Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Theories on Rose being a Ripper victim

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Natalie Severn
    replied
    Sir Robert would have us believe that there were Jews committing

    the abominable crimes and yet carefully shielded him from the police."
    ---A more wicked assertion to put into print without a shadow of evidence I have seldom seen.
    Thus spake "Mentor"!
    And this same,"Mentor" -or Mr Leopold Greenberg, writes in the same "Jewish Chronicle "article , a robust defence of the "low class Jews" Robert Anderson singled out from the Jewish Community to accuse of covering up the crimes of Jack the Ripper,Mentor called it a "nonsensical theory"----"here",he says,"was a whole neighbourhood,largely composed of Jews,in constant terror lest their womenfolk,whom Jewish men hold in particular regard-EVEN"LOW CLASS" JEWS DO THAT "he emphasises,"should be slain by some murderer who was stalking the area undiscovered.
    And Mentor was backed up,as I said earlier, by the Chief Commissioner of the City of London Police,Major Henry Smith ,who roundly defended the Jewish Community in its entirety as being a good deal more law abiding than many native East Enders,moreover, Smith "denounced" Robert Anderson for making such "RECKLESS" allegations about the Jewish Community,and ridiculed him for talking a load of nonsense about "pretending to know who the ripper was",when nobody else did.
    Night, Night Howie,
    its 11.30 here!
    Last edited by Natalie Severn; 10-29-2008, 02:32 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by auspirograph View Post
    Well, if the second cut to the neck down to the vertebrae of the Ripper victims was established as having been made with a knife, then there's no reason to credibly suppose or evidence to indicate that it was made by the killer to eliminate a garrotte mark, as was found and suggested with Mylett is there?
    Brownfield did not say there was any evidence, he made a suggestion, thats all.

    Originally posted by auspirograph View Post
    The second cuts could well have been made to ensure that the carotid artery was severed and to allow for the further mutilations. If correct, then the Ripper likely had no certain human anatomical knowledge.
    :-)
    Trust me, you'd know if you cut the jugglar..
    The doctors who prefer to assign a certain amount of anatomical knowledge to the Ripper did not even consider the point you make, it has no bearing on the issue. The medical men of the time considered a whole different set of details before they arrived at their conclusions.

    Originally posted by auspirograph View Post
    I would agree with you that it is an important point and if the Ripper did attempt to eliminate garrotte marks with the second cut, then it cautiously indicates that Mylett was also a Ripper victim, ..
    Given the fear of the time yes, they may have been drawn to such a conclusion. All I think it indicates is that Mylett was murdered with a similar implement to what the Ripper may have used.

    Originally posted by auspirograph View Post
    Regarding unconsciousness by strangulation in the Ripper victims, medical evidence indicated physical signs on the bodies with enough associated bruising but no indications of the use of a ligature, cord or garrotte.
    Thats a little too vague, the bruises that were noted have been written about extensively on these boards, no bruises are recorded on the neck of any of the three victims I have been referring to (Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes).
    That said, manual strangulation does not always leave bruise marks.
    Reasons for this can be manyfold.

    Perhaps the ambient temperature plays a roll, certainly the physical makeup of the victim will be a contributing factor. You will note, Nichols and Chapman were heavy set as compared with Eddowes, yet neither appears to have bore bruises on the neck. Nichols did have bruises on her chin, both left and right side. I think Chapman & Eddowes both had bruises on the back of their hands - this might be consistent with them trying to lash out at an attacker holding them from behind, as I suggested earlier.
    I would like to know if the amount of lactic acid present in the victim at the time of the attack may have had a bearing on whether bruises develope on certain parts of the body.

    Just as an aside, several years ago another method of strangulation was discussed on the Casebook in connection with these crimes, another way which leaves no marks on the skin.
    Perhaps the killer hooked his arm around the throat, again from behind, in what wrestlers call a 'strangle-hold'. This applies pressure to each jugglar vein, one side from the bicep, the other side from the forearm. The victim slips into unconsciousness but still breathes freely. This method does not choke off the air passage, but, simply puts the victim to sleep, due to restricting blood flow to the brain.
    This method may take longer to take effect than manual strangulation.

    Alternately, we have the common manual strangulation which applies pressure to the air passage but not the jugglar veins, with this the victim chokes to death for lack of air, relatively quickly, unless released prematurely.
    Which is not a good idea, the victim may begin to cough, creating too much noise. Manual strangulation itself can be noisey if not applied correctly and swiftly.
    The Ripper victims apparently did not choke to death for lack of air.

