Rose Mylett

[How Brown]

Rose Mylett was found dead at approx. 4:15 A.M. on the morning of December 19th ( a Wednesday ), 1888....by constable Robert Goulding.

She had 6p on her when found, so robbery may not have been a reason for her death.
She had been seen at approx. 2:30 A.M. by a girl named Alice Graves on Commercial Road in front of The George and in the company of two men....allegedly intoxicated.
She was said to have been murdered, according to the K Division Met Police Surgeon,Matthew Brownfield,who was the first doctor to examine Ms.Mylett.

Over on another site,Tom Wescott thankfully brought up Karyo Magellan's Feb.2007 Ripperologist article and mentioned Robert Anderson's involvement in this peculiar death.

Now whats strange,apart from us not having a thread for Ms Mylett here....is that Dr.Thomas Bond also concluded with Brownfield that indeed Ms.Mylett's death was a result of murder initially.

Brownfield mentions,among other things, a "four thread cord" that in his opinion caused the marks on Ms.Mylett's neck. Bond,after initially agreeing with a fellow medical man,changed his opinion and concurred with Anderson that Ms.Mylett died of natural causes.

The point to this thread is not that the police would "cover up" a murder and one during the Autumn ( now Winter )of Terror.

The question is why did Anderson overrule TWO veteran medical men in the determination of cause in Ms.Mylett's death?

Any opinions?

[Tom_Wescott]

Recently on the Casebook, Natalie Severn started a thread that discussed the relationship between Anderson and Bond. Naturally, Mylett was a big part of this discussion. When Natalie returns I hope she'll share her views here, and perhaps comment on Karyo's essay, which she may not have read yet.

Bond clearly changed his opinion under pressure from Anderson, and presumably for fear of inciting another public riot (such as the one that had recently helped to remove Warren from his position) by raising the spectre of the Ripper. What is confusing is how he later put forth the rather unpopular notion that Alice McKenzie was a Ripper victim. Dr. Phillips disagreed.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[How Brown]

Tom:

Thanks for the background on Natalie's thread.

What sort of puzzles me here...and I know that if people had the opportunity to read the multi-part series on the coronial system in Britain ( Messrs. O'Flaherty,Linford and Professor Savage in Ripperologist Magazine ), they will remember the politics that come into play in the aftermath of a murder or death and how they might affect the determinations or causes of death by those assigned to do so....is this:

Could Tom actually be right in the inference that Anderson manipulated this death/murder?

That the K Division Surgeon and Dr.Bond both felt murder by strangulation was the cause of this lady's death.....and again,no one is attempting to "fit" her in the skein of WM crimes...and then after Anderson becomes involved it is "reduced" to a death by natural causes despite two experienced opinions.

A person in the medical end of police work is not brought onto the scene of a crime to determine the motive of a murder...they are brought to the crime site to determine cause of death,determine time of death,and perhaps the mechanics of the crime, not the psychology of the crime.

Thats what Brownfield and Bond were professionals at. That was their job.

Within the text of the determination made by Brownfield,the one thing that stands out is the type of weapon said to have been used in the theoretical murder of Ms.Mylett. Bond apparently agreed at the time with Brownfield or at least,did not argue against the former's determination of the instrument used in her death.

My "alarm" to all this is not so much that Anderson overruled two medicos because its possible that this instance was not the first time that something along this line occurred unknown to us before.

My alarm is that in a "lesser of two evils" scenario...Anderson overruled the Mylett death/murder for the reasons Tom mentioned and a killer may have gotten away with murder,if the two medicos were right all along. By overruling the two medicos,Anderson might have played God,by pressuring Bond into changing his mind in the final analysis of this death/murder.

Any other thoughts ?

[Gavin]

She had been seen at approx. 2:30 A.M. by a girl named Alice Graves on Commercial Road in front of The George and in the company of two men....allegedly intoxicated.


She was also seen earlier that night (about 8pm I think) with 2 men, the descriptions of which, certainly regarding their height, seem to match that of the men supposedly seen by Israel Schwartz. Shorter man (about 5'7") talking to Mylett while the taller one (said to be 5'11") was pacing up and down nearby. Not sure if the description that Alice Graves gave ties in with this. Off hand I can't remember the witness who saw her at about 8 - 8.30.

Gavin

[Debra Arif]

Interesting thread, I wasn't aware that Bond had actually changed his mind on this until I read Scotland yard investigates.
I was under the impression that all along he disagreed with the other doctors who viewed Rose Mylett's body... well I thought that he agreed it was death by suffocation but by non violent means. The first policeman on the scene also seemed to agree that there was no marks of violence on the body too, perhaps this came in to play somehow, that it was not initially reported as a murder but decided later by doctors who didn't inform the police of this?
The jury brought in a verdict of death by murder though didn't they after hearing all the different medical evidence?

[Tom_Wescott]

There's little doubt that Anderson did use his influence and Bond folded like a towel. But I hadn't thought of it in the terms Howard stated until now, but he's right - Anderson and Bond willingly allowed a murderer to escape justice. That's pretty horrible.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[How Brown]

Debs:

The Ultimate has an entire chapter ( # 26 ) devoted to this incident which James Monro stated unequivocably as a murder ( Dec. 23rd ).

Gavin:

Ptolomey's ( if that is the correct spelling....) description of two men,dressed as seamen mirror Graves. This might be the third time two men were seen ( in collusion???) with a murder site since Stride. The Mitre Square instance involving Blekingskop who was approached by a man after C.E. was murdered and now this. Food for thought,padrone. And good to see you...

Tom:

Again,thanks for mentioning this in the first place. Hard to imagine that the police,already under intense scrutiny,would find Anderson waving his wand and dismissing this as a case of natural cause death in that milieu. You the man.:thumbsupbud:

[jmenges]

I'm with Debra here.

Where is the source that Bond initally viewed the murder as strangulation and then changed his mind (besides SYI)? Are we to believe on faith that he took the opinion of Hebbert & Brownfield as fact without examining the body?

I was under the impression that Bond did not view the body until 5 days after the death, and so the marks on the throat (barely visible when she was discovered) had all but disappeared. That is why he came to his misguided conclusion. He could not see the marks of the string and therefore decided she must have strangled herself on her own collar.

So, did he in fact agree with the other doctors and then change his mind? Is there a primary source that says this? I cannot locate such in Ultimate.

JM

[Dave O]

Hi JM,

It's in Robert Anderson's report to Monro, 11 Jan 1889, which is transcribed in Sourcebook, see p. 484:

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 a long 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 due to strangulation, it was produced accidentally and not by homicidal violence.

Anderson had also examined the body, but I have a hard time imagining him lecturing Thomas Bond about science, at least not successfully. Coincidentally, the 24th was also the day that Brownfield's lengthy interview in the Star appeared, although I don't know if it ran in time for Anderson to have seen it before this meeting. Secretly though, sometimes I imagine Anderson waving a copy of it in Bond's face; it would have had big splatters of Earl Grey on it that Anderson had spat out from his morning cuppa. A medical opinion dissenting from Brownfield's would have been very desirable on that day in particular.

Debra, the jury did return a verdict of murder but I don't believe the police ever continued the investigation.

[A.P. Wolf]

I seem to remember finding the comments of one of the examining doctors who stated that the strangulation wound was at least a quarter of an inch deep when he saw it.
And that over a period of time that obvious wound would actually become reclusive.
I did post that, somewhere.
But then Dr Bond was not shy of finding a slaughtered woman in the river and blaming the barges for it, was he?

[Dave O]

Hi everybody:

I've been refreshing my memory of the medical evidence at the inquest, and have tried to set out the medical evidence based on the Times's account of the inquest. Hebbert and Dr. McKenna are excluded but are understood to have agreed with Brownfield. I find very little evidence for Dr. McKenna's participation, only a mention in the Advertiser 10 January 1889. Anybody know anything about him? Anderson's opinion on the cause of death, I view to be irrelevant as he wasn't a surgeon and I think was motivated by politics. I also feel Bond was Anderson's tool at the inquest, but I feel his opinion as a surgeon is of value as a vehicle of dissent against which we might judge the value of the majority opinion (homicide). Still relevant is layman testimony on the circumstances of the death, but here I have tried to set out the main points on the medical cause of death in an unbiased way. If I've left anything out, please correct.

According to the Times, 22 December 1888, Brownfield did not see the body in situ (he was sent to attend the crime scene, but was not present. His assistant, Dr. James George Harris went instead.) From an examination at Poplar mortuary at 9 a.m. on the 21st, which must have taken under two hours (the inquest began at 11 a.m.). I believe two hours was the average time needed to conduct a comprehensive postmortem, but I have read of others taking much longer. In any case, Brownfield observed:

1) Eyes were normal.
2) Slight marks of blood issuing from nose. Slight abrasion on right side of nose.
3) Old scar on left cheek.
4) No protrusion of the tongue.
5) Marks of mud on the front of the left leg.
6) A white mark extending from the right side of the spine to the lobe of the left ear.
7) Finger marks on the throat, of the thumb, middle, and index fingers, running vertically to the white mark around the neck.
8) No injuries to the arms or legs, no sign of violent struggle.
9 Brain engorged by blood of a dark color.
10) Lungs normal.
11) Food in the stomach, recently eaten.
12) No poison or alcohol found in stomach.

Opinion: Death by homicidal strangulation: The strangulation could not possibly have been done by the woman herself, but must have been caused by a person standing behind and slightly to the left of her. The witness said the person must have wrapped the ends of the cord round his hands and then, from behind, thrown the noose over the deceased's head and pulled tight, crossing both hands. This would account for the mark round the neck not completing the circle. The cord was held round the throat till after death had taken place.

Times, 3 January 1889, Dr. James George Harris (present at the crime scene and at Brownfield's post mortem):

Crime scene:

1) Corpse was lying with its left cheek on the ground.
2) Small amount of blood-stained mucos issuing from nostrils.
3) Head lying over jacket, collar "quite loose".
4) Lips discolored, mouth closed, eyes normal (not protruding).
5) Left arm, left leg stiff
6) No mark observed at this time.

Early opinion: death by asphyxia, due to drunkeness or natural cause.

Post-mortem
Harris agreed with Brownfield's diagnosis, now observing:

1) Above the necktie, a "very fine" mark from spine going around to ear, leaving a gap of two to three inches at the back of the neck. Harris thought it could only have been produced by a string and could not have been made by Mylett's collar.
2) Five superficial abrasions on the left side of the neck caused by the fingernails of a woman, as if trying to remove something from the neck.
3) Three on the right side of the neck, again caused by fingernails of a woman.
4) Small bruise on the left side of the jaw.
5) No foreign matter in windpipe.

Revised opinion: homicidal strangulation by using a string crossed over. Lack of facial distortion indicates stangulation was accomplished quickly.

Same day, Dr. Thomas Bond gave his opinion based on an examination on the 24th of December, undertaken at Anderson's insistence (Bond's initial opinion was based on Hebbert's notes).

1) The mark had disappeared. No injury to the skin observed.
2) Observed fingernail scratches on neck.
3) Observed three incisions in front of the larynx, from which blood had poured into the mucous membrane of the larynx and around it.
4) Had another analysis of the stomach contents performed. Per the Times, no evidence given on results.

Opinion: death by accidental strangulation caused by compression of the larynx while victim was in a drunken state. Lack of facial distortion indicates slow strangulation. Theorized that the thin mark observed earlier by other surgeons was caused by the rim of Mylett's collar either before or after death. Collar measured 14 inches and was not stiff enough to cause strangulation. Finger marks on throat possibly made by the victim.

Times January 10 1888: after hearing Bond, Brownfield sticks to his opinion:

1) Mark on neck was too straight and even to have been produced by collar.

A.P., I think this is what you're remembering: Chivers the mortuary attendant testified that the marks were 1/8" deep on the 21st (Times 10 January 1889). It was Chivers' assistant Randall who testified the same day that the marks were 1/4" deep on January 6, twice as deep as they were two weeks earlier! Perhaps one of these men wasn't very good at estimating depth.

[A.P. Wolf]

Thanks Dave, that's exactly what I was remembering.
But I also remember - now - that the difference in the depth of the strangulation wound over that time period was explainable, in that the wound would in fact appear to be deeper with the course of time.
My memory is sketchy on the subject at the moment, but all I know is that if I wore a collar that cut a quarter of an inch into my neck then I'd go off the shoulder.

[Debra Arif]

Thanks for setting out the medical evidence Dave, I was attempting to refresh my memory earlier also but didn't get that far with it when I noticed you had posted this for us, very useful and thanks for doing it.
So, Bond did make his first conclusions on Hebbert's notes alone then?
Is the Dr. McKenna you mentioned actually Dr. MacKellar? the chief surgeon for the Met police at the time, I think I read that in something Karyo wrote. He was said to have been sent in Dr. Bond's place by Monro when Bond wasn't available I think.Then Hebbert seemingly took it upon himself to go along too instead of Bond.

Harris also changed his mind too then from his original crime scene examination as well? The police on the scene and Harris noticed no marks on Rose's neck initially and Chivers the mortuary attendant was the first to actually notice them when he stripped the body and pointed them out to Harris who said he hadn't noticed them but would look closer at the post portem.

Seems like the police didn't want another murder on their hands and they were going to any lengths to make sure they didn't get one either!

[How Brown]

Mr.O'Flaherty sor..

Thanks ever so much for that lengthy post. Its appreciated.

So..are you folks of the opinion that Anderson was responsible for some shady dealings here?

[Dave O]

Hi Debra,

Many thanks--was it MacKellar and not this McKenna making an examination? MacKellar was the Chief Surgeon, he's the one who corresponded with Brownsfield about talking with the press. I've read Karyo Magellan's excellent article, but my understanding from reading Anderson was that it was Bond who tried to catch up with Hebbert at Poplar but missed him not MacKellar. But I may have that wrong. I wonder when MacKellar or McKenna made his examination?

