was carrying out an examination, but not, expressly, after the start of a post-mortem examination. Please read my #138 carefully. Had you answered the question I asked you in the second paragraph, we might have been able to avoid this sort of confusion.

We need to be sure we are discussing the same sections.

"Rigor Mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination"

Obviously, this is the Friday post-mortem at 2:00 pm. That is what I am saying.

His first line in this report which you previously quoted:
"I have also made a Post Mortem Examination of the mutilated remains of a woman found yesterday in a small room in Dorset Street".

As he took part in two post-mortems, this line could refer to either. Regardless, it does not help solve our debate.

[David Orsam]

No-one is correct in everything they write, scientists, archaeologist, police official, doctor - journalist.
The task is to disseminate what we read, not dismiss it because they got a name wrong.

You are once again getting it all the wrong way round.

I'm not dismissing anything.

I'm asking you why you are accepting the newspaper report without corroboration and without qualification.

Do you see the difference?

[David Orsam]

David, every newspaper has both correct & incorrect information. Why are you drifting off the subject?

But it's bang on the subject. Yes, every newspaper has both correct and incorrect information. So how do you know that the newspaper was correct on this occasion when it referred to a preliminary examination being carried out by Dr Duke, meaning Dr Phillips?

What is the point of me mentioning Warren when we are talking about a post-mortem?

I never said you should have mentioned Warren. What you should have done was indicate by the use of dots that you had omitted to reproduce a section of the report, as you must know.

[David Orsam]

It's in the Irish Times too, and in other outlets. Didn't you tell me before in was in the Chronicle?
Why does that matter?

I already said the same report appeared in multiple newspapers. It matters because it's an agency report which is not based on first hand knowledge. The reporter could simply have been speculating about what was going on in the room knowing that Phillips was in there. Phillips might have done nothing until the photographer had taken his photographs. That's the point. The reporter didn't know for sure what was happening in the room. You don't know for sure. So by all means say that you think or believe that there was a preliminary examination but please stop stating it as an established fact!

[Wickerman]

Why is it a "decent summary"? Because it reinforces what you are saying?

This is just another agency report circulated around the country and appearing in multiple newspapers on 10 November. The fact you cite the Western Mail suggests that you are unaware that it can be found in the Daily Chronicle of 10 November.

It's in the Irish Times too, and in other outlets. Didn't you tell me before in was in the Chronicle?
Why does that matter?

And you've been a little bit naughty Jon. In between those two paragraphs, the report states (as it does in the Daily Chronicle), "Sir Charles Warren arrived at Miller-court (sic*) at a quarter to two o'clock...The commissioner remained on the spot until the completion of the post-mortem examination, at a quarter to four, and then returned to Scotland Yard...". That was wrong wasn't it? Another press error.

David, every newspaper has both correct & incorrect information. Why are you drifting off the subject?
(How ironic, this being a Double Throats Cut thread)
What is the point of me mentioning Warren when we are talking about a post-mortem?

So why do you have any confidence in a report which misidentifies Dr Phillips as Dr Duke?

No-one is correct in everything they write, scientists, archaeologist, police official, doctor - journalist.
The task is to disseminate what we read, not dismiss it because they got a name wrong.

The only thing is certain is that the journalist who wrote that report was not in the room at the time and is reporting, at best, hearsay information.

So, there is no value in press reports unless their reports are all first-hand accounts? Well, that's the end of the press as we know it.

Some members of the press thought there were two examinations. We already know that. Why isn't it possible that they were wrong?

*The Daily Chronicle has it correct as Miller's Court

From what I see David, you are the one who "thinks" there was only one.

[Robert St Devil]

this is a tough one david. considering the severity of the crime ie. her organs laying upon the bed and bedside, i could see how, while preparing his post mortem notes, he was also conducting part of his post mortem examination. in a macabre sense, jack the ripper had partly done their job for them. as in, "under her head is her breast, under that is...."

im guessing they removed her body at 4:30??? thats two hours with her compared to the other cases where they transported the body on an ambulance shortly after.

[David Orsam]

Nowhere does Bond offer any details of his involvement in the Saturday morning post-mortem-in-chief, that is entirely the purview of Dr. Phillips.

How do you know that the details of Bond's involvement in the Saturday morning post-mortem-in-chief are not contained in his "report" of 16 November?