Tweet
I am opening this thread at this juncture because I have twice today written on the subject of Rose Mylett on other threads but where,for me to develop my arguement any further it would be inappropriate.
I was initially intrigued that Robert Anderson had brought in Dr Bond to write a report on the surgical skill, or otherwise, possessed by the Whitechapel Murderer.This was done immediately after the murder of Mary Kelly and the report was written on 10th November 1888 and contained the view that,at that time,five women victims could safely be attributed to the Whitechapel Murderer[Nichols,Chapman,Stride Eddowes and Kelly].
This report,of November 10th also included a "profile" of the killer.
Now Dr Bond admitted himself that he could not give a very close approximation of a time of death because he had not seen four of the five victims he believed were the Ripper"s work.But he was able to say,without having seen these corpses that none bore any sign of having been committed by a doctor,a student doctor ,a butcher -even a horse slaughtereretc.
Now this would in my opinion be fine were it not for the fact that he contradicted Dr Phillips,the Divisional Surgeon on this matter and indeed his words contradict those of the City Police Surgeon Dr Brown also.
That there were other doctors present who were not so sure is not the issue I want to address at this moment,simply that he disagreed with two at least of those doctors who had actually seen the corpses for themselves.
Returning to the case of Rose Mylett.This was a woman who had been found dead in the Poplar region of the East End in late December 1888,No-one had heard a sound,there were no signs of a struggle and crucially the police were not certain of how she had died.But she had been seen struggling with two men dressed as sailors in the early hours.The Divisional surgeon was called in but it was his assistant who saw the body and said he could see no signs of violence-so the police were not advised,at that stage, that it was wilful murder-quite the contrary.However When it was insisted upon by the Secretary of State, that the opinion of the Divisional surgeon ,Dr Brownfield was to be sought ,Brownfield examined the body FOR HIMSELF and categorically stated at the Inquest that she had been strangled---note-Evelyn Rugles Brice,secretary to the Home Secretary , had contacted James Monro and specifically asked him for an "expert doctors opinion" because hints of strangulation existed and Matthews had been concerned to know whether this might be the case.
There then followed a series of visits by doctors beginning with Dr Alexander MacKellar,the Police Surgeon in Chief,who had agreed to look into the case in the absence of Mr Anderson"s Dr Bond who had already done some work for him was Anderson"s Surgeon of choice [Monro had assigned the case to Robert Anderson].Dr MacKellar however was in no doubt she had been strangled.At roughly the same time Dr Hibbert,having opened the letter from Robert Anderson to the absent Dr Bond went ,in lieu of Dr Bond to examine the corpse and like the Chief Surgeon he stated death was due to strangulation.
In fairness to these doctors,and the confusion that surrounded the case, the recent case of the Suffolk murders presented similar difficulty establishing the cause of death which ,in two cases was strangulation/suffocation was believed to have been due to pressure on the carotid artery.
Further medical evidence from Doctors Harris and Brownfield also claimed Rose Mylett had been strangled.
On 24th December 1888 Dr Bond and Dr Hibbert both agreed with Dr Bownfield in the presence of Robert Anderson that Rose Mylett had been strangled.
However,Robert Anderson reports to James Monro on 11 January 1889,
"After a long conference,in which I pressed my difficulties and objections I referred them to you .But that same afternoon,Dr Bond went again to Poplar
to m ake a more careful examination of the woman"s neck and returned t0o tell me he had entirely altered his view of the case." He concluded that death was due to strangulation by accident by the woman herself.There were more visits by Anderson and all the doctors involved.All thereafter stuck to their opinions.Only Dr Bond and Robert Anderson were of a different view.
Now I will finish there for the moment but I will return later to the row that erupted over Dr Brownfield initially not conveying his findings to the police , ,the verdict of the jury at the inquest etc.etc But this case is of crucial importance in my view.As readers of my posts will know I do believe Dr Phillips was a competent and good enough doctor in these matters and it is reported that in his view,the killer of Rose Mylett,like the Ripper,knew the Theory of Strangulation ie knew how to subdue his victims by pressure on an artery.