Per Anderson, Hebbert and Bond made an initial report to Anderson, agreeing with Brownfield. But only one of them had actually made an examination--Hebbert. Bond didn't make his own examination until after meeting with Anderson--that's how I read his inquest testimony in The Times, 3 January 1889:

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. On the Monday witness had the body reopened, and compared his notes with his (witness's) observations.

Harris did miss the mark at the crime scene, but remember that it was supposed to be very fine and I suppose it was dark. But he did observe it at the mortuary, as did Brownfield and Hebbert. And Chivers :)

Personally, I think the problem was professional pride, alongside concerns about public hysteria. I think they thought that Brownfield had kept them in the dark about his opinion of murder (but Brownfield was moving fast, 9 a.m, complete and thorough postmortem that had him opening up the head and body, 11 a.m. inquest). You can imagine, the police think they have an accidental death on their hands and then the divisional surgeon testifies that it was murder. And even worse, Brownfield spoke with the press at length. And then there were connections with the Ripper and maybe even more controversially, Indian Thug murders acting in London. I don't know much about them, but I understand that the Thugs practiced ritualistic murder for religious purposes--strangulation of travelers (but the Thugs were said to have never murdered anyone but fellow Indians). Apparently they had the art of strangulation down to a fine science, leaving little trace.

Back to the police, I will have to re-read Ultimate's chapter about Rose Mylett more closely but my impression was that Monro seems to have genuinely been trying to get to the bottom of things but then again, so far as I know they never investigated after the inquest closed. I'm not sure what they could have investigated past what they already had, barring someone new coming forward in response to the inquest.

Hi Howard,

Yes, absolutely I think Anderson was involved in shady dealings in this case. Anderson was trying to skew the inquest toward a verdict of accidental death using the guise of science. He pressured Bond.

The funny thing is that if you go back to the 1830s and 1840s, one of the reasons the post mortem became prevalent in inquests was to safeguard against prettification of death by establishment, be it deaths taking place in prisons, workhouses, hospitals, the police, or the army.

But I would also like to play devil's advocate as it's helpful to look at a thing from all sides: although I agree that Bond changed his opinion at Anderson's direction, is there evidence to the contrary that shows that Bond was actually stating his genuine medical opinion at the inquest? Remember, at the time of his initial report agreeing with Brownsfield, he had not actually made an examination; rather he relied completely upon Hebbert. Could one of Anderson's "difficulties" have been that the fellow he had asked to examine the body actually hadn't? Which opinion of Bond carries the greater weight? What is the significance of Bond's observation of the compression of the larynx and the bleeding out into the surrounding tissues? Why isn't this mentioned by Brownfield and Harris, who appear to have made a thorough examination, and more than one if they were present with Hebbert on Saturday 22nd as Bond said?

What is the significance of Bond's observation of three incisions to the front of the larynx? What is the significance of something that all the surgeons agree upon: marks made by a woman's fingernails to the sides of the throat? How does that evidence fit in with Bond's compression of the front of the larynx (as I understand him to have said)?

I certainly have no answers but would be interested in opinions.

[Wickerman]

What is the significance of Bond's observation of three incisions to the front of the larynx?

Seeing as how no such incisions were noted by either Harris at the crimescene, nor Brownsfield at the postmortem, their existence 3 days later is a mystery.
They couldn't possibly be postmortem incisions could they?
How could Harris & Brownfield have known there was "no foreign matter in the windpipe" (point 5), unless they made an incision or two? - but surely a professional Surgeon (Bond) would recognize another Surgeons incisions?



What is the significance of something that all the surgeons agree upon: marks made by a woman's fingernails to the sides of the throat? How does that evidence fit in with Bond's compression of the front of the larynx (as I understand him to have said)?

For what its worth, I suspect Bond's "compression of the larynx" is merely a deduction based on the obvious conclusion that the victim suffocated to death.

This is interesting, Harris at the crime scene observes: " death by asphyxia, due to drunkeness or natural cause."
Obviously, he could not be certain until the postmortem.

Brownfield's postmortem report observes: (point 12) "No poison or alcohol found in stomach."
From this, are we to conclude she was not drunk at time of death?

Then Bond suggests, 3 days later: "death by accidental strangulation caused by compression of the larynx while victim was in a drunken state.":nono:

And here's one of those instances that leaves the public with that warm cozy feeling that we are in the presence of professionals..

Harris & Brownfield diagnose: "Lack of facial distortion indicates strangulation was accomplished quickly."

Bond, in his typical contrary style concludes: "Lack of facial distortion indicates slow strangulation.":nono:

[How Brown]

Good to see your strawass back here,Wickerman !!:kiss:

Give it to me straight: Whats your position on the Mylett case?

Murder or otherwise?

Good to see you,buddy...and Nina says hello.

[Wickerman]

Well,.. the crime may not have been taken to fruition, so, there isn't enough to include Mylett as a Canonical 6th, but likewise, there isn't enough to exclude her either. She'll forever be in the ether...

I think Brownfield was prepared to include her, and I think Dr Phillips was leaning in that direction.
Phillips knew more about the Ripper crimes than any man 'cept Jack hisself.

The garrott was a very popular weapon in the 1860's, and Jack must surely have been alive then.
So...:thumbsupbud: I can give it a definite maybe

Oops, pardon my manners..."Hi Nina"!

[Monty]

I agree. And Andersons conduct in this case doesnt help matters.

[How Brown]

Montpelier:

Anderson's actions during this affair ( Mylett) are extraordinary. Doesn't it seem as if he had a special interest in making his views accepted in contrast to the medical officers ?

If anyone has a comment here, please fire away.

[Paul]

Anderson's actions during this affair ( Mylett) are extraordinary. Doesn't it seem as if he had a special interest in making his views accepted in contrast to the medical officers? If anyone has a comment here, please fire away.

Okay, Howard, you asked for it! Let's play Devils Advocate here and try to buck the general opinion that Anderson's actions were extraordinary. My reading of the relevant documents is that the sequence of events was as follows.

The body is found and the area examined, but there are no signs of a struggle and Mylett's features are perfectly placid. The examining doctor, Harris, originally concluded that death was due to accident or natural causes. He did not reverse this opinion until marks on Mylett's neck were brought to his attention.

Dr Brownfield examined the body and at the inquest gave it as his opinion that Mylett was murdered. He did not view the crime scene and does not appear to have consulted with the police prior to appearing at the inquest.

James Monro wrote a report in which he stated that he was personally doubtful about Dr Brownfield's conclusions, particularly the placid features which were not consistent with his experience of strangulations - this experience presumably having been gained when he was in India. He says that he asked Anderson to visit the scene, interview the policemen involved in the discovery of the body, and then meet Dr Bond at the mortuary. He says that he [Monro] asked Dr Bond to visit the mortuary, although he may have requested Anderson to ask Bond.

Anderson did as requested but Dr Bond was out of town. On learning this Monro asked Dr MacKellar to visit the mortuary, which he did. Whether he was told about the scene of crime evidence is not known.

Meantime, Dr Hebbart had opened the note to Dr Bond and decided to visit the mortuary himself, which he did. Again there is no reason to think that he was told about the scene of crime concerns of the police.

Dr Bond eventually returned to London, got the note and went to the mortuary. Again there is no reason to suppose that he knew about or took into consideration the scene of crime concerns, although we should be aware that the doctors did have access to one anothers notes.

Dr Bond visited Anderson and told him that in his opinion Mylett had been murdered. Anderson, as he wrote in the report quoted above, "pressed my difficulties and objections". This may have been the first time any of the examining doctors were made aware of the deep concerns of the police.

At the conclusion of the meeting Anderson "referred them" [that's Bond and Hebbert] to Monro. We do not know if they visited Monro or not, which is a pity because later that afternoon Bond visited the mortuary, examined the body and reversed his opinion that it was a homicide.

It is commonly assumed that Dr. Bond was Anderson's tool, the instrument by which Anderson sought to reverse the probable verdict of the inquest jury that Mylett had been murdered, but what evidence is there that this was the case? The number of doctors sent to view the body was a consequence of confusion, devoid of ulterior motive and had absolutely nothing to do with Anderson. Anderson laid out the concerns of the police to Dr Bond (and Monro's report explains these very clearly and they seem very reasonable), but we have no idea whether he persuaded Dr Bond or not, but it is possible that he didn't because he referred Dr Bond to James Monro. Unfortunately we have no idea whether or not Dr Bond visited Monro, but the fact that Anderson mentioned it would suggest that he did. It may only have been after talking to Monro, who at least had experience of strangulatons, which Anderson probably did not, that Dr Bond revisted the mortuary.

So, was Dr Bond the malleable tool of Robert Anderson? Was he the malleable tool of James Monro? Did either Anderson or Monro seek to change Dr Bond's opinion, or did they simply present their questions and doubts? Did Dr Bond, who reversed his opinion, do so because Anderson and/or Monro asked him to, or because he genuinely arrived at that opinion when he took into account the scene of death and placidity of features evidence?

Anderson did not send doctor after doctor to examine the body, as some have claimed, and there is nothing but inference to suggest that Anderson put any pressure on Dr Bond to reverse his opinion, or that he sought to reverse the medical opinion or what was presumably perceived as being the veridt of the inquest jury; Anderson appears to have done no more than express to Dr Bond the concerns of the police. Anderson may not have been persuasive because he had to refer Dr Bond to the Commissioner and, although we don't know that Bond and Monro did meet and discuss the case, it's doubtful that Anderson would have mentioned the referral if it never took place. Bond may only have re-examined the body after talking with Monro, whose experiences in India may have made him a more authoritative voice.

What, then, did Robert Anderson do that was wrong?

The inquest favoured homicide, though much perhaps depends on how well those responsible understood and questioned the medial opinion: all the doctors agreed that Mylett had strangled to death, and the idea that this could have happened by accident certainly stretches one’s credulity, so the verdict may have been a consequence of “common sense” rather than a full and proper understanding of the medical evidence.

Anyway, the argument raised against the police and Dr Bond is that after reference to the records of investigations of Thug murders in India it was clear that strangulation by someone with expertise who could work at speed could cause death without the victim struggling and without producing the expected facial contortions. I don't know who came up with that evidence, who gave the testimony to that effect to the inquest, or who the experts were who supported that opinion - it was mentioned by Wynne Baxter in his summing up.

I wonder how many people possessed that knowledge the skill.

[How Brown]

Mr. B...sor

I have to go out and get pumpkins in a few minutes...but when I get back, I will armwrestle with you on this thread....I really appreciate the elaboration and I hope others do too...

If anyone wants to hop in and reply to Mr. B in the interim please do so. This is a pretty interesting aspect of SRA which might be fruitful to explore.

Thanks Mr. B !

[How Brown]

Dear Mr.B:

Granted,Anderson was well within his right to offer his opinion as to the cause of Mylett's death. Ultimately, the juries decision was contrary to what he felt transpired. He appears to have forgotten that in his recollection of the event in his subsequent writing(s) when he states that if it had not been for the Whitechapel Murderer, no one would have considered it a murder or, to be more accurate, a death by anything other than from natural causes..but thats not an issue here,I know.

Back to the events of December 1888....

Let me just mention here for the sake of others who may not be aware of this fact that Anderson went, rather "distastefully" as he puts it in a memo to Monro, to the mortuary...wherupon he examined an already autopsied Rose Mylett. THIS is what I was referring to when I mentioned "extraordinary" in a previous post,sor...that he based his opinion on an already autopsied corpse. He did not see the body/throat until after it had been autopsied. Brownfield,Hebbert,MacKellar,and Harris all saw it ( or at least the majority of them did) prior to the autopsy.

Its very hard to understand that in the circumstances and particularly those circumstances in 1888... that any woman found on the street with ligature marks would concievably be thought of to have died from 'accidental' means.

What I would also like to come to grips with is why Bond reversed his opinion on an already autopsied corpse...from one of homicide to one of strangulation,but not of willful murder.

One final thing here,Mr. B:

When you said this:"Anderson did not send doctor after doctor to examine the body, as some have claimed, and there is nothing but inference to suggest that Anderson put any pressure on Dr Bond to reverse his opinion.."

Its true that Anderson didn't send "doctor after doctor" down to investigate the corpse...as he mentioned this to Monro that Baxter objected to SRA sending "doctor after doctor without his sanction"....SRA only sent Bond...who went twice.

But Anderson did mention that he "pressed his difficulties and objections" at a conference he attended, probably with Bond alone, since the others didn't waver from their belief that Mylett's death was homicide. Therefore, Anderson did present his objections to the accidental death theory...or rather "pressed them" to Bond.



Back to you...

[Paul]

Hi Howard,
I'm not clear what you mean. Or, rather, I'm not sure I appreciate the significance you seem to attach to Anderson's examination of Mylett's corpse. I don't think we are explicitly told why Anderson went to the mortuary or why he examined the body, although Monro says in his report of 23 December that he "sent off" Anderson to make enquiries on the spot and that Anderson did as instructed, stating in a report to Monro (11 January 1889) that he interviewed the policemen who found the body and found their account "so incompatible with the theory of murder" that he went with them to the scene of the death and then went on to the mortuary where he viewed the body (presumably to confirm the absence of facial contortions normally associated with strangulation; Anderson describes this in some detail in the subsequent paragraph of his report).

It may be unusual for the Assistant Commissioner to have visited a mortuary and viewed a corpse, but was it in the circumstances "extraordinary"? It was quite a serious matter: a body had been found and the police had taken no action whatsoever because they believed death to have been due to natural causes, so in the circumstances it would surely have been normal for them to have double-checked the facts on which that original conclusion had been based?

None of the doctors viewed the body [I]before it had been autopsied. ou will recall that Dr Brownfield conducted his autopsy, gave his conclusion at the inquest that Mylett had been murdered, and that the incompatability of that conclusion with the absence of signs of a struggle and facial contortions led the police to undertake further investigations which in turn caused the cock-up leading to successive doctors visiting the mortuary.

Turning to what Anderson wrote in that footnote in The Lighter Side... Why do you say that Anderson "appears to have forgotten that [the verdict of the inquest jury was that Mylett had been murdered] in his recollection..."? Surely in saying that had it not been for the Whitechapel murders no one would have considered Mylett to have been murdered it is implicit that he was fully aware of the jury's conclusion?