    Lastly, the ligature seems to apply pressure to both jugglar veins, and, the wind-pipe, rendering the victim unconscious sooner than either of the above methods, and, with less noise and resistance.

    With the first two methods the victim does at least have something to grab hold of, the killers fingers, hands or arms. With the ligature (garrot), the victim has nothing to grasp, except to tear away (scratch) at their own necks.

    The ligature is far more effective and much less risky and less strenuous for the attacker.

    Choose your weapon sir..!

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Dear Nats:

    With all due respect, Anderson makes the observation..whether correctly incorrectly.. that the Ripper was a "low class Polish Jew" in an identical fashion that other Jews considered those from The Pale of Settlement to be. No one accuses these landed,assimilated Jews of being anti-Semites when they make a sweeping generalization of an entire body of people ( which IS anti-Semitism), but Anderson gets hung out to dry for naming ONE Jew as the suspect in question. Thats not anti-Semitism,Nats...and despite what Mentor said,Anderson did not run and hide from his original sentiment, rather clarifying it to point out he was referring to either those in this suspect's immediate family or those of a certain class of Jews,who were considered pretty vile according to Rabbis themselves.. He was an elitist,Nats..in the manner many of us are when we encounter hillbillies or pikeys...we call 'em "white trash". Whether SRA was right or wrong in his declaration as to who the suspect was, I fail to see any signs of anti-Semitism within or by a remark that a man, who really didn't have to,but did, confront and clarify his position to make sure he was understood.

    But back to SPE:

    Dear SPE...I have what I consider a pretty important aspect to discuss within this whole Mylett matter which I mentioned on the Forums after Debra Arif was so kind as to put three newspaper article excerpts over there....regarding Bond & alcohol.

    If Brownfield did not notice alcohol in her stomach and stated so in his original report...and unless I am wrong, doctors assessed whether a deceased person had imbibed alcohol by smelling their stomachs....then HOW did Bond, according to the newspaper reports Debra found, find what amounted a teaspoon full ?

    If this is true...and using the same reevaluation procedures we do about and with other individuals throughout the Case...in particular,Anderson, since he's the flavor of the month here....can we truly trust Brownfield, if alcohol WAS found by Bond in direct contrast to what Brownfield declared several days before Bond even saw Mylett's body? Do you see what I am driving at here?

    Not that I think that Mylett strangled herself, which I certainly don't...but could the marks found on her neck been there a significant period of time prior to her death? In other words, she had been exposed to someone who put these marks on her neck...and a little while later succumbed to the effects or trauma of this encounter...and then,in light of the fact that there were no other footmarks in the area,save hers, dropped dead? What do you or anyone else think?

    Back to you ...
    Last edited by Howard Brown; 10-29-2008, 01:51 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Natalie Severn
    replied
    Stewart,
    Through you being able to present such a broad perspective on this case and by focussing on the police angle as well as the majority police surgeon"s [medical ]findings,this case is gradually beginning to make more sense to me.
    Thanks for all the awesome visual support .
    Norma

    Leave a comment:


  • Natalie Severn
    replied
    what evidence....to cast odium for this infamy on one of our people

    [QUOTE=Howard Brown;50923]Dear SPE:

    I certainly am not an Anderson apologist, but do see bias in other area(s)towards SRA, most notably that several individuals infer or toy with the idea that he was an anti-Semite when even Mentor didn't come close to suggesting that at any point in his rebuttal to SRA and no evidence exists of him being one either.

    Howard,
    I have posted on page 3 of this thread,an answer to your claim that- " Mentor
    didnt come close to suggesting he[Anderson] was an anti Semite in his rebuttal to Sir Robert Anderson"- well he most certainly did Howard!

    "Mentor"- aka Mr Leopold Jacob Greenberg, Editor of "The Jewish Chronicle"-called SRA"s comments on the "low class" Jewish community "wicked assertions",and he states in his editorial of
    Friday 4 March 1910:
    "I fail to see-at least,from his article in Blackwood"s-upon what evidence worthy of the name HE VENTURES TO CAST ODIUM FOR THIS INFAMY UPON ONE OF OUR PEOPLE".
    If that isnt accusing Robert Anderson of anti-Semitism by name- its a pretty strong indictment!

    Leave a comment:


  • Cap'n Jack
    replied
    'The most relevant point in all this, and, I suspect, the main reason for the great interest in this case, is how it reflects on Anderson the man and his ability to relate historical facts in an honest, objective and unbiased manner in his later publications.

