Theories on Rose being a Ripper victim

[Natalie Severn]

All I can say is that thankfully we have Stewart Evans to shine the light of intelligence and clarity on this Rose Mylett case.Currently the huge " conundrum" it has become threatens to overtake the original dog"s dinner of a riddle made by the Victorian spymaster and expert at "disinformation",Sir Robert Anderson .
From Stewart"s post above,I can see why it was that Anderson [and indeed Monro] saw need to contradict the medical findings of the Chief Police Surgeon ,Mr MacKellar and four other Police surgeons and insist that Rose Mylett ,last seen in the company of two sailors who were talking roughly to her, was an 'accidental death"-and not another unsolved murder case.

But I wonder, could wheeling on Dr Bond have had a further use? Dr Bond had after all been wheeled on the month before when he was asked to provide a "profile of the killer"---and he proved himself to be very helpful in this regard-not only did he have the "profile" ready on November 10th, the very next day after the Mary Kelly murder but it was in this "profile" that Dr Bond wrote of a " lone" killer of a series of " five" women ,and suggested that the killer was someone "living among such persons who would probably be unwilling to communicate suspicions to the police for fear of trouble or notoriety".Here then ,don"t we have the kernel of the "low class Jew" theory,in that Dr Bond"s killer lived amongst people "unwilling to hand him over to the police / gentile justice"?
Might it have therefore been pretty crucial to Dr Bond"s ---and , as it took shape, Robert Anderson"s, "Ripper theory" to stick to a 'lone killer" theory of "five" unfortunates,and not to have Rose Mylett joining that series of 1888 ,unsolved ,Whitechapel ,prostitute murders?

[Dave O]

A brief thought

Hello Stewart and Natalie,

I don't know if this is correct, but I'll throw it out there. Perhaps they're bringing Bond in not because he was a divisional surgeon, but because he was a lecturer of pathology at Westminster Hospital? There was a debate in the early 20th century about the strengths and weaknesses of different types of medical witnesses when the cause of death wasn't apparent: the general practioner who treated the victim in life and has great knowledge of his patient's medical history, but who may not be skilled at conducting a postmortem, the divisonal surgeon (who I think of as a skilled war medic working under difficult circumstances, treating victims at crime scenes, very familiar with postmortem procedures), and the pathologists, some of whom taught at some of London's teaching hospitals, who may not have known anything about patient history, may not have been a local man either, but who was an expert in anatomy and postmortem procedures. The law emphasized the use of local men.

Could the involvement of Bond, a combination of the divisional surgeon and pathologist, have been part of this later debate (which was probably already going on in 1888-89)--perhaps a vote of "no confidence" by Monro and Anderson in divisional surgeons and general practitioners? I believe it was the case that he was brought into other cases (besides the ones we're familiar with) in areas that were well outside A Division's area of operation. I know there's a case of Diplock's that has Bond (I think it says the CID wanted him in, Robert put it up somewhere, not sure if a div. surg. or a g.p. was involved though).

Just a thought--I could be wrong. It would seem very strange for them to have felt this way about their own divisional surgeons (who I personally think were the best to have, John Troutbeck said in 1906 that he had never had one fail to determine a cause of death). I would be interested to hear your thoughts, if you have any.

Cheers,
Dave

[Stewart P Evans]

Resigned

Hello Stewart and Natalie,
I don't know if this is correct, but I'll throw it out there. Perhaps they're bringing Bond in not because he was a divisional surgeon, but because he was a lecturer of pathology at Westminster Hospital? There was a debate in the early 20th century about the strengths and weaknesses of different types of medical witnesses when the cause of death wasn't apparent: the general practioner who treated the victim in life and has great knowledge of his patient's medical history, but who may not be skilled at conducting a postmortem, the divisonal surgeon (who I think of as a skilled war medic working under difficult circumstances, treating victims at crime scenes, very familiar with postmortem procedures), and the pathologists, some of whom taught at some of London's teaching hospitals, who may not have known anything about patient history, may not have been a local man either, but who was an expert in anatomy and postmortem procedures. The law emphasized the use of local men.
Could the involvement of Bond, a combination of the divisional surgeon and pathologist, have been part of this later debate (which was probably already going on in 1888-89)--perhaps a vote of "no confidence" by Monro and Anderson in divisional surgeons and general practitioners? I believe it was the case that he was brought into other cases (besides the ones we're familiar with) in areas that were well outside A Division's area of operation. I know there's a case of Diplock's that has Bond (I think it says the CID wanted him in, Robert put it up somewhere, not sure if a div. surg. or a g.p. was involved though).
Just a thought--I could be wrong. It would seem very strange for them to have felt this way about their own divisional surgeons (who I personally think were the best to have, John Troutbeck said in 1906 that he had never had one fail to determine a cause of death). I would be interested to hear your thoughts, if you have any.
Cheers,
Dave

Dave, you make good points and I have no doubt that much of the weight placed by the police on Bond's opinion was due to the fact that he was a specialist pathologist.

However, Bond had also been, until November 1888, the A Division (Westminster) Police Surgeon and was the Divisional Surgeon attached to the Commissioner's Office. I do touch on this in Scotland Yard Investigates. However, Bond resigned from this post (coincidentally?) just after the Kelly murder and was replaced by Dr. Farr.

With his previous report, of 10 November 1888, for the Commissioner on the previous murders, I suppose that it was natural that he should be requested to do the same on the Poplar murder.



The date of '14th November, 1887' is apparently an error.

[Dave O]

Hi Stewart,

Thanks, I have wanted to pass that idea by someone for awhile. I didn't know that he was also attached to the Commissioner's Office--I have a copy of SYI and will check it. Many thanks for your post.

Cheers,
Dave

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Dave,
Thanks for drawing attention to the pathology qualification of Dr Bond, I dont dispute that he was a well qualified doctor , but this doesnt explain how Mr MacKellar,the Chief Police Surgeon ,and the four other police surgeons ,all spoke with one voice over the matter and remained adamant that Rose Mylett was a homicide victim.
I still believe Dr Bond had become uniquely useful to Robert Anderson following the Kelly murder with his provision of a profile of a lone killer and that the evidence Stewart has presented here supports the likelihood that Anderson for some reason was determined to have him see things his way and change his original opinion that Mylett"s death was one of murder to one of accidental death.
Its always a pleasure to read your posts Dave,you so often have this kind of obscure information to add flesh to what now seem such quaint procedures!
Best Wishes
Norma

[Dave O]

Thanks, Natalie. I was just wondering about their own internal procedure as well as looking outside of it for a possible overall context for "why Bond?" Why not Farr--isn't it his place, so far as Monro and Anderson are concerned, as he was then attached to the Commissioner's Office? Of course, it makes sense that they'd have Bond because of his connections with the other murders like Stewart suggests. But then, with both Mylett and Mackenzie, it seems like Bond isn't quite good enough, is he? I mean that his first examination of Mylett is rejected, and then they disagree with him over whether Mackenzie was a Ripper victim. But they must have liked him since they were using him instead of Farr (and although I think Mylett was murdered, and that there something stinky went on between him and Anderson, he seems to a layperson like me to have been good).

Anyway, I am meandering down a side-street as I am liable to do. I doubt whether there are any answers unless it's in some procedure somewhere, and I don't mean to distract from the topic at hand.

And I am sick. On Halloween, no less.

Cheers,
Dave