Double throat cuts

[David Orsam]

No David.
This entire report (which begins "Notes of examination of body of woman, etc.) takes place at Millers Court - all of it.

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?

[David Orsam]

No, it's the post-mortem he was involved with at 2:00 pm Friday afternoon.
Rigor mortis would not be increasing during the Saturday morning post-mortem-in-chief. That would have been some 17 hours after the Friday post-mortem, at 2:00 pm.

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.

[David Orsam]

Any examination of a body after death is a post-mortem.

So you could equally have said the following to John in #128:

"After a post-mortem examination he determined she had died from a cut to the throat. That is all we know from Phillips's own mouth, isn't it?"

Is that right? Please confirm.

[David Orsam]

I didn't see it, on this thread?

Just a few hours ago Jon in #135:

"If you had said Phillips "immediately" worked out the cause of death then that would be reasonable, but there is nothing to indicate it was during a cursory or preliminary examination unless you want to argue that the entire examination up to 4pm was a cursory or preliminary one. Do you?"

[Wickerman]

Just to add one more thing about language here Jon (and I note you didn't answer my question as to whether the whole examination up to 4pm was a "preliminary" one).

I didn't see it, on this thread?
No matter, why should there be any issue over that?
Any examination of a body after death is a post-mortem. When two examinations take place, especially on the same day, obviously it is necessary to distinguish between the two.
(I normally choose to refer to the Saturday morning post-mortem as an autopsy, as this is the only examination sanctioned by the Coroner for the inquest. Except below, and I explain why)

In his report submitted to Anderson, Dr Bond says he made a "Post Mortem Examination of the mutilated remains of a woman found yesterday in a small room in Dorset Street". I don't think he is there saying that the post mortem was conducted in the small room in Dorset Street, only that the body was found there. Agree?

Right, In the press the Saturday morning examination was identified as the "post-mortem-in-chief", to distinguish it from the post-mortem performed on Friday.

Then in his report he refers to his visit at 2pm, says rigor mortis had set in and continues that it "increased during the progress of the examination". From this one might conclude that "the examination" being referred to is the "Post Mortem Examination" referred to at the start of the report.

No, it's the post-mortem he was involved with at 2:00 pm Friday afternoon.
Rigor mortis would not be increasing during the Saturday morning post-mortem-in-chief. That would have been some 17 hours after the Friday post-mortem, at 2:00 pm.

However, when one looks at his notes we find a different picture.

The first half of his notes is headed:

"Notes of examination of body of woman found murdered and mutilated in Dorset St." He then goes on to the note the position of the body, other superficial details about the mutilations and the blood on the bedclothes.

However, the second half of his notes is headed:

"Postmortem examination."

The injuries and mutilations are then described in great detail.

Now, to me, that suggests that he is referring to two separate events in his notes. An examination conducted in the room (which, perhaps, one could call "a preliminary examination"?) and an examination conducted in the mortuary, namely the post-mortem examination.

This would be in accordance with normal procedure because post-mortems are not normally conducted at a crime scene.

Do you agree with me here Jon?

No David.
This entire report (which begins "Notes of examination of body of woman, etc.) takes place at Millers Court - all of it.

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.

[David Orsam]

Here is another decent summary, and yes, they confused Phillips with Duke.

"Dr. Duke, the police surgeon of H division, was the first medical man to arrive on the spot and he at once undertook a preliminary examination. Half an hour later he 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.

Previous to the post-mortem examination a photographer, who was brought on the scene only after considerable difficulty and delay, set to work in the court and house with a view to obtaining permanent evidence, as to the state of the room, the condition of the body, and other points - trivial, perhaps, but possibly important which have heretofore been too much neglected in the investigation of the series of crimes of which today's horror is surely the climax. The state of the atmosphere was, unfortunately, not favourable to good results."
Western Mail, 10 Nov. 1888

Where is the value in trying to argue for only one examination?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

[Wickerman]

Here is another decent summary, and yes, they confused Phillips with Duke.

"Dr. Duke, the police surgeon of H division, was the first medical man to arrive on the spot and he at once undertook a preliminary examination. Half an hour later he 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.

Previous to the post-mortem examination a photographer, who was brought on the scene only after considerable difficulty and delay, set to work in the court and house with a view to obtaining permanent evidence, as to the state of the room, the condition of the body, and other points - trivial, perhaps, but possibly important which have heretofore been too much neglected in the investigation of the series of crimes of which today's horror is surely the climax. The state of the atmosphere was, unfortunately, not favourable to good results."
Western Mail, 10 Nov. 1888

Where is the value in trying to argue for only one examination?

[David Orsam]

Just to add one more thing about language here Jon (and I note you didn't answer my question as to whether the whole examination up to 4pm was a "preliminary" one).