[Paul]

Its very hard to understand that in the circumstances and particularly those circumstances in 1888... that any woman found on the street with ligature marks would concievably be thought of to have died from 'accidental' means.

The ligature marks - the marks on the neck - were not observed until the corpse was undressed at the mortuary, so the police and Dr. Harris, finding no evidence of violent death, were of the opinion that it was an accidental death. The question we should ask, I suppose, is why Dr Harris didn't observe the marks on the neck. Dr. Bond would actually suggest that the marks were caused after death by the collar of Mylett's dress.

What I would also like to come to grips with is why Bond reversed his opinion on an already autopsied corpse...from one of homicide to one of strangulation,but not of willful murder..

That's the $64,000 question isn't it. But the answer is probably in the evidence as we have it. Without going into all the details again, the original opinion of the police and Dr. Harris was that Mylett's death was accidental and Anderson states that he only learned of Dr Brownfield's contrary conclusion when he read a newspaper report of the inquest late that night. Anderson reported to Monro the next morning and was instructed by Monro to make inquiries on the spot himself and to ask Dr. Bond to assist Dr. Brownfield to make a second examination of the body. Now, we know that Anderson sent a note to Dr Bond. This note was opened by Dr. Hebbert who examined the corpse in Bond's stead and was given to Dr Bond on his return to London, Drs. Bond and Hebbert then going to the mortuary so that Dr. Bond could verify Hebbert's notes.

The only information available to either Dr. Hebbert or Dr. Bond about the discoverey of the body and the reasons why the police were dubious about Dr. Brownfield's conclusion was what - if anything - was contained in Anderson's note and what they might have gleaned from the newspapers. We don't know what the note contained, but as Anderson hadn't spoken to the police who discovered the body or anyone else it probably wasn't informative at all. One may also interpret the fact that Anderson "pressed my difficulties and objections" at the meeting with Bond that they hadn't been made in the note.

So, Dr. Bond (and Dr. Hebbert) had probably examined the body in igorance of the concerns of the police. Their conclusion that Mylett had been murdered was based on the evidence of the marks on the neck (invisible when Dr Bond examined the body). When made aware of the concerns of the police - when, in a sense, being in command of all the evidence - Dr. Bond elected to make a second examination and - from the report in The Times at least - paid special attention to the neck, Dr. Bond concluding that strangulation would have left marks which would still have been visible, caused injury to the skin, and damage to the tissues beneath the skin, none of which applied in this case.

The question to my mind is why these points didn't occur to Dr Bond during his initial examination. Personally, I think the answer may be that Dr. Bond was merely verifying Dr Hebbert's notes, that Dr. Hebbert was a very capable doctor, Dr. Hebbert did see the marks, and that in ignorance of reasons to think the contrary the obvious conclusion from the marks was that Mylett had been murdered. When made aware of the evidence which caused the police concerns - absence of a struggle and so forth - Dr. Bond, made a special examination of Mylett's neck and in an effort to find a solution consistent with the facts, suggested that the mark had been made by the collar of Mylett's jacket, either in the process of death or following death in the interval between the body being moved to it being undressed at the mortuary.

Dr Brownfield dismissed Dr Bond's theory saying that "The mark was too straight and too even in witness' opinion to have been caused by the dress or collar of the jacket."

The absence of facial contortions seems to have been answered by recourse to the records of doctors who examined the corpses of victims of Thug murders in India where the speed and expertise of the attack seems to have left no contortions or evidence of a struggle. What I don't know is who provided this information.

Its true that Anderson didn't send "doctor after doctor" down to investigate the corpse...as he mentioned this to Monro that Baxter objected to SRA sending "doctor after doctor without his sanction"....SRA only sent Bond...who went twice.

But Anderson did mention that he "pressed his difficulties and objections" at a conference he attended, probably with Bond alone, since the others didn't waver from their belief that Mylett's death was homicide. Therefore, Anderson did present his objections to the accidental death theory...or rather "pressed them" to Bond.

As said, Anderson sent Bond at Monro's request, so Anderson didn't actually personally send any doctor to view the body. And it isn't questioned that Anderson "pressed his difficulties and objections", but there isn't any reason that I am aware of to suppose that Anderson did more than make plain the reasons why the police had concluded that Mylett's death was not murder - no sign of liagature marks when the body was examined by Dr Harris, no signs of a struggle of any kind, no facial contortions, and so forth. What's wrong with Anderson having done that?

[How Brown]

Dear Mr.B:

Some other questions, some of which are contrary to the official report:

A. That the official report stated that no alcohol was found in her stomach conflicts with the statement that Alice Graves had seen her intoxicated that evening.

B. That the official report stated that she had never given birth conflicts with the statement from Ms.Mylett's own mother.

I am adding these two statements to assure you,Mr. B, that I am trying to be as objective as possible...not that you doubted that...because I am not trying to "pick" on SRA....

Bond claimed she was drunk and choked to death in his second assessment. In the instance of someone choking to death, the same sort of distortion of one's face would occur,would it not, as with intentional strangulation or garroting? Therefore,if the absence of any facial distortion was present when he arrived at his first conclusion, that of willful murder by strangulation, then how did he come to the conclusion that there had been alcohol involved when no alcohol was determined to have been in her stomach from the medical report in the first place...with the same absence of facial contortion.

This is another element in Mylett's death that puzzles me ... not necessarily that Bond changed his position...but declares in his second examination that alcohol had contributed to her murder,when none was found.

If Mylett had accidentally put herself in a position of choking, she would have ripped at her collar, which was left intact for the most part. To believe the conclusion that Bond came to and the police as well that Mylett choked to death due to involuntary means by her own hand, we have to wonder why her clothing around her upper torso is relatively free of handling in and of any attempt to allow air in her lungs due to choking. Drunk or sober, some evidence of pawing at her stiff collar would have been mentioned. None is.

People can get so drunk that they could get hit by a car and their reaction will be minimal to the impact. Yet, in Mylett's case, no alcohol was evident in her stomach, making her apparent compliant reaction to choking even more mysterious since she was competent enough to react in a normal manner. She apparently didn't.

That fingermarks were on her neck are telltale signs that someone else's hands were on her throat...indicating the collar had nothing to do with the choking on her part. You can not, to be perfectly frank, strangle yourself. I know you know that and I'm not being facetious with you,sor...

Anderson, as I mentioned and which you have responded to, maintains that the Mylett Case was one of accidental death in opposition to the opinion of the jury when he wrote about the case in "The Lighter Side". He assumed that the decision to label her death "willful murder" or homicide on the grounds that it was primarily due to the contemporaneous murders and only on the then current murder skein. His declaration of "accidental death" undoubtedly was also based on the belief that alcohol was involved...and yet none was found.

Therefore, Anderson, in opposition to the medical examiner who concluded no alcohol was found, must have decided that alcohol was evident, just as Bond did.

My question is "why?".

Back to you,sir....

[How Brown]

Mr. B:

I think we should also take notice of where she was found dead as well.

To me, and maybe its just me, its a little suspicious that she was found in a yard ( Clarke's Yard, off of Commercial Street) and not elsewhere. Whats she doing there at that time of day? Better yet, whats she doing there at that time alone?

More questions....what was in the vial found on her person? Everyone at that time seems to have overlooked this vial or "phial"....for possible importance.

I forgot to mention that no poison was detected by Brownfield.... when originally making this post...but that perhaps some sort of poison could have gone undetected...Sorry !

[Debra Arif]

More questions....what was in the vial found on her person? Everyone at that time seems to have overlooked this vial or "phial"....for possible importance.


How, Just a quick one, the phial was investigated, it contained harmelss sandalwood, a cure for cystitis and certain veneareal diseases as well as some skin complaints. At one point it was even suggested the phial may have been a clue to the motive for her murder....her just coming out of the infirmary after treatment for an unspecified ailment and all.

The point about Clarke's Yard is good too. It had a reputation as a place prostitutes took their clients.

oh and Bond had the remaining contents of Mylett's stomach analysed aparently and found a tablespoon worth of whisky in what was left.

[How Brown]

Thanks Debs..I also believe that she was in and out of an infirmary, using the name "Rose" ( real name Catherine Millett ) and being treated for something or the other....maybe the complaint the vial's content was intended for.

[How Brown]

Dear Debs:

Out of curiosity...no need to rush...could you please show us where the reference to Bond's test on her stomach is located ?

Nina and I have been trying to locate and supply more information on her and her family all day. My car blew a water pump...another 370 dollars outta da pocket!!!!...and looking up Mylett information was the second best thing Nina and I could do alone all day together...:kiss:

[How Brown]

From Wynne Baxter's summation:

After Dr. Bromfield and his assistant, duly qualified men, came to the conclusion that this was a case of homicidal strangulation, someone had a suspicion that the evidence was not satisfactory. At all events, you've heard that doctor after doctor went down to view the body without my knowledge or sanction as coroner. I did not wish to make that a personal matter, but I 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 her 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 Thug murders, that there were no marks whatever left. Other eminent authorities agreed with that view.

I have to confess to a little confusion here.

I just saw this reference on Casebook in regard to Baxter's opinions on the verdict regarding Mylett's cause of death from their brief "primer" on the Mylett death:


Inquest
The inquest into the death of Rose Mylett was helf under Wynne Baxter at Poplar Coroner's Court on January 2nd, 1888 and again on the 9th. The report prepared by Brownfield was not generally accepted among police, who cited that there was no string or ligature discarded on the premises, and that the mark on the neck encircled only one-quarter the circumference of the neck.
Mr. Wynne Baxter, however, wanted nothing to do with this "nonsense" of "death by natural causes." In his summing up at the inquest, he told the jury:


I ask the reader to remember the emboldened line for a moment.

Now, we go to the excellent "Scotland Yard Investigates" by Evans & Rumbelow on page 245:

"Although Coroner Wynne Baxter complained of the involvement of so many doctors and the police, he appeared to favour the idea that it was a death from "natural causes".

So...what was Baxter's real position on the issue? Was it as the primer on Casebook inferred..."nonsense" to consider Mylett's death by natural causes ...or as SPE mentioned in SYI on page 245....that Baxter favored a determination of death by "natural causes" ?

[Debra Arif]

Dear Debs:

Out of curiosity...no need to rush...could you please show us where the reference to Bond's test on her stomach is located ?

Nina and I have been trying to locate and supply more information on her and her family all day. My car blew a water pump...another 370 dollars outta da pocket!!!!...and looking up Mylett information was the second best thing Nina and I could do alone all day together...:kiss:

How, he somach contents piece is in one of the newspaper inquest reports, maybe wo of them, I will dig it out and post it later today.
Rob clack and I have been doing research on Rose Mylett for a good few months. I posted details of Rose's daughter Florence from her birth certificate to the casebook a while back and can repost it here.
We also have details of her family background.

[How Brown]

Dear Debs:

Allow me to set up a thread this very minute for you in case you decided you want to show what you have on Mylett's family. It would be most appreciated.

Thanks !

[How Brown]

Debs:

What are your feelings towards the notion of an "accidental death" and what may those sentiments be based on...? Thank you.

[Paul]

Over on the Casebook David O’Flaherty made fairly lengthy post and I apologise to both him and the Casebook for reproducing an extract here, but I'd like to ask him a question. David wrote:

"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."

My question is this: when in the Mylett business did Anderson order any postmortem or secondary examination or send any doctor to the mortuary? He asked Dr. Bond to undertake an examination of the body, but he did that at the instruction of James Monro, and Anderson referred Dr. Bond to Monro following the now infamous meeting at which he aired his "difficulties and objections". There is no suggestion that Dr. Bond revisited the mortuary at Anderson's bidding and it can be supposed that he did so under Monro's instruction or at his own volition.

On the 14 January James Monro asked Anderson, "what has hitherto been the practice with regard to the Coroner being consulted when Police think it advisable to have another medical opinion? Anderson evidently didn't know the answer and consulted Swanson who replied on 18 January and which Anderson summed up to Monro on 19 January as that Dr Bond had hitherto acted either with the Coroner's knowledge or before the Coroner had been appointed. The question thus arises whether either man would have known he was/would have been doing wrong by seeking second opinions.

That Anderson thought Wynne Baxter supported his opinion that it was not murder is curious, but it was also the opinion of the Advertiser, which contained what I think was a carefully considered and quite thoughtful piece on 10 January, the day before Anderson wrote his report to Monro and which, for all I know, may have been Anderson's source, which cites "a fundamental difference of opinion between the coroner and the jury" and quotes Baxter as saying "there is no evidence to show that death was the result of violence".

[Debra Arif]

Dear Debs:

Out of curiosity...no need to rush...could you please show us where the reference to Bond's test on her stomach is located ?



Birmingham Daily Post (Birmingham, England), Thursday, January 3, 1889
Resumed inquest

..Dr Bond, of the Sanctuary, Westminster, said that on the 22nd of december a note was sent to his house by Mr. Anderson, Assistant Commissioner of Police, asking him to examine the body of the deceased. He examined the body on the Monday following and his colleague, Mr. Hibberd, who had previously made an examination, supplied him with his notes. Mr. Hibberd and himself and the other medical men agreed except as to the marks on the throat. When he saw the body, the mark described as made by a cord had disappeared but those described as finger marks remained. He agreed with the deductions of Drs. Brownfield, Hibberd and Harris that the deceased dies from strangulation: but his opinion was that it was not murder, for the reason that the amount of violence required to strangle an able-bodied woman would leave a mark which would not disappear during five days. He thought the woman fell while in a state of drunkeness, and that the larynx was compressed against the neck of her jacket. he believed the mark on the neck was due to the collar of the jacket. He might say his colleague, who was a very experienced man, did not agree with him. He agreed with Dr Brownfield. A tablespoonful of the contents of the deceased's stomach had been analysed, and found to contain a teaspoonful of whisky...

The Times, Thursday, Jan 03, 1889
Dr. Thomas Bond.....Witness [Dr. Bond] took posession of the contents of the stomach and had what remained analysed.

