Theories on Rose being a Ripper victim

[Aethelwulf]

Just posting this here for those interested in the Mylett case who might not think of looking on the Bury pages: https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...98-bury-mylett.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In Another Place, there has been some discussion of Anderson's statement in his memoirs that 'the Poplar case of December, 1888, was a death from natural causes, and but for the "Jack the Ripper" scare, no one would have thought of suggesting that it was a homicide.'

Howard Brown said that Anderson appeared to have forgotten that the coroner's jury brought in a verdict of wilful murder, and Paul Begg responded that "Surely in saying that ... it is implicit that he was fully aware of the jury's conclusion".
Perhaps so (though perhaps not). But whatever the truth of the matter, surely the relevance to Anderson's other pronouncements is clear. The point is that Anderson simply asserts as a fact that Mylett died of natural causes and implies that any suggestion otherwise was ill-founded. How many readers would guess from this that the majority of medical opinion and the verdict of the jury were that she was murdered?

Anderson's personal opinion is presented as fact, and there is no adequate acknowledgment of opinions to the contrary. But in this case we are fortunate enough to have other sources of information to balance the account.

But on other subjects where we don't have adequate independent information, surely the moral is clear. It is dangerous to take Anderson's claims at face value, even when he speaks of "definitely ascertained fact".

It is ironic, is it not, that I have on numerous occasions been castigated for allegedly presenting opinion as fact, but Anderson has repeatedly been allowed to get away with it.

I did point out Anderson's Mylett howler some months ago.

As I pointed out much more recently, also in another place, the Whitechapel murders case is not the only case in which Anderson made unfounded allegations against Polish Jews - both that they murdered a prostitute or prostitutes and that witnesses refused to co-operate with the police investigation.

The other case to which I refer must surely be known at least to some of Anderson's defenders here, yet I am still waiting to see a rebuttal of what I have written.

[Aethelwulf]

In Another Place, there has been some discussion of Anderson's statement in his memoirs that 'the Poplar case of December, 1888, was a death from natural causes, and but for the "Jack the Ripper" scare, no one would have thought of suggesting that it was a homicide.'

Howard Brown said that Anderson appeared to have forgotten that the coroner's jury brought in a verdict of wilful murder, and Paul Begg responded that "Surely in saying that ... it is implicit that he was fully aware of the jury's conclusion".

Perhaps so (though perhaps not). But whatever the truth of the matter, surely the relevance to Anderson's other pronouncements is clear. The point is that Anderson simply asserts as a fact that Mylett died of natural causes and implies that any suggestion otherwise was ill-founded. How many readers would guess from this that the majority of medical opinion and the verdict of the jury were that she was murdered?

Anderson's personal opinion is presented as fact, and there is no adequate acknowledgment of opinions to the contrary. But in this case we are fortunate enough to have other sources of information to balance the account.

But on other subjects where we don't have adequate independent information, surely the moral is clear. It is dangerous to take Anderson's claims at face value, even when he speaks of "definitely ascertained fact".

One for PI's anti Anderson crusade. I would agree here though - Anderson rides rough shod over the opinions of four doctors and the coroner. Lessons for the 'ID' here I think.

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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?

[Stewart P Evans]

Long Posts

I see that the debate on this topic is trundling along on the other boards and that Paul Begg has now contributed another lengthy post. Much may be speculation but some valid points are raised. I would like to simplify all this as most readers develop a certain word blindness when reading long posts. I should like to narrow things down to specifics and try not to let it become too complicated.

Paul Begg's concern, naturally, is about the criticism levelled at Anderson over this affair. So he points out Monro's part in the matter in order to shift the onus in that direction. Fair enough, but it is totally irrelevant who the prime mover was, for Anderson's actions remain the same and the criticism of them valid. That criticism is that he was instrumental in pressing the police view at a senior level that this was a death from natural causes and not murder, he refused to investigate the case as a murder (despite the verdict of the jury) and later misleadingly described it as a death from natural causes and not murder. Both he and Monro would naturally prefer that, for it meant that another unsolved murder would not be added to the list and there was some high profile press attention being given to the case - even suggesting the invalid notion that it was another Ripper crime.

There is no doubt that Monro would have preferred a verdict of death from natural causes, rather than murder, and he was senior to Anderson. Anderson agreed with him, was directed by him, and thus became involved in debating the case with the medical men stating he 'pressed my difficulties and objections'. This may be seen in the verbatim reproduction of the official reports in The Ultimate Sourcebook. All to no avail, for the inquest verdict was one of 'murder by person or persons unknown'. The very result that Monro and Anderson did not want.

What is difficult to understand is Bond's part in all this. The murder fell under the jurisdiction of the Divisional Police Surgeon Doctor Brownfield and the highest ranking police medical man Surgeon in Chief, Alexander O. McKellar, also attended and both men, out-qualifying Bond, maintained that it was a case of homicidal strangulation. They were there, they examined the body and, I should hope, were more qualified to reach a decision than any police officer or any modern theorist.