In his report submitted to Anderson, Dr Bond says he made a "Post Mortem Examination of the mutilated remains of a woman found yesterday in a small room in Dorset Street". I don't think he is there saying that the post mortem was conducted in the small room in Dorset Street, only that the body was found there. Agree?

Then in his report he refers to his visit at 2pm, says rigor mortis had set in and continues that it "increased during the progress of the examination". From this one might conclude that "the examination" being referred to is the "Post Mortem Examination" referred to at the start of the report.

However, when one looks at his notes we find a different picture.

The first half of his notes is headed:

"Notes of examination of body of woman found murdered and mutilated in Dorset St." He then goes on to the note the position of the body, other superficial details about the mutilations and the blood on the bedclothes.

However, the second half of his notes is headed:

"Postmortem examination."

The injuries and mutilations are then described in great detail.

Now, to me, that suggests that he is referring to two separate events in his notes. An examination conducted in the room (which, perhaps, one could call "a preliminary examination"?) and an examination conducted in the mortuary, namely the post-mortem examination.

This would be in accordance with normal procedure because post-mortems are not normally conducted at a crime scene.

Do you agree with me here Jon?

[David Orsam]

David, there is no point in you claiming the glass is half full, if I am claiming it is half empty.

The difference above is you do not accept that when a doctor makes a cursory, meaning visual, examination it is not a "preliminary" examination. Yet we both know what "preliminary" means.

If any doctor accesses the situation of a corpse and the circumstances of the crime at a crime scene it is an examination, like it or not.

Of course he had taken into account the results of the full post-mortem, that was never in dispute. The issue was that he was able to determine the cause on his "subsequent" in his words, or "preliminary", in the words of the press, examination after he entered the room.
He is telling the court his first impressions were correct.

But, Jon, your entire reason for using the terms "cursory" and "preliminary" is the Times newspaper report, distinguishing Phillips' supposed sole, brief, examination at 1.30pm from the longer multi-doctor examination at 2pm. For all you know, however, Dr Phillips never even looked at the body at 1.30pm - or at least not sufficiently to form any conclusions at all - because the photographer might have got straight to work.

And what I just can't understand was your need to use the word "cursory" at all in this sentence:

"After a cursory (preliminary?) examination he determined she had died from a cut to the throat."

Especially followed by the comment, "That is all we know from Phillips's own mouth, isn't it?"

Why not just say: "After an examination he determined she had died from a cut to the throat"? Because that, in truth, is all we actually know from Phillips' own mouth, isn't it?

[Wickerman]

David, there is no point in you claiming the glass is half full, if I am claiming it is half empty.

The difference above is you do not accept that when a doctor makes a cursory, meaning visual, examination it is not a "preliminary" examination. Yet we both know what "preliminary" means.

If any doctor accesses the situation of a corpse and the circumstances of the crime at a crime scene it is an examination, like it or not.

Of course he had taken into account the results of the full post-mortem, that was never in dispute. The issue was that he was able to determine the cause on his "subsequent" in his words, or "preliminary", in the words of the press, examination after he entered the room.
He is telling the court his first impressions were correct.

[David Orsam]

David, seriously, the man actually tells the court which details led him to that conclusion.

".....the large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the paliasse, pillow, sheet, at that top corner nearest the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery which was the immediate cause of her death was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head & neck in the top right hand corner."

Yes I can read Jon but there is nothing in that passage that says this was a "cursory" or "preliminary" examination which are the two words you used.

If you had said Phillips "immediately" worked out the cause of death then that would be reasonable, but there is nothing to indicate it was during a cursory or preliminary examination unless you want to argue that the entire examination up to 4pm was a cursory or preliminary one. Do you?

There is nothing to misunderstand there. He doesn't need to cut her open.

Well he needs to complete his examination before he can confirm his initial opinion as to cause of death doesn't he?

I understand your reluctance to have Phillips arrive at that conclusion so early that afternoon, you want him to be unsure until the very end - close to 4:00 pm.

I don't "want" anything Jon. But it seems obvious to me that he is only going to give an opinion at the inquest based on his entire examination of the body.

Have you ever driven into a garage and told a mechanic the troubles you are having with the car?
You give him the symptoms and immediately he can tell you what is wrong.
Professionals do not always need to dissect the subject, sometimes experience tells them what is wrong.

Yes, perhaps Phillips worked it all out immediately during his examination of the body. But he doesn't say he did this during a cursory examination. You are putting words into his mouth.

The extent of the wounds to her neck, the amount of blood, the position of the body, speak volumes. As he knows the results of the post-mortem conducted later that day merely confirmed his first impressions then he has no reservation about informing the court that he was able to correctly determine the cause of death on his arrival.

Thank you, so he WAS taking into account the results of his entire examination in his evidence to the court!