Reynolds's Newspaper (London, England), Sunday, January 6, 1889
Reports that a tablespoonful of whisky was found in the stomach contents, by Bond.

Although the two reports that mention the amount of alcohol differ, the teaspoonful of whisky in a tablespoonful of stomach contents sounds a more believable description as we have both quantities given for comparison. I'm no expert at all, but one teaspoon of alcohol in just one tablespoonful of stomach contents sounds like a substantial amount to me.

[Paul]

[I'm no expert at all, but one teaspoon of alcohol in just one tablespoonful of stomach contents sounds like a substantial amount to me.[/FONT]

Hi Debra,
Thank you very much for all that information; A teaspoonful of alcohol in a tablespoonful of stomach content is indeed a lot.

[How Brown]

I don't know about you, Mr. B or you Debs...but something seems to be out of whack here with this entire Mylett autopsy affair.

First of all, Brownfield declared that no alcohol was found in her stomach. In the LVP, the conventional way of determining if alcohol was in the system was by smell. The doctors would smell the stomach's content to determine if alcohol was present.

How could Brownfield NOT smell whiskey? Thats close to a "shot" of whiskey in her stomach and whiskey has a definite odor ( Unless its the cheap Albanian stuff Robert Linford buys ). Brownfield would be very cognizant of the odor of whiskey in one's stomach.

But what puzzles me now...and I didn't ask this before because I wanted to make double sure Debs could find the references.... is why did Bond go back and doublecheck to see if alcohol was present? Why,of all the facts in the Mylett autopsy, did he go back to doublecheck that one...of alcohol content???

This certainly doesn't sound like a standard procedure for a medical man to go back several days later and check for alcohol content, essentially saying that he didn't trust Brownfield's original determination,does it???:banghead:

Whats wrong with this picture,folks?

[How Brown]

From JMenges sometime ago:

Where is the source that Bond initally viewed the murder as strangulation and then changed his mind (besides SYI)? Are we to believe on faith that he took the opinion of Hebbert & Brownfield as fact without examining the body?


The answer,apparently,Jon...is in the recent post that Debs provided below.

In addition, if Bond did not see the body when it first arrived at the mortuary for its autopsy and read the reports...and saw no alcohol was mentioned on the report...another thought occurs to me that the reports that Debs provided may be what are out of whack. Maybe there was no alcohol in her system as Brownfield stated.

C'mon...what medical official disputes whether alcohol was present after an experienced police surgeon says it wasn't? Its sort of a slam dunk that he would accept that...and in addition, wouldn't evaporation begin at that point?

:banghead::banghead::banghead: Why does Bond...if he actually did...dispute or at least, double check Brownfield's determination.......???

[How Brown]

More goodies....

Could Mylett have been garrotted elsewhere...traipsed over to Clarke's Yard and then dropped dead?:tape:

Before you grab that red hot poker to hit me, consider the relative absence of footprints at the scene.

I'm not talking hours, but perhaps minutes. Someone left marks on her throat. Someone is responsible for facilitating her death. Does it necessarily have to had happened all at the same time?

[Debra Arif]

Originally Posted by Dave O http://www.jtrforums.com/images/styles/silverblue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=22169#post22169)
What is the significance of Bond's observation of three incisions to the front of the larynx?


Seeing as how no such incisions were noted by either Harris at the crimescene, nor Brownsfield at the postmortem, their existence 3 days later is a mystery.
They couldn't possibly be postmortem incisions could they?
How could Harris & Brownfield have known there was "no foreign matter in the windpipe" (point 5), unless they made an incision or two? - but surely a professional Surgeon (Bond) would recognize another Surgeons incisions?



Hi Dave
I've been meaning to post this but not had time until now.

In The Daily News inquest report of Jan 3rd 1889, Bond, states in his evidence that these were post mortem incisions in front of the larynx.

[Dave O]

Hello Deb, thanks very much for your post. I am going to read up on that further when I have a moment.

Howdy Paul, I hope you are well. I have got another lengthy post for you.

No, it is not at all clear to me that Monro would have taken it upon himself to order Bond’s postmortem examination without Anderson’s urging (who said he brought the matter to Monro’s attention), and Monro describes the death as a murder, but since he wrote that he did direct Bond, I am happy to include both men in my criticism though it seems to me that Anderson is really the catalyst here, the moving force. In any case, no action should have been taken without the coroner’s sanction. The scenario Swanson describes might describe Bond’s involvement in other cases, isn’t applicable to Mylett. They didn’t go to the coroner, and the inquest was underway. Neither is this the routine procedure of the police summoning a doctor to attend the crime scene. Once the inquest begins, the power to order postmortems was something that belonged to the coroner and the jury (who could with a majority actually compel the coroner to summon another medical witness if they found the first unsatisfactory). Now, Monro and Anderson may very well not have been aware of the fifty-year-old law, in either of its incarnations as the Medical Witness Act of 1836 or section 21 of The Coroner’s Act 1887 (I am sure many weren’t), but what does that say about men in their position? The police were interested parties to the case, and during the period of inquest, their role was one of assistance to an open fact-finding inquiry, they're not supposed to take it upon themselves to steer it towards a conclusion that was predetermined before the jury ever returned its verdict, as Anderson predetermined it in his own mind. The verdict belongs to the jury, right? Not to the Assistant Commissioner reading the newspaper late one night and deciding he knows what’s what. These matters are not obscure, and going down this road paved of preconceived notions, why even have an inquest?

I do not read that Monro sent Bond down for a second examination. I read that Anderson made his objections to Bond’s initial examination known to Monro, not that he has physically sent Bond and Hebbert over to explain themselves as if they were schoolchildren--else why is Anderson telling Monro that Bond went back for another examination? And what about Anderson here? Anderson made a political argument to Bond, a scientist whose job was to confine his conclusions to direct scientific observation, with no regard to Anderson’s “difficulties and objections”. Anderson’s approach defeats the purpose of even having a postmortem, unless we believe his objections were of a medical nature. Does anyone believe that they were? I find it difficult to imagine Anderson making a persuasive medical argument to Bond. Why even have an examination of the victim at all?

And this is the problem with Anderson’s role in the Mylett inquiry. I will apply the criticism to Monro too, if you like, but I really do think it’s more Anderson at fault here. Certainly, there is their failure to follow up on the jury’s murder verdict, but for me it’s more than that. You must also take into account the coroner’s perspective. It's not melodramatic to say what this all amounts to is an attempted inhibition of the inquest, whether it was meant to be or not, whether or not they were ignorant of coronial procedure as they seem to have been—I actually don’t blame them for that, because I suppose the laws and procedure are obscure except to those who weren't acquainted with it, but as I have said, the spirit of inquest itself isn’t obscure. So again, let me stress this: whether or not they are aware of what they’re doing, the implications of working outside the frame of inquest and putting pressure on a surgeon to adopt your way of thinking is an attempted inhibition by an institution, the police (not being well represented by Anderson here), to steer an inquest its way. When you mention Swanson and precedents, I think of an earlier generation of coroners and inquests of the same century, of Thomas Wakley and the Hounslow Flogging (see Ripperologist 63, pp 29-30). One of the points of introducing science routinely in the inquest was to prevent various institutions of covering up deaths that their practices caused. Peterloo, soldiers flogged to death, prisoners neglected, prisoners murdered. The Poor Laws and workhouse inmates. Inadequate training leading to the creation of bad doctors killing people. These are the kinds of things that inquest was concerned with. Of course, we all know the police didn’t kill Rose Mylett, but what they did do was represent an institution violating the spirit of open inquiry, and there is a question what that practice meant to public safety (if you agree with the murder verdict, and I do, then a murderer escaped with no attempt by the police to identify him, so far as I know). And I think the coroners active in Baxter’s generation, who were still popularly elected, continued to see themselves as Samuel Langham saw himself in 1865: “The coroner is now called upon to be the watchful guardian of the public, to prevent a relapse into the oppression of the past.”
So either deliberately (ironically employing a pathologist as his vehicle), or in ignorance, besides sticking his finger in the eye of inquest, Anderson has also stuck his foot in the middle of some tender, passionate sensibilities, and the inquest is a poor arena to fiddle with since by its nature, it’s public and I will suggest to you that it is unwise to fool with the coroner in his venue—whether you are ignorant of what you are doing or not. Now Baxter’s reaction is mild compared to what a caustic coroner might have done, but we are not that far from a time when coroner Thomas Wakley actually ordered a jury to physically restrain an inspector of the Metropolitan Police over a dispute regarding custody of a prisoner—and the jury did it as a mob conveniently appeared to support them. Wakley made his points concerning the power of his office through public humiliation, over and over again. He liked to fight. I don’t say that Baxter would have done something similar, but if you look at what he did in his election, which was quickly mobilize voters to reverse a poll result within a period of two days, and you look at the type of people who supported him, you realize he had some clout in his district. And he certainly had a forum to really rake over the CID if he had decided to (I don’t think this would have been a good thing for him to do; it certainly wouldn’t have been good for the police). Can you imagine Anderson being publicly taken to task by Baxter? I know of coroners of this period who did not hesitate when they felt interfered with.

I really disagree with your characterization of the piece in The East London Advertiser. Except for one thing, however: you might be right that Anderson MAY have based his own sense of Baxter’s position on this ELA piece. As far as I am aware, they are the only two sources that suggest that Baxter was at odds with his jury. For those who haven’t done so, it’s important to read Baxter weighing the evidence in this case so again, I invite everybody to compare The East London Advertiser piece and Anderson’s characterization of Baxter to Monro with The Times’ account of Baxter’s summation published on 10 January 1889, courtesy of Casebook’s Press Project:

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.

Now, Baxter’s actual opinion is clear if you read the whole thing; he is persuaded by Brownfield and by these descriptions of Thug murders. He dismisses Bond, he perceives that he is at a “disadvantage” and he emphasizes the qualifications of Brownfield and his assistant. He also perceives an interference with the inquest by “some one [who] had a suspicion that the evidence was not satisfactory”—very important point in the context of inquest history. Wynne Baxter seems to be in full step with the verdict and with his jury. And if he was not, you would see him probing the verdict and cautioning the jury on it (though he was powerless to really do anything about it) because if they are wrong, then it really is an unfair burden upon the police and a waste of resources. You do not see him acting this way in any account of the Mylett inquest.

It speaks poorly of Anderson that he based his own opinion upon what Baxter thought on such a lousy piece of commentary as the one that ran in the ELA. Paul, what do you like about this editorial? First, it gets the relationship between Baxter the Mylett jury wrong. See the above Times excerpt, look how the jury is ready to come to Baxter’s defense against the police, Paul! It’s further evidence that they aren’t at odds at all. But let’s just say that, alternatively, the writer means to say that only in this one statement Baxter agrees with Bond (this is jerry picking and the line is taken completely out of context). If that’s the case, my perception of Anderson becomes even worse—he has misunderstood the writer’s point and is parroting his misconception in a letter to his superior in order to support his position!

Of course Anderson wasn’t stupid, and perhaps this is understandable as the piece is confusing. It’s supposed to be an opinion, but instead it’s a wishy-washy mess, and I will tell you why. The writer says there’s a lot in favor of the verdict but also a lot against it. Huh? Well, he makes a few attempts at the cons, but I have missed the pros of the verdict. Then he says it’s “impossible” for the layman to understand the medical evidence of this particular case—well okay, but you might as well throw the jury out of the inquest (which I will admit was eventually done in most cases), or else throw out the medical witnesses. I have seen the criticism before and I think that it is an arrogant one: laymen are incapable of understanding medical testimony. I don’t need to tell you or anyone else that laymen considered and understood medical testimony all the time, and still do in trials and some inquests. But then the writer defeats his own point—obviously he himself is a layman and he seems to think he has a superior grasp of the medical arguments, enough to make the criticism in the first place (surely even an anonymous medical man would have indicated his profession to lend weight to his opinion). Then the writer speculates that the jury was influenced by other than expert witnesses, but only after initially stating that they were guided by the testimony of four doctors. Which is it, and what does he mean? Are these doctors not experts? Is Bond, “the weightier authority”, the only expert? Why? So the writer sides with Bond? It would seem so, but then he presents the odds between murder/misadventure as roughly 50/50: “it is equally open to belief . . .” that it happened another way.

Paul, what is this editorial really saying? What is the opinion of this opinion piece? He writes that there’s a lot in favor of the murder verdict, but never says what that is, does he? Actually, the writer seems to be saying that the jury have got it wrong and have placed a burden upon the police rather unfairly, but is unable to fully commit to this stance. Or is the writer suggesting that we don’t know enough, that the proper verdict here should be “Cause of death is strangulation, but there is insufficient evidence to determine the circumstances?” Well okay, I’ve read similar verdicts, but if that’s what the writer means, why doesn’t he just say so? Is there really a middle ground in the Mylett case? I for one don’t think so.

So, I ask myself, if this editorial influenced Anderson on this one point about Baxter, and then I consider inquest procedure and something of its history, and view Anderson’s other actions that I have mentioned above in that context, then what role does the Rose Mylett affair play in an overall assessment of Anderson’s reliability?

Cheers,
Dave

[Paul]

Phew! Many thanks indeed for taking the time and trouble to write such a detailed and considered reply. I hope you, too, are well.

No, it is not at all clear to me that Monro would have taken it upon himself to order Bond’s postmortem examination without Anderson’s urging (who said he brought the matter to Monro’s attention), and Monro describes the death as a murder, but since he wrote that he did direct Bond, I am happy to include both men in my criticism though it seems to me that Anderson is really the catalyst here, the moving force.

Yes, Monro describes the death as a murder but his report of the 23 December is a mixture of opinion at the time of writing and opinion he had the day before and he states that the day before there were factors which "made me rather hesitate to accept, without further confirmation the statement of the Divisional Surgeon as conclusive with reference to the cause of death." And Monro went on to refer to his experience in cases of strangulation (presumably obtained when in India) and said that he sent off Anderson to make inquiries "and directed Dr Bond of the A Division to assist the Divisional Surgeon make a second examination." All the emphasis there is mine, of course.