    In my opinion and, I would have thought, in the view of any objective observer it does not reflect too well on the man. For his footnote comments on the 'Poplar case' are misleading, dishonest and, apparently, based upon his own belief system. If he cannot be relied upon here, then how can he be accepted as the fountain of truth that some would have us believe that he is?'

    Well said, Stewart, and they are the very reasons that I have pursued Anderson for his curt and comfortable dismissal - in the same volume of memoirs - of his detention by a police officer for an indecency offence on a train in the 1870's.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stewart P Evans
    replied
    Relevant

    The most relevant point in all this, and, I suspect, the main reason for the great interest in this case, is how it reflects on Anderson the man and his ability to relate historical facts in an honest, objective and unbiased manner in his later publications.

    In my opinion and, I would have thought, in the view of any objective observer it does not reflect too well on the man. For his footnote comments on the 'Poplar case' are misleading, dishonest and, apparently, based upon his own belief system. If he cannot be relied upon here, then how can he be accepted as the fountain of truth that some would have us believe that he is?
    Last edited by Stewart P Evans; 10-28-2008, 04:36 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stewart P Evans
    replied
    Notes on Strangulation

    It is a pity that the full autopsy report on Mylett has, apparently, not survived. However, we do know that the medical opinion was that she died from strangulation.

    Strangulation, manual or ligature, may cause death by asphyxiation. This often results, in the case of manual strangulation, in fingernail marks on the throat of the victim. It can also cause haemorrhage in the eyes (petechial haemorrhages) and sometimes trauma to the tongue. Damage is also caused to the interior structures of the neck, throat and larynx.

    It is impossible to strangle oneself manually, for as unconsciousness intervenes the hands will relax and the grip will be released.

    Sudden vagal inhibition or cerebral anaemia may precipitate death from a grip which would not be capable of causing asphyxia. In cases of manual strangulation the marks of the grip effected are not always prominent and such would appear to be the case with Mylett. Nor are there always fingernail impressions or scratching. Bruises of fingertips are not always sufficiently clear to define on the surface of the skin, but may be revealed in the tissues immediately beneath.

    Facial contortion may not always be assumed for victims of strangulation can present a peaceful appearance. Indeed, there are recorded cases of judicial execution where the face of the hanged culprit bore a peaceful appearance and the cause of death was betrayed only by the mark of the rope around the neck.

    This, of course, illustrates how it is wrong to deduce anything about the cause of death based on facial expression alone. On these grounds we can dismiss Anderson's assumptions based on the absence of facial contortions. We have already shown that the stated absence of signs of a struggle can be dismissed also.
    Last edited by Stewart P Evans; 10-28-2008, 04:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stewart P Evans
    replied
    Observations

    Dave, thank you very much for your interesting input and relevant observations. Amazingly a poster on the other boards asks, "What, then, did Robert Anderson do that was wrong?" I think it is patently obvious what he did wrong, not least of all by refusing to investigate a legally proven case of murder any further and putting himself above the law of the land - then years later deceiving his readers with his opinion of the Mylett case, leading them to think it wasn't even a case of murder. I shall be posting further on this.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dave O
    replied
    Hi Stewart,

    Anderson wrote to Munro ". . . not only that there was no proof of murder, but that the facts and circumstances were inconsistent with such any hypothesis. And this is now abundantly confirmed by what has since been learned as to the woman's drunken habits, by the medical evidence of Mr. Bond, and, lastly, by the opinion of Mr. Wontner, and, I think perhaps, I may add by that of the Coroner himself". (Sourcebook, p. 484).

    I think a comparison of both Anderson's statement and the article from The East London Advertiser with The Times account of Baxter's summation (10 January 1889) is helpful:

    The CORONER, proceeding to sum up, said that there were two points in connexion with the case which were singular, and which required careful attention. The first was that one could not help noticing that if this was a case of strangulation the string that produced the strangulation had not been found, and the second was that there was a medical opinion that this was not a case of homicidal strangulation. Therefore, the case would have to be considered very carefully. With regard to the evidence of identification, it appeared the deceased was about 26 years of age, but the mother did not appear to know whether she was married or not. She may have been married, because she was heard of under different names. One of the witnesses who knew the deceased stated she was more often drunk than sober. Deceased lived at Spitalfields, and it was a curious fact that whenever they had cases of violence in London they were generally associated with Spitalfields. The night before her death the deceased appeared to have left the lodging-house where she lived at about 7:30. She was next seen by the witness Hill at 12:15, when she was undoubtedly under the influence of liquor. She was next seen at about a quarter to 2 o'clock on the morning of the 20th ult. near the George public house, which was some considerable distance from the spot where the body was found. Nothing more was seen of her until the body was found at about 4:30. If the unfortunate woman met her death at the spot where the body was found it might have been done very rapidly, and no serious struggle went on. When the body was found it was in a comparatively natural condition. The usual signs of strangulation, such as protrusion of the tongue and clenching of the hands, were absent, there being nothing at all suggestive of death from violence. It was right to say, as some stress had been laid to the fact, that the police did not discover any mark at the time. The mark was not noticed until the mortuary keeper had the body stripped. The deceased's clothes were not disarranged, so that the violence must have been done with great rapidity. In connexion with the recent so-called Whitechapel murders, there was not the slightest disarrangement of the clothes. It all depended on the suddenness with which the deceased was attacked and the capability of the deceased to resist the attack. The constable who was on the beat stated that he noticed nothing unusual about the body. 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. Dr. Bond did not see the body until five days after death, and he was, therefore, at a disadvantage. Dr. Bond stated that if this was a case of strangulation he should have expected to find the skin broken, but it was clearly shown, on reference being made to the records of the Indian doctors in the cases of the Thug murders, that there were no marks whatever left. Other eminent authorities agreed with that view. In this case the deceased was completely helpless and would be easily overcome.
    In answer to the jury, the CORONER said he did not think any disrespect to him was intended when several doctors were sent to view the body.


    Here Baxter seems to disregard Bond's evidence and places more emphasis on the evidence of the other surgeons; it's almost as if the East London Advertiser and Anderson have only paid attention to the beginning of the summation.

    I also think it's interesting to note the jury's concern for the dignity of Baxter's office. Baxter is a popularly elected official, and the coroner was often described as "the poor man's magistrate". They do not appear to appreciate any interference with his office. I would also add that the whole notion of the autopsy as a routine feature of the inquest was a reaction to the prettification of death by various establishments earlier in the 19th century (the military, prison officials, etc).

    Whatever Anderson's intentiona were in the Mylett case, he seems to be acting somewhat improperly. Once the coroner received the case, and during the course of the inquest, the power to order postmortems (and secondary examinations) was the province of the coroner and jury, and Anderson might have done better to have worked more closely with Wynne Baxter. I mean that section 21 of The Coroner's Act 1887 (which I can send or post), gave coroners and juries the power to order further autopsies if so desired--that particular section repealed and simply restated The Medical Witness Act 1836, so that procedure was over half a century old in 1889. Yet here in the Mylett case it was ignored.

    I hope these thoughts are of interest,
    Dave

    Leave a comment:


  • Stewart P Evans
    replied
    Strangulation

    In assessing the cause of the death of Mylett the exact nature of strangulation should be clear in the reader's mind. For strangulation was the agreed cause of death amongst the medical men who examined her. It is therefore pointless for commentators to draw any firm conclusion as to cause of death as 'there were no signs of a struggle' at the scene and that 'Mylett's features were perfectly placid.' These are observations made at the scene, at the time, based on what was seen. They can only be weighed in this light and are subject to various caveats.

    First, the body was seen in the yard in darkness and by only the light of oil lanterns. The doctor attending the scene was Dr. Harris, assistant to the Divisional Surgeon, Dr. Brownfield. His function at this stage was merely to establish that the woman was dead before the police removed the body to the mortuary. He was not there to establish cause of death although, obviously, if he had seen anything of a suspicious nature he would have drawn it to the attention of the police. In Victorian times these initial examinations of the doctors, in order to pronounce death, were quite superficial and Harris did not note anything obvious of a suspicious nature, perhaps assuming that she was a typical derelict who had died in a secluded area from natural causes such as hypothermia or choking on her own vomit. The fact that she was lying in an apparently natural position and with placid features did not alert Harris to anything suspicious. He did not see or note the marks on her neck.

    The ground upon which Mylett was lying was commented upon by Anderson who stated that "the slightest struggle would have left its marks on the soft ground of the yard". But Anderson would say that as he was playing down the death and claiming that it was from natural causes. The fact is that in Victorian days the finer points of preserving the nature of the crime scene were not appreciated and the ground around the body would have been well-trodden by the police and doctor attending the scene with little thought given to any marks that may have become visible when daylight dawned. Such initial impressions formed at the scene of a sudden death were often changed by the results of a proper examination of the body.