Natalie
I was initially intrigued that Robert Anderson had brought in Dr Bond to write a report on the surgical skill, or otherwise, possessed by the Whitechapel Murderer.This was done immediately after the murder of Mary Kelly and the report was written on 10th November 1888 and contained the view that,at that time,five women victims could safely be attributed to the Whitechapel Murderer[Nichols,Chapman,Stride Eddowes and Kelly].
This report,of November 10th also included a "profile" of the killer.
Now Dr Bond admitted himself that he could not give a very close approximation of a time of death because he had not seen four of the five victims he believed were the Ripper"s work.But he was able to say,without having seen these corpses that none bore any sign of having been committed by a doctor,a student doctor ,a butcher -even a horse slaughtereretc.
Now this would in my opinion be fine were it not for the fact that he contradicted Dr Phillips,the Divisional Surgeon on this matter and indeed his words contradict those of the City Police Surgeon Dr Brown also.
That there were other doctors present who were not so sure is not the issue I want to address at this moment,simply that he disagreed with two at least of those doctors who had actually seen the corpses for themselves.
Returning to the case of Rose Mylett.This was a woman who had been found dead in the Poplar region of the East End in late December 1888,No-one had heard a sound,there were no signs of a struggle and crucially the police were not certain of how she had died.But she had been seen struggling with two men dressed as sailors in the early hours.The Divisional surgeon was called in but it was his assistant who saw the body and said he could see no signs of violence-so the police were not advised,at that stage, that it was wilful murder-quite the contrary.However When it was insisted upon by the Secretary of State, that the opinion of the Divisional surgeon ,Dr Brownfield was to be sought ,Brownfield examined the body FOR HIMSELF and categorically stated at the Inquest that she had been strangled---note-Evelyn Rugles Brice,secretary to the Home Secretary , had contacted James Monro and specifically asked him for an "expert doctors opinion" because hints of strangulation existed and Matthews had been concerned to know whether this might be the case.
There then followed a series of visits by doctors beginning with Dr Alexander MacKellar,the Police Surgeon in Chief,who had agreed to look into the case in the absence of Mr Anderson"s Dr Bond who had already done some work for him was Anderson"s Surgeon of choice [Monro had assigned the case to Robert Anderson].Dr MacKellar however was in no doubt she had been strangled.At roughly the same time Dr Hibbert,having opened the letter from Robert Anderson to the absent Dr Bond went ,in lieu of Dr Bond to examine the corpse and like the Chief Surgeon he stated death was due to strangulation.
In fairness to these doctors,and the confusion that surrounded the case, the recent case of the Suffolk murders presented similar difficulty establishing the cause of death which ,in two cases was strangulation/suffocation was believed to have been due to pressure on the carotid artery.
Further medical evidence from Doctors Harris and Brownfield also claimed Rose Mylett had been strangled.
On 24th December 1888 Dr Bond and Dr Hibbert both agreed with Dr Bownfield in the presence of Robert Anderson that Rose Mylett had been strangled.
However,Robert Anderson reports to James Monro on 11 January 1889,
"After a long conference,in which I pressed my difficulties and objections I referred them to you .But that same afternoon,Dr Bond went again to Poplar
to m ake a more careful examination of the woman"s neck and returned t0o tell me he had entirely altered his view of the case." He concluded that death was due to strangulation by accident by the woman herself.There were more visits by Anderson and all the doctors involved.All thereafter stuck to their opinions.Only Dr Bond and Robert Anderson were of a different view.
Now I will finish there for the moment but I will return later to the row that erupted over Dr Brownfield initially not conveying his findings to the police , ,the verdict of the jury at the inquest etc.etc But this case is of crucial importance in my view.As readers of my posts will know I do believe Dr Phillips was a competent and good enough doctor in these matters and it is reported that in his view,the killer of Rose Mylett,like the Ripper,knew the Theory of Strangulation ie knew how to subdue his victims by pressure on an artery.
Natalie
Comment