Anderson states in his report, "Next morning I brought the matter before you, and by your desire I went to Poplar to investigate the case personally, writing to Mr. Bond to meet me there."

I'm not sure where there is evidence or even a suggestion that Anderson was the catalyst or moving force. Anderson's feelings at the time of that morning meeting aren't indicated and as far as the evidence goes he may not have felt any disquiet about Dr. Brownfield's conclusion, only concern that Dr. Brownfield hadn't conveyed it to the police before making it public at the inquest.

That Anderson would have wanted a second post-mortem seems to me to be a not unreasonable inference from Anderson's subsequent writings in which his conviction that Mylett died from natural causes is stated and clear, although that may not have been present at thatmorning meeting with Monro and may only have emerged after he had talked with the policemen who found Mylett's body. Either way it's an inference, and the force with which he might have wanted it is wholly speculative.

In any case, no action should have been taken without the coroner’s sanction. The scenario Swanson describes might describe Bond’s involvement in other cases, isn’t applicable to Mylett. They didn’t go to the coroner, and the inquest was underway. Neither is this the routine procedure of the police summoning a doctor to attend the crime scene. Once the inquest begins, the power to order postmortems was something that belonged to the coroner and the jury (who could with a majority actually compel the coroner to summon another medical witness if they found the first unsatisfactory). Now, Monro and Anderson may very well not have been aware of the fifty-year-old law, in either of its incarnations as the Medical Witness Act of 1836 or section 21 of The Coroner’s Act 1887 (I am sure many weren’t), but what does that say about men in their position?.

I suspect that what this says about either man is that they were unaware of the rules of procedure in the rare and unusual case of a doctor reaching a conclusion contrary to that of the police and doctor at the scene. But I have no real disagreement with you on any of this, except that it doesn't appear that Monro and Anderson "may not have been aware of a fifty-year-old law..." There's no "may" about it. They didn't know. On 14 January 1889 James Monro did ask what the practice was regarding the Coroner being consulted when the police thought it advisable to have a second medical opinion, which presumably means that he didn't know, and as Anderson appears to have sought elucidation from Swanson, he appears not to have known either.

The police were interested parties to the case, and during the period of inquest, their role was one of assistance to an open fact-finding inquiry, they're not supposed to take it upon themselves to steer it towards a conclusion that was predetermined before the jury ever returned its verdict, as Anderson predetermined it in his own mind. The verdict belongs to the jury, right? Not to the Assistant Commissioner reading the newspaper late one night and deciding he knows what’s what. These matters are not obscure, and going down this road paved of preconceived notions, why even have an inquest?

The police most certainly aren't allowed to steer an inquest towards a predetermined conclusion, but are you sure there is any evidence that anyone tried to do so in the case of Mylett? And of course the verdict belongs to the jury, not to an Assistant Commissioner reaching a conclusion after reading the newspaper, but that's not what happened in this case, is it?

Anderson understood Mylett's death to have been attributed to natural causes and learned from the evening newspaper that the doctor who had performed the post-mortem had declared it was murder. We don't know that Anderson had or formed any opinion at that time on who was right or wrong, and his thoughts may have extended no further than concern that the police had made no investigation of what now appeared to be a murder. All we can say with any degree of certainty from the scant source material, as far as I am aware, is that later that day he heard statements by the policemen who found Mylett's body he found their account to be "incompatible with the theory of murder".

Monro's action in wanting a second-autopsy wasn't directed at steering the verdict of the jury either, but was based on the reasons he cites in his report of 23 December which caused him to "rather hesitate to accept" Dr Brownfield's conclusion. He was, I assume, entitled to "hesitate" before accepting it and all that is in dispute here is whether or not he was free to order a second autopsy without the permission of the Coroner. He appears not to have been, but from the surviving records appears to have been in ignorance of that fact.

Let's not forget that in the normal course of events the doctor peforming the autopsy would have conveyed his conclusions to the police before the opening and giving evidence at the inquest, and would, I assume, have at that time been available to answer such questions as the police thought pertinent to the furtherance of their inquiries, such as, in this case, how Dr. Brownfield accounted for the absence of any indication of foul play at the scene even unto the unknotted handkerchief around Mylett's neck being undisturbed. By not giving he police advance warning of his conclusions Dr. Brownfield effectively hindered police inquiries and created the situation wherein the police sought some answers to very reasonable questions.

I do not read that Monro sent Bond down for a second examination. I read that Anderson made his objections to Bond’s initial examination known to Monro, not that he has physically sent Bond and Hebbert over to explain themselves as if they were schoolchildren--else why is Anderson telling Monro that Bond went back for another examination?

Anderson is telling Monro that Bond went back fo a second examination for the same reason he told him when, where, and how Mylett's body was found, when and how he, Anderson, learned of Dr Brownfield's opinion, when he, Anderson, had "brought the matter" to Monro's attention, how he, Anderson, had gone off to investigate in Poplar as Monro's "desire", and so on - he was, as he stated in his report, placing the facts - the sequence of events - on record in consequence of Wynne Baxter's strictures against the police.

As for how one reading of the source, Anderson states that Drs. Bond and Hebbert called on him, gave their conclusions to him, that he outlined his view to them and that he "referred them to you". I suppose folk can read it any way they like, but it seems pretty clear to me that he was talking about Bond and Hebbert throughout.

And what about Anderson here? Anderson made a political argument to Bond, a scientist whose job was to confine his conclusions to direct scientific observation, with no regard to Anderson’s “difficulties and objections”. Anderson’s approach defeats the purpose of even having a postmortem, unless we believe his objections were of a medical nature. Does anyone believe that they were? I find it difficult to imagine Anderson making a persuasive medical argument to Bond. Why even have an examination of the victim at all?

I take it that Anderson's "difficulties and objections" were those things outlined in paragraph 8 of his report to Monro dated 11 January 1889 and that he didn't question what she had died from but how it had been caused - i.e., he accepted that she had been strangled, but questioned whther she been strangled with a piece of four-strand cord, which Anderson felt was inconsistent with "the facts and circumstances", or was there another explanation?

Surely Anderson was perfectly within his rights as a policeman to express a professional opinion that the evidence at the scene seemed incompatable with violent death? This didn't interfere with Dr. Bond's direct scientific determination of the medical reasons why Mylett had died, but the evidence at the scene surely had (and has) a direct relevance to how the cause had been induced, and if Dr. Bond did not take that evidence into account, as one assumes he didn't, then surely the police were within their rights to ask that he do so?

And, of course, they could have asked it of Dr. Brownfield if he'd actually conveyed his conclusions to them when he should have done and not caused this mess by failing to do so.

And this is the problem with Anderson’s role in the Mylett inquiry. I will apply the criticism to Monro too, if you like, but I really do think it’s more Anderson at fault here. Certainly, there is their failure to follow up on the jury’s murder verdict, but for me it’s more than that. You must also take into account the coroner’s perspective. It's not melodramatic to say what this all amounts to is an attempted inhibition of the inquest, whether it was meant to be or not, whether or not they were ignorant of coronial procedure as they seem to have been—I actually don’t blame them for that, because I suppose the laws and procedure are obscure except to those who weren't acquainted with it, but as I have said, the spirit of inquest itself isn’t obscure. So again, let me stress this: whether or not they are aware of what they’re doing, the implications of working outside the frame of inquest and putting pressure on a surgeon to adopt your way of thinking is an attempted inhibition by an institution, the police (not being well represented by Anderson here), to steer an inquest its way.

Whoa! Where is there evidence that pressure was put on Dr. Bond to change his way of thinking? Anderson "pressed" his "difficulties and objections", but wasn't he simply stating all those things outlined in para8 of his report and trying to understand how Dr. Bond accounted for them if Mylett had been strangled with a rope? Where is there any evidence that Anderson did other than that?

As for the rest of your post, there are points you raise to which my answer would be a repetition of what I've already said, in the main simply being that the initial evidence from the scene led to Mylett's death being attributed to natural causes and that it was only through the negligence of Dr Brownfield not informing the police that he thought it was murder that the police were unable to get their "difficulties and objections" to that diagnosis answered and, perhaps, taken into consideration. As far as we know Robert Anderson did no more than take the opportunity of Dr. Bond's visit to him to press those legitimate questions, leading, as his instigation, Monro's instigation, or at Bond's own volition, to a second examination by Dr. Bond and a revision of his opinion. If in doing this Anderson acted improperly thenthat must at least in part be seen in context with Dr Brownfield's failure to give the police the poper opportunity to raise and have their professional considerations taken into account.

Regarding the relative merits of both newspaper accounts, The Times report isn't a verbatim account, but a summary of what Wynne Baxter said and from it it would appear that he gave a very fair assessment of the evidence and its value, but I'm not sure that we can realisticaly deduce Baxter's opinion from it, although some might sense a slight weight towards the police view. He did not, I think, dismiss Dr. Bond, but simply pointed out that Dr. Bond's argument was refuted by the evidence of Thug murders and that Dr. Bond was disadvantaged by not seeing the body until five days after death - which I rather think Baxter said in fairness and mitigation to and of Dr. Bond. The Advertiser - which for some reason I've assumed to be the Morning Adveriser, 10 January 1889 being a Thursday, not the East London Advertiser - actually quotes (or aparently quotes) Wynne Baxter as saying "there is no evidence to show that death was the result of violence", which would appear to support the opening claim that the coroner did not believe it to be murder, although The Times appears to provide a context for that remark, where it appears not to be an expression of opinion but a statement of fact relating to Mylett's body, "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 (my emphasis)." Whatever Wynne Baxter's actual opinion, and I don't think it is discernable from either report, albeit that the Advertiser is quite explicit, Anderson himself made no big thing of it, saying only that "I think perhaps, I may add..." Anderson does, of course, make a curious reference to 'the opinion of Mr.Wontnor'. That solicitor of considerable experience apparently didn't share the medical opinion either, and may in fact have been the source of what Anderson took to be Wynne Baxter's feelings too.

Once again, many thanks for your time and thoughts. They are much appreciated.

[Dave O]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for those thoughts and for taking the time to set them out. First, I was incorrect to say the paper was The East End Advertiser--it was The Advertiser. I stand by my assertion that it's a ridiculous piece, not at all comparable to The Times'. I do believe that we can deduce Baxter's opinion from it as it seems quite clear to me.

I think we are finding some common ground though, but you do say that some might sense that Wynne Baxter came down slightly on the side of the police view--by this you mean the view of accidental strangulation? If so, I would disagree with anyone doing that. I really do not mean to be a bore, and know that I can be, but it's really the opposite case, and this is one area that I believe we can finally resolve and then move on. I am aware that what appears in The Times is not a verbatim account, but it's the most complete account that I know of--certainly it is better than what's in The Advertiser; if there is a better account, I would be glad to see it.) Some of this I think you have already agreed with, but I am putting it up Any emphasis is mine:

Baxter explains to the jury that the lack of signs of struggle, facial, and body distortions are not incompatible with a murder by strangulation, and concludes that this means that the attacked happened very quickly with Mylett being quickly overwhelmed:

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.

Next, Baxter comes to Brownfield and his assistant.

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.

Baxter stresses to the jury that they are qualified practitioners, hence lending weight to their finding of homicidal strangulation. He also mentions "someone's" "suspicions"--this particular sentence is open to interpretation. My interpretation is that Baxter is suggesting that these suspicions are out of order--not, I think, because a differing opinion doesn't belong in an open fact-finding inquiry, but because it has been made outside the court. He now complains:

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.
Pretty self-explanatory, but I would like to again say that Section 21 (3) of The Coroner's Act 1887 is a mechanism allowing the coroner and the jury to summon further medical witnesses. Fine and well that Monro and Anderson don't know about it, and I have read in Hansard Home Secretary Assheton Cross misunderstanding legislation, but a Commissioner and Asst. Commissioner certainly should have known to communicate with the coroner while the inquest is active. I do not believe that it was unusual to have differing medical opinions in an inquest; they are, after all, about gathering facts and Baxter does, after all, allow Bond in and presumably paid him for his testimony (but not his examination as he didn't order it). And this comedy of errors and miscommunications, this succession of doctors could have been avoided completely, as the coroner would have sent a warrant to the desired doctor. Shouldn't they have gone to Baxter on intuition alone? Why aren't they communicating? By all means, let's include Brownfield too--why isn't he communicating with his division?

Having finished his complaint, Baxter dismisses Bond's dissenting medical opinion. Some of this you have already addressed, but I would also like to go into it, too:

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. B

Baxter: Bond is outnumbered 4 to 1. Bond is at a disadvantage because of the lateness of his observations. Bond's point about the skin being broken is negated by the records of the Thug murders (I know very little about these crimes in India). Baxter mentions "eminent authorities", people familiar with the Thug murders, who the apparently the jury are aware of (I am not), and who agree with the notion that you can have homicidal strangulation without a mark being left. Baxter clearly places these experts on a pedestal, and I wonder who they were. I think Baxter is suggesting that the case for homicide is doubly strong: Lack of marks isn't a problem, but there actually is actually a mark for the jury to consider as Baxter has mentioned earlier in the summation. Mark or no mark, the jury can find a homicide here. Finally, Baxter again emphasizes Mylett's physical weakness, her inability to fend off a sudden attack, which in his opinion explains her state at the crime scene.

So, how can we not be clear on what Baxter himself thought, and where does Anderson get the impression that Baxter was at odds with the jury's verdict of murder, even if he qualifies it with what amounts to an "I think?"

I do not see how Anderson the layman impressed Bond the surgeon and lecturer on pathology with a medical opinion. Perhaps a comparison of Bond's testimony with Anderson's own assessment might be interesting (I have no idea what conclusion it would yield).

Take care, Paul--hope the pub is going well. It really sounds like a lovely place.

Cheers,
Dave

[How Brown]

Thanks so much Dave O for this excellent post on the Baxter snafu.:kiss:

Allow me to ask you this:

If,as Debra Arif has provided, newspapers commented on Bond extricating alcohol from Mylett's stomach ,there appears to be a problem, at least to me.