    Yet these initial impressions, incredibly, led Anderson to his initial, and enduring, conclusion that "there was no proof of murder" and that "the facts and circumstances were inconsistent with such an hypothesis." And, building his conclusion on this shaky base, he chose to ignore all the medical evidence to the contrary, continuing, "And this is now abundantly confirmed by what has since been learned as to the woman's drunken habits, by the medical evidence of Mr. Bond, and, lastly, by the opinions of Mr. Wontner, and, I think perhaps, I may add by that of the Coroner himself."

    The fact that Brownfield had not attended the scene intially is irrelevant to his post mortem examination of the body and his conclusions as to the cause of death. Before conducting the autopsy Brownfield would have been well aware of all the circumstances of the discovery of the body, indeed he would have been briefed by his assistant, Harris, who had been at the scene. But he disagreed with Harris's intial feelings and concluded the woman had been strangled, and Harris modified his opinion after this proper examination. But Anderson was so self-satisfied that he saw fit to disagree with a professional medical man, a Divisional Police surgeon at that, as to the cause of death.

    But, most importantly, what has to be borne in mind with regard to this case is the fact that it was becoming another press sensation with criticism of the police and was exacerbated by the fact that here was an apparent break down of communication between the police and their own Divisional Surgeon and an apparent case of murder had been all but overlooked, and had certainly not been properly investigated at the outset. Oh that it could be a case of death from natural causes and thus further criticism of the police be avoided and another unsolved murder would not have to be added to the already lengthy tally of such cases in 1888.

    Unlike Anderson, Monro certainly accepted it as a case of murder when he stated, on 23 December 1888, to his concerned Home Office masters, "There is therefore no doubt that the case was one of murder - and a murder of a strange and unusual type."

    For his part, the recalcitrant Anderson stated, "...neither the evidence given at the inquest, nor the verdict arrived at, affects the judgment I formed when I personally investigated the case on the 22nd ult:, and that I did not intend to take any further action in the matter."!!! So there it is, Anderson had decided that he did not consider it a case of murder and he was not going to investigate it any further. I think that today he would have lost his job after saying something like that to the Chief Commissioner.
    Last edited by Stewart P Evans; 10-28-2008, 02:54 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Natalie Severn
    replied
    "AN ASPERSION UPON JEWS". POLICE THEORY by MENTOR

    Howard,
    Under the "nom de plume" of MENTOR , Leopold Jacob Greenberg , editor of The Jewish Chronicle, on Friday 4 March 1910 wrote an article headed,
    "An Aspersion on Jews,Police Theory again".

    But lets first agree on the dictionary meanings of "aspersion" and "theory"

    ASPERSION:an unkind or hurtful remark

    THEORY:an opinion based on limited information or knowledge

    both definitions taken from the Longman Dictionary.


    Now you can "re-arrange" his words and their meaning anyway you like, but it seems to me that both the heading of Mentor"s article and its contents, reveal that Mentor was quite appalled by Robert Anderson"s recent allegations in his 1910 series of articles in Blackwoods Magazine, accusing a " low class Polish Jew" of being the ripper and the East end Polish "low class" Jewish community of shielding him.
    Mentor"s words in fact ,refute absolutely and uneqivocally,Anderson"s claim calling it a "nonsensical theory" and a "WICKED ASSERTION" to put into PRINT.


    Further, in this particular context, Mentor/ Mr Greenberg ,is quite specific about Robert Anderson"s racism.

    Robert anderson has, he says,


    " cast the odium for this infamy on one of our people".

    ---[in other words "he has blamed a Jew for the crimes of Jack the Ripper"].


    Although it is fair to say that a specific "terminology" of race and ethnicity,as it exists today, had not been defined as such in that period of time time,still less entered general usage,the meaning of his sentence is quite clear.He is saying that Robert Anderson had:

    "unfairly singled out a man because of his Jewish ethnicity " .

    Look again at the meaning of Mentor"s sentence,[1st para in above article] and again using Longmans Dictionary as definition:

    "to cast odium" means "to cast WIDESPREAD HATRED"

    and "infamy"="wicked behaviour".

    So Mentor,to be precise,is accusing Robert Anderson of using Blackwood"s Magazine to

    blame a Jewish man for the crimes of Jack the Ripper and a Polish/Jewish community for allegedly "shielding the Ripper" and of therefore "venturing to "cast widespread hatred [about a Jew and a his Jewish community].