The police objections to this conclusion were based on the placid features of the deceased and the apparent lack of signs of a struggle in the soft ground. Both of these points have been covered previously and, as stated, strangulation (in some of its many forms) is not always accompanied by facial contortion nor by excessive marking of the neck. Also the 'signs of a struggle' idea is invalid as there would have been footprints all around the body from when it was discovered (in darkness) and any slight signs of a struggle (presumably scuffs on the ground) would have obliterated before they were even looked for. As it was initially not treated as a suspicious death then there would have been no real attempt to find such marks anyway.

The fact that Anderson could get away with writing in a report to his chief, Monro, that he had told the Divisional Superintendent that he 'did not intend to take any further action in the matter' indicates that Monro was of a like mind. Today such actions by the police would be regarded as scandalous and a gross neglect of duty. But, moving on to 1910, when writing about the case Anderson was happy to leave to posterity the 'fact' that it 'was a death from natural causes, and but for the "Jack the Ripper" scare, no one would have thought of suggesting that it was a homicide.' This is all he says about the case in his book, so any reader not au fait with the facts would have no idea that it was a case of murder and that the unsolved murder case was still on the books at Scotland Yard. This is a gross distortion of the truth by Anderson.

[Pinkerton]

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.

You have this reversed. Manual strangulation, which cuts off the airway, can take up to a few MINUTES to kill a person, whereas applying a chokehold where both sides of the neck are compressed will bring the person to unconscienceness within seconds, and death in under a minute. Also, the chokehold can ALSO compress the airway AS WELL as the blood supply (which will work even faster). This would also prevent someone from crying out.

If the Ripper strangled his victims he most certainly did not manually strangle them. That would have left all manner of marks on the neck, including finger marks and probably broken skin. He either used a chokehold, or used a ligature. I'm going to start a thread specifically about the issue of strangulation. I have a couple of interesting articles on the subject.

[Natalie Severn]

[QUOTE=Howard Brown;51084]Perhaps Anderson can be excused the charge of blanket antisemitism, because he had friends among the Anglo-Jewish establishment. But I think it's clear that he was prejudiced.-Chris

And yet no more so,in fact less in several instances, than the authors of the numerous articles on the issue of Polish Jewry who happened to be Jewish, yet they are not labelled anti-Semitic.


Howard,
Sticking the language of prejudice as it exists as we talk today, whether by race ,class or gender [ UK definitions]ie -regarding equal access to jobs for example,the groupings are quite specific.If fellow Jews looked down on and bad mouthed other Jews, they are likely showing a prejudice of "class" or social superiority.
In Anderson"s case ,according to the criteria above he,as an upper class white male, is revealing prejudice about ,both " class" and "race".

Anyway I am very aware we must move this to another thread or else the really splendid source materials Stewart Evans has so kindly posted here and his equally compelling statements about the Rose Mylett case which is what this thread is about, will be lost on readers because we are engaged in discussing this other Anderson agenda that keeps rearing its head.
May I therefore I take this opportunity to apologise to Stewart for prolonging this debate about Howard"s earlier remark regarding anti-Semitism.This will be my last post on the matter on this thread.

Thankyou Chris,for clarifying my point earlier.

Best
Norma

[Chris]

And yet no more so,in fact less in several instances, than the authors of the numerous articles on the issue of Polish Jewry who happened to be Jewish, yet they are not labelled anti-Semitic,Chris.

Perhaps you can give us some specific examples of the articles you're thinking of.

By all means on another thread, if you prefer (but preferably another thread on this site).

[Howard Brown]

Perhaps Anderson can be excused the charge of blanket antisemitism, because he had friends among the Anglo-Jewish establishment. But I think it's clear that he was prejudiced.-Chris

And yet no more so,in fact less in several instances, than the authors of the numerous articles on the issue of Polish Jewry who happened to be Jewish, yet they are not labelled anti-Semitic,Chris. I agree that Anderson was probably, if not definitely, an elitist who like many would prefer to be amongst those of his own economic or social class, which included Jews. Elitists are by the very definition of the word, prejudiced. Its probably best that discussion of this aspect appear on another thread,Chris, if its all the same to you. Nats and I seem to be at a point where we will have to agree to disagree about whether SRA was anti-Semitic or not.

[Chris]

... Anderson gets hung out to dry for naming ONE Jew as the suspect in question. Thats not anti-Semitism,Nats...

As I think Natalie made clear, Anderson is not being accused of antisemitism simply because he believed that the Ripper was Jewish. It is rather because he claimed to have deduced in the first place that the Ripper must have been a "low class Polish Jew" on the basis that "people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice". That is what Mentor described as a "wicked assertion".

Obviously it is nonsensical as a method of detection, because everyone knows that all families, of whatever race or religion, tend to protect their own. I think it's undeniable that it's also evidence of prejudice against the Polish Jews in the East End. Perhaps Anderson can be excused the charge of blanket antisemitism, because he had friends among the Anglo-Jewish establishment. But I think it's clear that he was prejudiced.