FIVE days after the death...the 25th, Bond, in total disregard to a simple stomach analysis & determination by Brownfield, finds alcohol. WHY does he look there? HOW does he find what Brownfield should have found and didn't?

Stomach analysis is hardly the same as testing for a rare,non-indigenous rash or signs of a disease which may be very similar to another and requires more than one expert opinion. A stomach analysis is a slam dunk,simple test which for the life of me I cannot understand why Bond decided to check for himself.:banghead:...five days after the death.

Furthermore,if this scenario did NOT occur...which has crossed my mind...in that the articles Debs found are in error....why would they be in error? Did an attempt at spin doctoring this re-examination occur and if so, by whom? I have to admit and I hope I do not sound too much of an alarmist or conspiracy-theorist here...but could this information have come from solely and squarely from Bond,without the knowledge of the other doctors ?

[Dave O]

Hi Howard,

Thanks. Perhaps Bond decided to check the stomach again as there was testimony about Mylett's being drunk. I don't know how easy or difficult it would be to miss a spoonful of hooch as I know nothing about how stomach analysis worked. I haven't had a chance to look at what sounds like an interesting find by Debra but will do so shortly (I have got to run for tonight).

Dave

[Paul]

Hi Dave,
Boring! Not in the least. This is great. The careful “reading” of sources is essential and all too infrequent in Ripperology, so it's a real pleasure to see somebody else's analysis, especially when it is relevant and clearly expressed.

Overall, I don't think that we are too far apart in our assessment of The Times, although I would seem less inclined than you to draw conclusions about Wynne Baxter's personal opinions from a summary, especially when we have the Advertiser and Anderson, whatever their worth may be, stating that Wynne Baxter's personal opinion differed from the impression given by the summary.

Otherwise the summary suggests that Wynne Baxter's summing up was a fair and well-balanced setting forth of first the case for death from natural causes and then the counter argument favouring murder. However, this arrangement maybe makes it appear that Baxter is favouring the counter-case of murder. You see, all that really matters as far as a summary is concerned is that all the arguments favouring death from natural causes don't have any merit if the attack was sudden and fast and if Mylett was drunk and incapable of effectively defending herself. But I wonder if Wynne Baxter drew attention to Dr. Brownfield finding no alcohol in Mylett's stomach. It wouldn't have mattered to the summarist because there was plenty of eye-witness testimony that Mylett was drunk, but it makes me - and I wonder if it made Baxter - wonder how carefully considered Dr. Brownfield's conclusion really was. Likewise, Dr. Bond's expectation of finding more damage done to the neck if Mylett was murdered is countered by recourse to the evidence of doctors who had examined the bodies of people killed by Thug bandits. Again, that's all that would have mattered as far as a summary went, but I wonder if Wynne Baxter didn't have something to say about the probability or improbability of Mylett running into someone with the necessary knowledge and experience.

Given that we have the Advertiser and Anderson with the impression that Wynne Baxter did not share the opinion of the jury, and given that the murder hypothesis depends to a great extent on Mylett being helplessly drunk and being attacked quickly, suddenly, and by someone with the knowledge and experience of a Thug, I do wonder whether the impression of Baxter's opinion derived from The Times is right.

As far as your observations about the breach of protocol is concerned and wondering why people weren't communicating, I do not dispute that the police contravened proper practice, but they clearly did so in ignorance, and how that ignorance reflects on them, if it reflects on them at all, remains to be seen. It may be thought that the police should have had the common courtesy to have communicated with Wynne Baxter and maybe they should have done, but they manifestly didn't, perhaps because they mistakenly believed that Wynne Baxter had no authority over their actions (see the final two paragraphs of Anderson's report to Monro of 11 January 1889), which seems to me to be a reasonable and satisfactorily explanation of why the police weren't communicating with Wynne Baxter. Why Dr. Brownfield didn't communicate with the police is an altogether more difficult question and one to which he appeared distinctly evasive, as, initially at least, he was about the supposed interview he gave to The Star. It may simply be that he didn't have the opportunity or the time or didn't appreciate the importance of doing so (or all three). Whatever the reason, it placed the police in an awkward position leading in ignorance to a breach or protocol which poor communication exacerbated. But the important thing is that whilst the police sought to answer concerns which Dr. Brownfield's failure to communicate with them had left unanswered and in so doing put them in contravention of proper practice (and, indeed, the law), it is quite clear that their concerns were justifiable, their actions otherwise acceptable and that doctor after doctor visiting the mortuary was not an attempt by the police to overturn Dr. Brownfield's evidence.

Once again, many thanks for your thoughtful observations. Let's hope there's more info 'out there'.

[Paul]

Thanks so much Dave O for this excellent post on the Baxter snafu.:kiss:

Allow me to ask you this:

If,as Debra Arif has provided, newspapers commented on Bond extricating alcohol from Mylett's stomach ,there appears to be a problem, at least to me.

FIVE days after the death...the 25th, Bond, in total disregard to a simple stomach analysis & determination by Brownfield, finds alcohol. WHY does he look there? HOW does he find what Brownfield should have found and didn't?

Stomach analysis is hardly the same as testing for a rare,non-indigenous rash or signs of a disease which may be very similar to another and requires more than one expert opinion. A stomach analysis is a slam dunk,simple test which for the life of me I cannot understand why Bond decided to check for himself.:banghead:...five days after the death.

Furthermore,if this scenario did NOT occur...which has crossed my mind...in that the articles Debs found are in error....why would they be in error? Did an attempt at spin doctoring this re-examination occur and if so, by whom? I have to admit and I hope I do not sound too much of an alarmist or conspiracy-theorist here...but could this information have come from solely and squarely from Bond,without the knowledge of the other doctors ?

Hi Howard,
I assume that following his examination of Mylett's neck and discovery of less damage having been done than he'd have expected in a case of murder, Bond sought an alternative explanation and knew from previous experience that a person could be strangled by a tight dress or a collar. For this to have happened, Mylett would have had to have fallen into a position making it possible, and a likely explanation was that Mylett fell or passed out when drunk, strangling when unconscious. Dr. Bond would obviously have had to have established that Mylett had been drunk, and whilst there was witness testimony to that effect, Dr. Brownfield had apparently found no alcohol in Mylett's stomach, so I suppose Bond took what remained of the stomach contents and had them analysed.Thus, according to The Times, Dr. Bond was able to give it as his opinion that Mylett “in a state of drunkenness, fell down and the larynx was compressed against the neck of the jacket...”

It's interesting, perhaps, and should be observed, that Dr. Bond did NOT think that Mylett had been strangled by the collar of her jacket. In fact, questioned on that very point by a juryman he said he “did not think the collar of deceased's jacket was stiff enough to strangle her.” What he thought was that the mark on Mylett's neck “must have been produced by the rim of the collar, either while she was dying or while she was dead in the interval between the finding of the body and its being undressed.”

Dr Harris did not observe the mark when he examined Mylett's body at the scene and it is often overlooked that Constable Barrett said he looked for a mark on the neck when he took the body to the mortuary and did not find one. Bond's suggestion that the mark on the throat was caused by the collar of Mylett's jacket after death at least explains the absence of a mark when Harris and Barrett sought one. Harris, of course, said that when he examined the body “the head was lying over the jacket, but he did not think it was in such a position as to cause strangulation," but I'm not sure what he was thinking about because he went on to say that the collar was quite loose (but, of course, Dr. Bond didn't suggest the collar had stragled Mylett.)

This possible confusion about what caused Mylett to be strangled is maybe what the journalist for the Advertiser meant when he said that "It is impossible for the lay reader to accurately estimate the value of the medical testimony for and against the theory of murder." I'm frankly somewhat bemused by it too! And it's perhaps no surprise that the journalist felt that the jury's verdict was based on the overwhelming medical opinion that Mylett had been murdered, and evidence other than "expert opinion", viz that Mylett was a prostitute, was found dead in a place used by prostitutes, and a prostitute killer being on the loose. Against basic facts ikethose I suspect that arguments about alocohol, no alcohol, jackets and collars all paled into insignificance.

[Dave O]

Hi Paul,

Just to clarify one point, I am not saying that section 21 forbad the police from examining a victim (it doesn't address the police at all, but simply outlines the powers of coroners and juries). For practical purposes, I think I am right to say that once he received the case, the coroner was in legal possession of the body as there was a requirement to view the body that was necessary to the validity of the inquest, the body is the central piece of evidence in the inquest, and the coroner would be the one to release the body for burial. This is not in the law. My purpose in bringing up the law at all is to point out that it provides for secondary examinations within the framework of the inquest, and that Anderson and Monro should have been aware of this--if not through knowledge of the law through internal legal advice, then through direct communication with the coroner.

In my opinion, their failure at such a high level to understand how the inquest operated and their decision to operate outside the court represents a blunder on their part that carried with it potentially severe public criticism. But I do not mean that to say that the law itself addresses police procedure at all, because it doesn't.

[How Brown]

Not to divert the repartee between Dave and Mr. B...but what are we to make of Brownfield here? I can understand why Bond stuck his head into the affair ( the original determination by the two policemen (and Hibbert) that no violence appeared to have occurred, hence no murder, and that Brownfield countered that in the afternoon of the 20th or Friday the 21st)...but Brownfield does puzzle me a little bit. Maybe the two of you can figure this thing out:

He finds no alcohol in her system...he makes the judgment that she never gave birth...and yet,Bond finds alcohol and Mom Millett tells one and all of the daughter Mylett had.... Something stinks, guys...

Back to you and I'll go off to the sidelines...

[Paul]

Hi Paul,

Just to clarify one point, I am not saying that section 21 forbad the police from examining a victim (it doesn't address the police at all, but simply outlines the powers of coroners and juries). For practical purposes, I think I am right to say that once he received the case, the coroner was in legal possession of the body as there was a requirement to view the body that was necessary to the validity of the inquest, the body is the central piece of evidence in the inquest, and the coroner would be the one to release the body for burial. This is not in the law. My purpose in bringing up the law at all is to point out that it provides for secondary examinations within the framework of the inquest, and that Anderson and Monro should have been aware of this--if not through knowledge of the law through internal legal advice, then through direct communication with the coroner.

In my opinion, their failure at such a high level to understand how the inquest operated and their decision to operate outside the court represents a blunder on their part that carried with it potentially severe public criticism. But I do not mean that to say that the law itself addresses police procedure at all, because it doesn't.

Dave,
Many thanks for the clarification. I don't think there is any dispute that in asking Dr. Bond to make a second examination of the body the police appear to have contravened required and accepted practice, be it law or otherwise, and committed a blunder which, as you say, could have – and among some modern commentators has – rained criticism on their heads. As said, though, in mitigation it is clear that they were reacting to the unusual circumstance of Dr. Brownfield having given evidence at the inquest before the police had the customary opportunity to express their professional concerns and questions. It seems clear that in asking Dr.Bond to make a second examination of the body the police were seeking ansers to those concerns, not nefariously attempting to overturn Dr. Brownfield's conclusion, and it is abundantly clear that the police did not send a succession of doctors to examine that body with that or any other intent.

Howard,
Dr. Brownfield seems to have escaped public criticism and his behaviour and deficiencies seem to have been largely ignored by commentators old and new: he didn't tell the police about his conclusions before the inquest; he was attributed with giving an interview to The Star which sems to have a breach of accepted practice; he was evasive when questioned about both; he thought a drunken Mylett could have been overcome and killed quickly and without a struggle, but found no alcohol in her stomach; and he thought she'd never had children when we know she had a daughter.

One might question both the care he took over the autopsy and his competency, although he was a divisional surgeon of mature years and long service, so I suspect the latter isn't really an issue - and his ultimate conclusion was supported by other medical opinion - but the former in this specific case might have concerned the police.

[Dave O]

Hi Paul,

I don't think Brownfield had time to consult anyone--he must have come to the inquest straight from making his postmortem. He made his examination the morning of the 21st, which is when the inquest began. He told MacKellar that he asked which officer was going to attend the inquest, and was informed "an Inspector", not very helpfully, I guess.

Perhaps this is a problem with how inquests operated back then, they were always having to begin quickly because of the requirement for the coroner and jury to view the body, without which no inquest was valid. And in London, they were likely holding several inquests in a day (particularly in Baxter's and Macdonald's districts). So, a lot of rushing about, I would imagine. In the 5th edition of Jervis, Rudolph Melsheimer gives a time frame of 2-5 days as a reasonable period between death and the commencement of the inquest, with more than five days as a possible cause of complaint. Most of the Victorian accounts of inquests that I have read seem to adhere to that. Winner of the 'race to the inquest' sweepstakes has got to be Alice Mackenzie, found dead on July 17, inquest beginning . . . July 17!

I know you are familiar with Rowland Adams Williams' criticism of Wynne Baxter's not having Dr. Phillips give his full testimony on the first day of the Chapman inquest; perhaps the Rose Mylett case suggests that it was not always beneficial to have your surgeon in on the first day to give his full testimony.

You are right that the police did not send down 'doctor after doctor'--there was some confusion, a comedy of errors, if you will, which I suspect could have been averted had they simply worked through the coroner and jury to get a second opinion, with the coroner issuing a warrant for Bond. The police were, after all, interested parties to the inquest. I think you're right that it didn't occur to them to do that, but they should have (imo).

Cheers,
Dave

[Paul]

Hi Dave,
I’m sure you’re right and that it should have occurred to the police to contact Wynne Baxter, even if only as a matter of professional courtesy, and Dr. Brownfield would have indeed been pressed for time, having begun his post-mortem at 9.00 a.m. and with the inquest set to open at 11.00 a.m., but, I wonder, were there any requirement on him to inform the police of his conclusions before he gave evidence?

It seems to me that if Dr. Brownfield knew the police were treating Mylett’s death as natural causes, as presumably he must have done if he'd spoken with Dr. Harris and/or read his notes, and being an experienced divisional surgeon he would have understood how important it was for him to convey his conclusion to them at the earliest possible opportunity. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a hint anywhere that he spoke to the police at any time that day. Maybe he thought was unnecessary to do so once he'd given his testimony.