    Now Sir Robert did send his profuse apologies to Mentor/Mr Greenberg for giving offence .But his apologies could not be accepted,for though Anderson this time received a fairly graciously worded response from Mentor,Mentor carefully pointed out that Anderson could have ,by such ill advised remarks,rekindled the prejudice "constantly simmering against us".[a remark that was supported by Henry Smith, Chief Commissioner of the City of London Police,in his 1910 autobiography,who called Sir Robert"s assertions "reckless allegations" and and that no one knew or had ever known who the ripper was or where he had lived .

    Finally,the sensational claims to which Mentor refers above did not go unnoticed in official quarters.They were the subject of comment in the House of Commons.The Times of20 April 1910 reported that an MP ,Mr MACVEAGH,asked whether Robert anderson had had the sanction of the Home Office or Scotland Yard authorities to make such a public assertion,and if so what steps could betaken with regard to it.
    Mr CHURCHILL [WINSTON]replied he had not but that compared to some of his other statements the matter was of minor importance.


    Well,compared with Anderson admitting,in 1910 that it was he who had written defamatory articles about the Irish Home Rule MP, Parnell, for The Times newspaper,perhaps Churchill was seeing things more from the Government"s and a National Security point of view!


    Best Wishes
    Last edited by Natalie Severn; 10-28-2008, 01:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stewart P Evans
    replied
    Wynne Baxter

    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    Thanks for providing that,SPE. As an owner of Scotland Yard Investigates, I have made the suggestion on another Anderson related issue here that people should read your views on Anderson in Chapter 16.
    Let me ask you this,since we are on the subject of Mylett's death:
    On this site, there is a "primer' in which it mentions Wynne Baxter's views on whether or not Mylett's death was accidental or not. If this information was also found in the Linford/O'Flaherty/Savage series of articles in Ripperologist from two years ago or so on The Coronial System, I didn't see it...or overlooked it.
    In Scotland Yard Investigates, you or Mr. Rumbelow stated that Baxter was inclined to accept the natural causes theory on page 245. Yet, the primer on this site states that Baxter was having none of the "nonsense" that Mylett's death was an accidental one.
    Which is correct? That Baxter did lean towards accidental death or that he didn't ?
    How, thank you for that. The references to the Mylett murder used for Scotland Yard Investigates were taken from the official files (as reproduced in The Ultimate Sourcebook). The official file on the Mylett murder, MEPO 3/143, contains some press reports on the murders which were used by Monro. Below is one of them, from the Advertiser, which has been noted by Monro. You will see in this that it states, "Mr. WYNNE BAXTER, the coroner, says "there is no evidence to show that death was the result of violence." In that he follows Dr. BOND. The jury flatly disagree with him, and return a verdict of wilful murder against some person or persons unknown, being chiefly guided to that conclusion by the evidence of Doctors BROWNFIELD, HARRIS, HIBBERD [sic], and M'KENNA [sic], each of whom is of opinion that the woman was murdered by means of something of the nature of a cord drawn tightly around her neck..."

    Click image for larger version

Name:	baxterbond.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	168.5 KB
ID:	655157

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Thanks for providing that,SPE. As an owner of Scotland Yard Investigates, I have made the suggestion on another Anderson related issue here that people should read your views on Anderson in Chapter 16.

    Let me ask you this,since we are on the subject of Mylett's death:

    On this site, there is a "primer' in which it mentions Wynne Baxter's views on whether or not Mylett's death was accidental or not. If this information was also found in the Linford/O'Flaherty/Savage series of articles in Ripperologist from two years ago or so on The Coronial System, I didn't see it...or overlooked it.

    In Scotland Yard Investigates, you or Mr. Rumbelow stated that Baxter was inclined to accept the natural causes theory on page 245. Yet, the primer on this site states that Baxter was having none of the "nonsense" that Mylett's death was an accidental one.

    Which is correct? That Baxter did lean towards accidental death or that he didn't ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Stewart P Evans
    replied
    Further Posts

    When I have the time I shall be making further posts to explain the forensic implications of the what occurred in the Mylett case and, hopefully, put right some misleading comments that have been made on another thread discussing this case. It is apparent that some commentators need to appreciate the police and medical protocols involved as well as not drawing rash conclusions from ill-informed and biased reasoning.
    Last edited by Stewart P Evans; 10-28-2008, 01:01 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X