Dr. Bond...being Dr. Bond

[Stewart P Evans]

Insensitive

Stewart and Phil,
I have nothing against discussing Bond's suicide or his suffering from depression, I just felt posting that picture, which has been posted before, and the tone that accompanied the posting of the illustration was a bit insensitive and adding nothing really.
Perhaps the report accompanying the illustration may have beeen a better thing to post describing Bond as holding a 'high reputation in his profession' and being 'extremely popular' would tell us more about the man himself.
Or even including the original title of the illustration 'the sad death of Dr Thomas Bond.'
I just felt that posting something to gawp and titter over was unecessary.

I do not see that posting the illustration was insensitive, I suggest that you take a look at some of the things that have been posted in the past if you want insensitive. It was relevant to a couple of early posts, and I know it has been posted on a previous occasion.

[Stewart P Evans]

Expert

...
Was he an acknowledged expert and lecturer in forensic medicine employed specifically in difficult cases...or an arrogant know it all and Anderson's lacky?
...

There is no doubt that he was an acknowledged expert in his field but there may well have been a bit of the latter about him too.

The Mylett case shows how he could pander to Anderson; Bond making two visits to the mortuary and changing his initial opinion to fall in line with Anderson's thinking.

[Debra A]

I do not see that posting the illustration was insensitive, I suggest that you take a look at some of the things that have been posted in the past if you want insensitive. It was relevant to a couple of early posts, and I know it has been posted on a previous occasion.

I'm sure I have, and I'm sure that someone will have pointed it out to me at the time too.

I respect your opinions on Dr Bond and the conclusions you make about pressure from Anderson in the Mylett case, and it is a persuasive arument like I've said before, but given the whole of the circumstances surrounding the Mylett investigation I personally can't say I definitely agree, and would just like to find out more about Bond through his other cases etc.

[Stewart P Evans]

Article

I'm sure I have, and I'm sure that someone will have pointed it out to me at the time too.
I respect your opinions on Dr Bond and the conclusions you make about pressure from Anderson in the Mylett case, and it is a persuasive arument like I've said before, but given the whole of the circumstances surrounding the Mylett investigation I personally can't say I definitely agree, and would just like to find out more about Bond through his other cases etc.

Further research on Dr Bond is worth pursuing but I don't think that it will alter the conclusions we may draw from his contributions to the Whitechapel murders.

In your article on Mylett in Ripperologist 108, page 24, you state, "Dr. Bond's own inquest testimony, taken from various sources, suggests that Bond only viewed the body of Catherine Mylett once, on 24 December, after the meeting with Anderson, when he concluded that death was accidental. Prior to that examination,Bond seems to have been basing his opinion of death by homicidal strangulation, in agreement with the other doctors, on Hebbert's notes of the post mortem alone", and I wondered what caused you to draw that conclusion.

[Debra A]

I guess I thought that looking at other cases Bond was involved in, particularly those where he goes against other doctors opinions and out on a limb could show that he was a doctor confident enough in his own abilities to do it without any pressure from anyone.

Firstly, and I am sure Rob won't mind me mentioning his name here, it was an area of the case that Rob and I were most wary of writing about, given that Anderson himself states that Bond attended the mortuary twice.
As I said on another thread, we looked at all the sources available to us, and could not find one account from the inquest testimony reportings, that suggested that Dr Bond had visited the mortuary twice.
If there is an article that clearly states this (and I get the feeling there may be one about to materialise) then I for one will hold up my hands and say I was wrong.

[Rob Clack]

Hi Stewart,

I believe it was only Anderson in his report of 11 January 1889 that suggested Bond had examined Catherine Mylett's body twice. It does seem clear to Debs and me that Bond only examined Catherine's body once on Monday 24 December. This extract from 'The Times' Thursday 3 January 1889 would support that conclusion:

Dr. Thomas Bond, 7, Sanctuary, Westminster Abbey, F.R.C.S., stated that he was asked to examine the body by Mr. Anderson, Assistant Commissioner of Police. Witness examined the body on the 24th of December. Mr. Hibbard, Demonstrator of Anatomy at Westminster Hospital, had examined the body on the Saturday with Drs. Brownfield and Harris, and he supplied witness with his notes.

However, Anderson's report of 11 January has this to say:

In ignorance of this, I made such representations to you on my return to Whitehall that you asked the Chief Surgeon to go down himself; and he reached Poplar just after Mr. Hibbert had left. Finally Mr. Bond went down next day to verify Mr. Hibbert’s notes.
All three Doctor’s confirmed Mr Brownfield’s view of the case, and Mr. Bond and Mr. Hibbert called on me on the 24th with a report to that effect. After along conference, in which I pressed my difficulties and objections, I referred them to you. But that same afternoon Mr. Bond went again to Poplar to make a more careful examination of the woman’s neck, and he returned to tell me he had entirely altered his view of the case, and was satisfied that though death was clue to strangulation, it was produced accidentally and not by homicidal violence.

This would suggest Bond saw the body on Sunday the 23rd, and Monday the 24th. We believe this to be a mistake on Anderson's part as Bond is clear in his Inquest testimony that he only saw the body, once, on the 24th.
And while I don't think that much of Anderson I don't think he was very successful in changing Bonds opinion to his way of thinking. I might be a bit harsh here but my reading of the above passage is that he tried to bully Bond and Hebbert into changing their opinions, but I don't believe they were having any of it, which is why he referred them to Monro.