I wonder why Dr. MacKellar, Dr. Bond and Dr. Hebbert, all experienced men, all presumably well-aware of protocol, willingly trooped of and examined the body at the request of the police without one of them questioning whether Wynne Baxter had been informed and given his permission for them to do so.
All rather curious.

By the way, what it the status of the verdict of a coroner’s jury?

Cheers
Paul

[Dave O]

The verdict is only preliminary and not binding upon any other court. But it's also made by "good and lawful men" living in the community, organized and advised by someone they have elected. It's the community's own investigation that is supposed to be assisted by the police, open inquiries made in the interest of preventing future deaths. And, as we know, often its verdicts were the only ones that were ever made, as is the case here. I personally would not want to live in a community where my neighbors were finding verdicts of murder and the police weren't following up on them.

But if the preliminary nature of the verdict is a reason for Robert Anderson to ignore it, as well as the evidence presented during the inquest in favor of his own judgment, and this is what he said he did, then you may as well not have any inquests at all. The problem is that there was no process in what Anderson did in this case.

Your point about the other surgeons is a fair one, and I don't know enough about divisional surgeons to really comment. I suppose they followed their orders. As far as Hebbert and Bond, a warrant would have ensured their payment, but I suppose the police paid them in this case (Bond would receive a guinea from Baxter for his testimony, but not for his examination as he didn't order it).

[Paul]

Many thanks for your imput.

The verdict is only preliminary and not binding upon any other court. But it's also made by "good and lawful men" living in the community, organized and advised by someone they have elected. It's the community's own investigation that is supposed to be assisted by the police, open inquiries made in the interest of preventing future deaths. And, as we know, often its verdicts were the only ones that were ever made, as is the case here. I personally would not want to live in a community where my neighbors were finding verdicts of murder and the police weren't following up on them.

Neither would I, but I wonder if and when and why the police do decide not to follow up when the verdict of the inquest jury is one of murder.

But if the preliminary nature of the verdict is a reason for Robert Anderson to ignore it, as well as the evidence presented during the inquest in favor of his own judgment, and this is what he said he did, then you may as well not have any inquests at all. The problem is that there was no process in what Anderson did in this case.

I think one has to seriously question whether Robert Anderson did ignore the verdict of the inquest jury. The implications and ramifications of not investigating what four qualified medical men and an inquest jury had decided was a case of murder would have stretched up to government level and probably beyond, especially when a prostitute murderer was on the loose! So how likely is it that Anderson would have been allowed to make such a decision off his own bat? I suggest that we are either misreading or misunderstanding the source on this point, or Anderson was merely reflecting a decision reached by others at more senior levels.

Your point about the other surgeons is a fair one, and I don't know enough about divisional surgeons to really comment. I suppose they followed their orders. As far as Hebbert and Bond, a warrant would have ensured their payment, but I suppose the police paid them in this case (Bond would receive a guinea from Baxter for his testimony, but not for his examination as he didn't order it).

I, too, can only suppose that they followed orders, but from what you say the orders they followed should have come from the coroner, and that Hebbert, Bond and - one would have thought particularly - MacKellar, would all have been very familiar with the rules and that at least one of them would have asked if Wynne Baxter had given his permission.

[How Brown]

Dear Mr. B & Dave O :

Neither would I, but I wonder if and when and why the police do decide not to follow up when the verdict of the inquest jury is one of murder. -Mr.B

Inspectors Swanson and Wildey( spelling?) & C.I.D. officers...according to two Scotland Yard file snippets... contain the newspaper accounts found in the Daily Chronicle from Dec. 28th and Dec. 29th.......8 days after the actual murder.... and were, to quote, "working energetically" to elucidate the mystery.

One was titled, " A Clue To the Poplar Murder" and the other, "The Poplar Murder". I'm sure both of you have the "Ultimate"...and this can be found on pages 472-473.

[Paul]

Hi Howard,
Yes, but the police had been trying to establish the identity of Mylett, her friends and associates and her final movements. But you'll also find newspaper reports of extra policemen being drafted into Whitechapel and of inquiries at the docks and so on, all indicative of a murder investigation and suggestive, perhaps, that Anderson's comments to Supt. Steed have been misunderstood or misinterpreted.

[Dave O]

Hi Paul,

Thanks.
You also wrote: I think one has to seriously question whether Robert Anderson did ignore the verdict of the inquest jury. Well, I will quote what he wrote to Monro:

The Supt. has come to this Office to ask instructions in view of this verdict. I have thought it only fair to him and his officers to tell him plainly that 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.

I am not sure how else to interpret that statement--it's very clear that he had previously come to a conclusion before a verdict had been delivered, and that he told the Superintendent to stand down, I presume with Monro's support. I take your point about proper police activities during the inquest, but what are we to make of what Anderson says here about pursuing the case further? It seems to me that he ultimately also must have had some support at Treasury--otherwise I think it's right to say that his direction above would not have stood.

You also wrote, I wonder if and when and why the police do decide not to follow up when the verdict of the inquest jury is one of murder. Judging from what Robert Anderson wrote, they go to the Assistant Commissioner and ask for direction. But I don't really know either; one would hope that a publicly funded proceeding would carry some weight. But in the end, an inquest can only publicize an issue and deliver its verdict. It has no power to order another entity to follow up on the verdict, though according to procedure the depositions of the Mylett inquest would have been delivered to the criminal court. There to just sit, I guess.

So, perhaps they were on safe ground--the inquest was over and it was in their hands. But how have they served the people in Poplar? Their failure to pursue the case could have been no more satisfactory to them than the follow up to Terry Lloyd's inquest is to modern readers.

Hi Howard,

Just saw your post--what about after the verdict?

Cheers,
Dave

[Paul]

Hi Paul,

Thanks.
You also wrote: I think one has to seriously question whether Robert Anderson did ignore the verdict of the inquest jury. Well, I will quote what he wrote to Monro:

The Supt. has come to this Office to ask instructions in view of this verdict. I have thought it only fair to him and his officers to tell him plainly that 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.

I am not sure how else to interpret that statement--it's very clear that he had previously come to a conclusion before a verdict had been delivered, and that he told the Superintendent to stand down, I presume with Monro's support. I take your point about proper police activities during the inquest, but what are we to make of what Anderson says here about pursuing the case further? It seems to me that he ultimately also must have had some support at Treasury--otherwise I think it's right to say that his direction above would not have stood.

Well, pending some supportive evidence that Anderson alone had the authority to do what we think he's saying he did, or that he would have been allowed to do it even if he imagined that he did have the authority, we are forced to consider other interpretations of his words, for example, that by “I did not intend to take any further action in the matter” he did not mean that he was curtailing or stopping the investigation, but that he didn't intend to do more than was already being done.

You also wrote, I wonder if and when and why the police do decide not to follow up when the verdict of the inquest jury is one of murder. Judging from what Robert Anderson wrote, they go to the Assistant Commissioner and ask for direction..

Indeed. And in other cases...?

But I don't really know either; one would hope that a publicly funded proceeding would carry some weight. But in the end, an inquest can only publicize an issue and deliver its verdict. It has no power to order another entity to follow up on the verdict, though according to procedure the depositions of the Mylett inquest would have been delivered to the criminal court. There to just sit, I guess.

So, perhaps they were on safe ground--the inquest was over and it was in their hands. But how have they served the people in Poplar? Their failure to pursue the case could have been no more satisfactory to them than the follow up to Terry Lloyd's inquest is to modern readers...

Well, if the police turned out to be correct in their belief that Mylett died from natural causes then they weren't doing the people of Poplar a disservice and were doing the right thing for the population of the Metropolis by not diverting manpower and energy and money from other areas. And if it turned out that they were wrong then I assume the people of Poplar were not being served at all and the police were putting their heads on the guillotine of public, press and probably governmental criticism that could have cost both men their jobs..

[Dave O]

Hi Paul,

Well, if the police turned out to be correct in their belief that Mylett died from natural causes then they weren't doing the people of Poplar a disservice and were doing the right thing for the population of the Metropolis by not diverting manpower and energy and money from other areas.

If they were right. Do you think they were?

I think the potential danger was a further erosion of public confidence in the police, and that is a danger for everyone, not just the police.

Cheers,
Dave

[Paul]

Hi Paul,

Well, if the police turned out to be correct in their belief that Mylett died from natural causes then they weren't doing the people of Poplar a disservice and were doing the right thing for the population of the Metropolis by not diverting manpower and energy and money from other areas.

If they were right. Do you think they were?

I think the potential danger was a further erosion of public confidence in the police, and that is a danger for everyone, not just the police.

Cheers,
Dave

Hi Dave,
Yes, indeed, it certainly would have eroded public confidence, which is why I said they were putting their heads on the guillotine of public, press and probably governmental criticism.

Do I think the police were right? I honestly don't know. If we set aside the idea of deep, dark and nefarious deeds at Scotland Yard and concentrate instead on the probable reality, we have on the one hand four doctors unanimous in their belief that Mylett was murdered, this belief as far as I know being wholly based on the marks found on Myett's neck and an acceptance that Mylett was murdered quickly and suddenly and, being drunk, without resistance, and, I think I am right in saying, by somebody reasonably knowledgeable and proficient about and in strangulation.

Against this we have the opinion of the police that there was no indication at the scene of a struggle and no sign of violence on the body, even to a loose scarf around the neck being undisturbed, and the mark on the neck was initially unobserved by the examining doctor and by a policeman who specifically looked for such a mark.

Overall, I think I am persuaded by the weight of medical opinion, but I have doubts that Mylett would have been murdered so efficiently and so quickly and so unexpectedly without prior intent, which there may well have been, but... Well, there are serial killes about, but most people are killed as a consequence of argumants and rows and nobody heard anything... Doubts begin to gnaw away.

[How Brown]

Dear Dave:

Sorry for the delay in responding !

If Swanson and Co. did make an initial attempt at finding whatever they could about any potential leads and circumstances relative to her death...allow me to admit ignorance here and ask you: Did they cease investigating completely after the verdict ?

Back to you,old bean...time for me to light up a bowl and read the last few posts.:playball:

[Dave O]

Thanks, Paul. I am also persuaded by the weight of the medical opinion. I think what you say about efficiency, silence, and prior intent is very interesting, I had not looked at it that way.

Hi Howard: Well, I'm not sure why you're asking me, you've got what I have got, Sourcebook's transcription of Anderson's report to Monro on 11 Jan 1889, in which he says he is passing along Superintendent Steed's report of the inquest, and St. John Wontner's notification of the verdict (Wontner was an interested party to the inquest on behalf of the Treasury). Anderson told Monro that he had informed Superintendent Steed, when asked how they should proceed, that he "did not intend to take any further action in the matter". My assumption is that Monro did not object since there is nothing further about an investigation.

Edit: Say, Howard or Paul, this just hit me. Do either of you know the nature of the document from Wontner that Anderson is passing up to Monro: this is something official from the Treasury Department, a notification of the verdict?

Cheers,
Dave

[How Brown]

Dear Dave:

I know that Anderson stated that he would not pursue any investigation and that that was mentioned on January 11th,1889, but in light of what the Daily Chronicle mentioned about Swanson & Wildey investigating the case so soon after the murder ( see below), I just wondered if others pursued an investigation. I have only seen that one was conducted in the case of Swanson & Wildey and yet I have not seen a statement emanating from Monro,Anderson's superior, that would effectively have put an end to Swanson & Wildey's efforts....have you,buddy?

[Dave O]

Hi Howard,

Steed is a subordinate asking for directions. Isn't Anderson telling Steed to stand down, and wouldn't that include Swanson and Wildey? I cannot imagine that Anderson is saying, "Hey, I'm done with this case, but you guys do what you want." Surely they could not continue without something from Monro. As far as I know, we don't hear any more from Monro directing further investigation, so that is why my assumption is that he didn't override Anderson. Are you aware of any evidence that says they continued on, and if they did, without a sanction from the Commissioner, how would they have been able to secure further funding?

Cheers,
Dave

[Paul]

As far as my two penneth is concerned, the inference is that whatever investigation into Mylett's death the police were making, Supt. Steed was asking what action would be taken in light of the inquest jury's verdict of murder. Anderson's reply was none. But I'd advocate caution before accepting that Anderson told Supt. Steed to stand down. Anderson is not distinguished for the precision of his writing and "further action" is open to interpretation and, as mentioned earlier, one interpretation is that Anderson meant only that he did not intend to increase or otherwise change the measures already being taken.

The alternative interpretation, that Anderson ceased the investigations altogether, means that Anderson could of his own volition reject the overwhelming medical opinion and the verdict of the inquest jury, and the implications and ramifications of such a decision seem too great for it to have been Anderson's alone, so you have to consider that the decision would have been made (or at least agreed to) at a very high level, almost certainly governmental, which suggests that there was severe disquiet about Dr. Brownfield's testimony and the medical evidence overall.

Whilst there appears to be no evidence of a continuing investigation into the death of Mylett, the official file is scant and the press loses interest when the well of speculation runs dry, so the absence of evidence doesn't tell us much. Papers relating to financing show that the police were active in investigating the Whitechapel murders during the opening months on 1889 and I suggest that it is safe to assume that Mylett was included in those investigations.

[How Brown]

Steed is a subordinate asking for directions. Isn't Anderson telling Steed to stand down, and wouldn't that include Swanson and Wildey?- Thats why I am asking you,old friend.

I cannot imagine that Anderson is saying, "Hey, I'm done with this case, but you guys do what you want." Surely they could not continue without something from Monro.--Thats what I would think too,Dave.

As far as I know, we don't hear any more from Monro directing further investigation, so that is why my assumption is that he didn't override Anderson.--Again,this sounds reasonable.

Are you aware of any evidence that says they continued on, and if they did, without a sanction from the Commissioner, how would they have been able to secure further funding?--Good point. I'm curious about Wonter's appearance on the scene.