But you seem to think he was telling a little story in chronological order. "First the door was forced open, then I entered the room, then I noticed the position of the furniture, then I formed an opinion about the cause of death, then I ---" at which point you seem to think the coroner leapt in and said "No, Dr Phillips do not tell us any more of this interesting chronological sequence of events, you must not tell us what happened next!".

That's not what was happening. The coroner wanted to know the cause of death - whether it took Dr Phillips 5 seconds or 5 hours to work it out, and whether he worked it out in the room or at the mortuary - just the cause of death and nothing at all about the mutilations.

However, if the later post-mortem had suggested she was first poisoned, then he would not have said what he did, as he could not determine that on his first examination.

Well that's what I mean. What if he changed his mind after what you refer to as his "cursory" examination? He wasn't telling a story in chronological order which is what you seem to think was going on. All he tells us is that he entered the room at 1.30pm and then carried out a "subsequent examination".

If you call that examination a "cursory" or "preliminary" examination you are going further than evidence properly allows.

[Wickerman]

No he's not saying that at all Jon. You are confusing two things, namely (a) the position of the furniture which he saw when he entered the room and (b) the results of his subsequent examination of the body.

One can't come to a proper conclusion about the cause of death, sufficient to state at an inquest, until one has carried out a full post-mortem examination.

You are misunderstanding what Phillips was being asked to do at the inquest and it's leading you down a wrong (garden) path.

David, seriously, the man actually tells the court which details led him to that conclusion.

".....the large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the paliasse, pillow, sheet, at that top corner nearest the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery which was the immediate cause of her death was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head & neck in the top right hand corner."

There is nothing to misunderstand there. He doesn't need to cut her open.

I understand your reluctance to have Phillips arrive at that conclusion so early that afternoon, you want him to be unsure until the very end - close to 4:00 pm.

Have you ever driven into a garage and told a mechanic the troubles you are having with the car?
You give him the symptoms and immediately he can tell you what is wrong.
Professionals do not always need to dissect the subject, sometimes experience tells them what is wrong.

The extent of the wounds to her neck, the amount of blood, the position of the body, speak volumes. As he knows the results of the post-mortem conducted later that day merely confirmed his first impressions then he has no reservation about informing the court that he was able to correctly determine the cause of death on his arrival.

However, if the later post-mortem had suggested she was first poisoned, then he would not have said what he did, as he could not determine that on his first examination.

[David Orsam]

David, it is your prerogative to interpret Phillips's "subsequent examination" as you wish. However, there is no escaping the fact he described each detail which contributed to his conclusion, and all those details are visual. Purely, the position of her body, the location of the blood, and the condition of the sheets, pillow, etc.
Nothing that required an in-depth examination which a post-mortem would provide.

In other words he is saying it was kind of obvious from what he saw after he entered the room.

No he's not saying that at all Jon. You are confusing two things, namely (a) the position of the furniture which he saw when he entered the room and (b) the results of his subsequent examination of the body.

One can't come to a proper conclusion about the cause of death, sufficient to state at an inquest, until one has carried out a full post-mortem examination.

You are misunderstanding what Phillips was being asked to do at the inquest and it's leading you down a wrong (garden) path.

[Wickerman]

I feel the need to step in again here Jon.

The coroner only wanted his jury to hear evidence from Phillips about the immediate cause of Kelly's death. So that is all the evidence Phillips gave. The coroner expressly stopped Phillips from giving any further evidence about what he found during his examination.

Phillips did NOT say that he came to his conclusions about the immediate cause of death from a cursory (or preliminary) examination. Indeed, a moment's thought tells us that it would be ridiculous if he only gave evidence at the inquest based on some kind of "cursory" or "preliminary" examination rather than from his full (post mortem) examination. He would, of course, have given his considered opinion to the coroner as to the cause of death.

David, it is your prerogative to interpret Phillips's "subsequent examination" as you wish. However, there is no escaping the fact he described each detail which contributed to his conclusion, and all those details are visual. Purely, the position of her body, the location of the blood, and the condition of the sheets, pillow, etc.
Nothing that required an in-depth examination which a post-mortem would provide.

In other words he is saying it was kind of obvious from what he saw after he entered the room.

[David Orsam]

After a cursory (preliminary?) examination he determined she had died from a cut to the throat. That is all we know from Phillips's own mouth, isn't it?

I feel the need to step in again here Jon.

The coroner only wanted his jury to hear evidence from Phillips about the immediate cause of Kelly's death. So that is all the evidence Phillips gave. The coroner expressly stopped Phillips from giving any further evidence about what he found during his examination.

Phillips did NOT say that he came to his conclusions about the immediate cause of death from a cursory (or preliminary) examination. Indeed, a moment's thought tells us that it would be ridiculous if he only gave evidence at the inquest based on some kind of "cursory" or "preliminary" examination rather than from his full (post mortem) examination. He would, of course, have given his considered opinion to the coroner as to the cause of death.