Rob

[Stewart P Evans]

Twice

...
Firstly, and I am sure Rob won't mind me mentioning his name here, it was an area of the case that Rob and I were most wary of writing about, given that Anderson himself states that Bond attended the mortuary twice.
As I said on another thread, we looked at all the sources available to us, and could not find one account from the inquest testimony reportings, that suggested that Dr Bond had visited the mortuary twice.
If there is an article that clearly states this (and I get the feeling there may be one about to materialise) then I for one will hold up my hands and say I was wrong.

The report written by Anderson to Monro and dated 11 January 1889 clearly states that Bond went to see the body twice - the first time on Sunday 23 December 1888 when he went down to verify Hebbert's notes and the second time on the afternoon of Monday 24 December, after Anderson had made all the fuss about it not being a murder, when 'he went again...to make a more careful examination of the woman's neck...'

Where there is clear official confirmation of a fact, such as here in an official report by Anderson, it must be taken as a better source than any newspaper report. In going twice Bond has drawn a different conclusion on each occasion, something he is hardly likely to admit in giving evidence at an inquest. He would, in effect, be admitting that his first visit to verify Hebbert's notes was not done properly as he needed to go again the next day to make a more careful examination of the neck. Excuse me, but the neck was the area on the body in need of close scrutiny as strangulation was the cause of death. If Bond had done his job properly the first time why would the second visit have been necessary? No wonder the coroner complained about all the visits by doctors.

[Ben]

And while I don't think that much of Anderson I don't think he was very successful in changing Bonds opinion to his way of thinking.

Agreed, Rob.

Another noteworthy instance of disagreement between the two men concerned Alice McKenzie. Bond was of the opinion that the killer responsible for the "canonical" five was the same sexually motivated individual who later dispatched McKenzie, in contrast to Anderson, who observed the following in Blackwoods:

"I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on 17th July 1889 was by another hand. I was absent from London when it occurred, but the Chief Commissioner investigated the case on the spot. It was an ordinary murder, and not the work of a sexual maniac".

All the best,
Ben

[Stewart P Evans]

Clear

...
This would suggest Bond saw the body on Sunday the 23rd, and Monday the 24th. We believe this to be a mistake on Anderson's part as Bond is clear in his Inquest testimony that he only saw the body, once, on the 24th.
And while I don't think that much of Anderson I don't think he was very successful in changing Bonds opinion to his way of thinking. I might be a bit harsh here but my reading of the above passage is that he tried to bully Bond and Hebbert into changing their opinions, but I don't believe they were having any of it, which is why he referred them to Monro.
...
Rob

Don't be silly Rob, facts are facts and Anderson is clear on the point, even elaborating on it. Read my reply prior to this. Bond was hardly likely to admit to what he had done in the coroner's court. You can't just say that someone is wrong in a report to support your own uncorroborated conclusion. Also, having said what you did in your article, you should have pointed out that Anderson clearly states Bond went twice - this you did not do.

[Debra A]

The report written by Anderson to Monro and dated 11 January 1889 clearly states that Bond went to see the body twice - the first time on Sunday 23 December 1888 when he went down to verify Hebbert's notes and the second time on the afternoon of Monday 24 December, after Anderson had made all the fuss about it not being a murder, when 'he went again...to make a more careful examination of the woman's neck...'

Where there is clear official confirmation of a fact, such as here in an official report by Anderson, it must be taken as a better source than any newspaper report. In going twice Bond has drawn a different conclusion on each occasion, something he is hardly likely to admit in giving evidence at an inquest. He would, in effect, be admitting that his first visit to verify Hebbert's notes was not done properly as he needed to go again the next day to make a more careful examination of the neck. Excuse me, but the neck was the area on the body in need of close scrutiny as strangulation was the cause of death. If Bond had done his job properly the first time why would the second visit have been necessary? No wonder the coroner complained about all the visits by doctors.

Ok, I am wrong, Anderson is a reliable source after all.

[Natalie Severn]

Ok, I am wrong, Anderson is a reliable source after all.

Oh Debs,thats hardly answering the points being made is it?

[Rob Clack]

I agree, facts are facts, but that doesn't mean they are right. When Anderson said 'All three Doctor’s confirmed Mr Brownfield’s view of the case,' he was wrong, as four doctors confirmed Brownfields view. And why would Bond go all the way to Poplar just to verify Hebbert's notes and why would he lie under oath about it?

You can't just say that someone is wrong in a report to support your own uncorroborated conclusion. Also, having said what you did in your article, you should have pointed out that Anderson clearly states Bond went twice - this you did not do.

Fair comment, since we weren't writing a suspect based book we should have put all the facts in.

[Debra A]

I don't know Norma, its Bond against Anderson now, and Anderson has been made out to be a liar and unreliable so many times I really don't know what to believe anymore.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi all,

Is it a question of Bond against Anderson or a question of one source versus another?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

Silly

Ok, I am wrong, Anderson is a reliable source after all.

Now you are being silly as well.

This report was made by Anderson at the time concerning a current investigation - Assistant Commissioner to Chief Commissioner (Monro). It is clear and unequivocal that Bond visited the mortuary twice. I'm sorry that doesn't tie in with your own theories and ideas, but there it is. Bond, the A Divisional police surgeon and adviser to CO was the long time working associate of Monro, from Monro's days as Assistant Commissioner (Crime) and had been involved in many sudden death inquiries involving the police.