[Dave O]

Hi Paul and Howard,

Thanks for those posts, you do raise some interesting points. Yes, I realize that Anderson could not have acted in a vacuum, he's passing up his report and related documents on up to Monro, and must have had support. There is also the matter of this notification of the verdict from Wontner--do you know what that is? I don't. Some sort of official notification from Treasury as Wontner watched the inquest on their behalf? Perhaps it's the source for Anderson's characterization of Wontner's opinion, but generally speaking as a piece of business between entities, what actually is a notification of the verdict?

I think the inclusion of The Advertiser piece in the file tells us something of how they intended to proceed--Paul, you see that article differently, but you know my low opinion of it.

Cheers,
Dave

[Paul]

Hi Paul and Howard,

Thanks for those posts, you do raise some interesting points. Yes, I realize that Anderson could not have acted in a vacuum, he's passing up his report and related documents on up to Monro, and must have had support. There is also the matter of this notification of the verdict from Wontner--do you know what that is? I don't. Some sort of official notification from Treasury as Wontner watched the inquest on their behalf? Perhaps it's the source for Anderson's characterization of Wontner's opinion, but generally speaking as a piece of business between entities, what actually is a notification of the verdict?

I think the inclusion of The Advertiser piece in the file tells us something of how they intended to proceed--Paul, you see that article differently, but you know my low opinion of it.

Cheers,
Dave

Hi Dave,
I can't help with Wontner, I'm afraid. He was a solicitor and I assumed that he simply passed on the verdict, presumably from what Anderson says with comments.

Turning to The Advertiser,I don't want to give the impression that I regard it highly as a piece of journalism, only that I think it reflects a journalist's considered opinion of the inquest. And also possibly gives us a fresh insight into what Anderson meant by his footnote reference to the Mylett case in The Lighter Side of My Official Life in 1910.

He says "It is impossible for the lay reader to accurately
estimate the value of the medical testimony for and against the theory
of murder." He's talking about his readers here and as he goes on to explain, the evidence was in his opinion well-balanced, either conclusion being feasible, and it seems that it is for this reason that he thinks that "In arriving at their verdict the jury were probably influenced by other than expert evidence."

This is, I think, a considered conclusion and in light of subsequent events an important one. The reasons he gives are that Mylett was a prostitute, she was found in a yard used by prostitutes, and there was a prostitute killer on the loose.

Don't you think that's frighteningly close to what Anderson said in 1910 that Mylett's death would not have been thought a murder if it hadn't been for the Jack the Ripper scare?

[How Brown]

Dear Dave & Mr. B:

It might be worthwhile to establish a time line on this thread, from the night of the 19th all the way to "vanishing point", meaning the last we hear of Mylett at all in the press. If someone would like to help out,that would be much appreciated.:kiss:

That the police ceased to investigate Mylett's murder (after the newspaper article's comments on Swanson from the 28th and 29th) despite the verdict of the coroner...to me at least...indicates Monro had a bigger hand in this affair than he has been 'credited' for...and perhaps more of the "blame" has been put on Anderson simply because he seems to have elaborated on it more vocally than his superior. In short, in my view so far...it looks like a case of the old adage, "it takes two to tango"...and Monro might have been just as responsible for any cessation of police activity. I could be wrong,but I'll throw that out there.

[Dave O]

Hi Paul and Howard,

Many thanks for both of your thoughts here. Paul, I won't go back into what I think of the piece in The Advertiser as I already have expressed my own views a page or two back, except to say that I too have a sense of it being echoed in Anderson's report to Monro, although I guess we can't know whether it had any influence. I can also see what you mean about the footnote in Lighter side. If it did influence at least part of his thinking (with another part formed by his examination of Dec 22 1888), than I would heartily echo that it is "frightening" :)

Incidentally, I don't mean to be dogmatic or nitpicking, and Anderson is writing some 20 years after the fact, but I would like to point out that the description he gives in 1910 of Mylett enduring a death from "natural causes" is not correct as strangulation, of course, is not a natural death--it is a violent, unnatural death, no matter if it's an accident or a homicide. Don't mean to be obnoxious here, but I think it is a point to keep in mind.

Our discussion has prompted me to try to learn a little more about police procedure, so I have been rereading Scotland Yard Investigates and Anderson's Lighter Side. I see that the commissioners had the summoning power of magistrates and that made me think of a point that you brought up earlier, Paul: why, if a coroner's warrant was important to have before proceeding with an autopsy, did Bond not insist on having one. I wonder if when Monro decides to have him in, and Anderson sends a letter (I am writing of events from memory here), were they perhaps acting as magistrates? I am only thinking aloud here.

I wonder if Paul or any of our other English friends can tell us a little more about the Treasury and its involvement in criminal investigation. I know they watched the Mylett case (in the person of St. John Wontner). What little else I know of Treasury is that they investigated crime--but all I know of them is what I have read of Queen v Carter 1876, the Chief Justices' review and eventual quashing of the first Bravo inquest. There, I think I remember correct, the Attorney General has brought the case to the High Court, and has the Treasury going back and interviewing witnesses, uncovering new information, etc.

The reason I ask is that I am interested in this "notification of the verdict" that Anderson mentions passing along to Monro, and am wondering whether this is a personal communication to Anderson from Wontner giving his opinions as I think Paul suggests (which I think ties in with how Anderson mentions Wontner), or something more official from Treasury. If so, they can't have sent such notifications routinely--there are too many inquests in London to do that, but Mylett seems a special case as they have a representative there.

Perhaps I am making a false assumption that Wontner wasn't engaged by Treasury only for the Mylett inquest, but worked for them all the time--they must have had their own internal solicitors, it seems to me.

Off to begin watching twenty-four hours of election coverage here. Howard, I won't ask who for, but have you voted?

Cheers,
Dave

[Paul]

Hi Howard,
As said, the sparse official documents, the minimal press interest in the case and the general waning of press interest after the initial coverage and burst of speculation means that we probably won't know if the police pursued further inquiries into the Mylett case following the verdict of the jury inquest. As said, however, there are several papers in the police files relating to the finances of the police and the Whitechapel murders during the first half of 1889 and I suggest that this would have embraced Mylett (whose file is included among the Whitechapel murders, don't forget, suggesting that it wasn't closed).

Hi Dave,
St. John Wontner and his and the role of the Treasury in watching the inquest is an area that needs some research and might prove enlightening, but I don't think the communication from St John Wontner was a personal communication to Anderson, but was an official notification and perhaps venturing a professional opinion and observations. I imagine that Anderson passed the document on to Monro because the case was of interest to him.

Not being dogmatic or nitpicky either, but whilst death from strangulation isn't natural causes, it isn't murder either, and all Anderson was saying in 1910 is that Mylett wasn't murdered. Moreover, the sources suggest that he was expressing official police opinion. This raises all sorts of problems, as we've been discussing, not the least being whether the police could reject the verdict of an inquest jury (and perhaps refuse to pursue investigations - which, as I've said, I'm not sure they did). Well, it would appear that they could because apparently they did, but presumably there would have to have been a reason, which brings me to the Advertiser, which interests me because it says that the jury probably based its conclusion on other than the medical evidence, and basically suggests that its verdict was influenced by the Ripper crimes. I am simply making an observation here and throwing it into the mixing pot for consideration.

[How Brown]

Dear Mr.B & Dave O:

Is it not possible or lets just say likely that a police investigation was conducted into the Mylett murder to a greater extent than we assume it to have been conducted...and possibly because of the police having taken the stance of not disclosing every move they made to the press, that that might be why we do not read about it too much?

Mr B:

"Not being dogmatic or nitpicky either, but whilst death from strangulation isn't natural causes, it isn't murder either, and all Anderson was saying in 1910 is that Mylett wasn't murdered."

I have a question regarding your statement here,sor....

How do we begin to concieve of Mylett dying as a result of non-natural cause or non-murderous strangulation...if it were not inflicted by someone else considering the circs which existed in this instance? I'm not being a wise guy,but I fail to see how she could have died by any other means than by the hand of another. What to you did Anderson see within the circs that you might feel directed him in the direction he maintained in the affair?

Dave O : Yeah,buddy....I will be pullin' a lever.

[Paul]

Is it not possible or lets just say likely that a police investigation was conducted into the Mylett murder to a greater extent than we assume it to have been conducted...and possibly because of the police having taken the stance of not disclosing every move they made to the press, that that might be why we do not read about it too much?

I don't know, Howard, but I strongly suggest that Scotland Yard's inclusion of the Mylett case with the Whitechapel Murders files means that the case remained open and was investigated in whatever ways it could be.

"Not being dogmatic or nitpicky either, but whilst death from strangulation isn't natural causes, it isn't murder either, and all Anderson was saying in 1910 is that Mylett wasn't murdered."

I have a question regarding your statement here,sor....

How do we begin to concieve of Mylett dying as a result of non-natural cause or non-murderous strangulation...if it were not inflicted by someone else considering the circs which existed in this instance? I'm not being a wise guy,but I fail to see how she could have died by any other means than by the hand of another. What to you did Anderson see within the circs that you might feel directed him in the direction he maintained in the affair??

I understand from the reports that she was believed to have become unconscious through drink and fallen into a position where she compressed her larynx, or whatever the phrase was that Dr. Bond used, and died. It wasn't natural causes in the strict sense of being something like heart failure, but it wasn't murder either.

[Debra Arif]

How do we begin to concieve of Mylett dying as a result of non-natural cause or non-murderous strangulation...if it were not inflicted by someone else considering the circs which existed in this instance? I'm not being a wise guy,but I fail to see how she could have died by any other means than by the hand of another. What to you did Anderson see within the circs that you might feel directed him in the direction he maintained in the affair?

.

How, it may be worth mentioning that in the earliest reports there was a suggestion, by the police at the scene, that Myett had fallen against some sort of post that was present in the yard, gone into a swoon and died.

One thing that has always interested me is the discontinuation of the ligature mark around Mylett's neck. I've read a few forensic papers that suggest this might be a rare occurence in cases of homicidal strangulation.

[Dave O]

Hi Paul, Howard, and Debra,

Right, it doesn't have to be murder. In no sense is strangulation a natural death, whether the case is that you're so drunk that you pass out and fall over in such a way that compresses the larynx or someone garrotes you. It's either an accidental death or it's homicide (which is what I think too)--but either way it's not natural. In 1910, Anderson incorrectly describes the cause of death in 1910 as natural; by saying so, he gives the reader an impression that the death wasn't accidental, either. Possibly his error is due to the passage of 21 years after the events, or sloppy writing, but it is an error.

Howard, I will concede that it is possible that they continued with their investigation. I think Paul makes a good point about the physical location of the file. But I would say that given the tenor of Anderson's statements to Monro in the wake of the verdict, including what he reported saying to Steed, along with the insertion of The Advertiser in the file (with its claim to probable knowledge of the inner workings of the jury), and not knowing what Monro's final response to the inquest verdict was, it doesn't look promising even if the case remained open. I will be quick to admit that I don't know enough of police procedure to judge the significance of its being open (does it signify an aggressive investiation?). Maybe I am wrong about this, but that is my current thinking.

I do agree that knowing more about Treasury and this notification of verdict could potentially be helpful, and is something that we should have a handle on. I've got a few projects that are pressing, but at some point I'll try to find out a little more about any general procedure if no one else does it first.

Cheers,
Dave

PS Howard, I hope you have a smooth experience voting today.

[Debra Arif]

I do agree that knowing more about Treasury and this notification of verdict could potentially be helpful, and is something that we should have a handle on. I've got a few projects that are pressing, but at some point I'll try to find out a little more about any general procedure if no one else does it first.

Cheers,
Dave
.

Hi Dave,
I've been having a quick skim through some Parliamentary papers today that mentioned Blanchard Wontner, a brother of St. John Wontner and probable(?) partner in the solicitors firm of Wontner and Sons, solicitors to the Metropolitan Police. There was some mention of the Treasury and procedures but mainly to do with criminal cases and nothing to do with inquests etc. that I could see.
I'll check through this again more thoroughly though when I get time as there maybe something useful in it, or other papers that may give more information.

[Dave O]

Hi Debra,

Thanks very much for that. I had this article from The Times inserted in my Hansard notes, related to questions in the House of Commons following the end of the first Charles Bravo inquest in 1876 and features the Home Secretary's reaction to a bad inquest--there are question of the coroner steering the jury to a suicide verdict, exclusion of medical witnesses the jury wanted to hear, jury's complaint that the inquest was too short, resulting in an open verdict finding neither suicide or murder. There is a mention of the Treasury, but I will give a little extra for context (not too much, I hope):

Richard Assheton Cross, Home Secretary: The coroner's second sitting was held on a Friday, the funeral was performed on the following day, and on the Monday detectives were placed in communication with the friends of Mr. Bravo in order to inquire into the circumstances. The police have since been further instructed to render every assistance in their power in the investigation of the case, and I have thought it right to place the matter in the hands of the Solicitor to the Treasury--there being no Public Prosecutor at present--in order that all the facts of the case may be thoroughly inquired into.(Hear, hear.) No expense will be spared and no time will be wasted in sifting the matter to the bottom. (Hear.) The House is no doubt aware that [they] have no power over coroners, but I must say that I am entirely dissatisfied with the way in which the inquest was conducted (hear, hear), and after much consideration I have thought it best to place the whole of the papers in the hands of the Law Officers of the Crown, who will advise me as to whether there are grounds for making application to the Court of Queen's Bench for the issue of a writ ad melius inquirendum, or whether any and what further steps ought to be taken. (The Times May 19 1876).

And then this from an account of Queen v. Carter (the High Court review of the inquest, which was indeed quashed, and set the stage for the equally controversial second inquest). Here the activities of the Treasury in a review of the case are described:

The application was made upon affidavits, as already stated, embodying the coroner's notes of the evidence at the inquest, and also the notes taken by Mr. Reed, the barrister, who was present; and there was also an affidavit of Mr. Stephenson, as the Solicitor for the Treasury, stating the inquiries he had made in consequence of directions from the Secretary of State. He stated that in order to carry out these instructions he had taken the statements of a number of persons, some of whom had attended at the Treasury on being desired by him to do so, and some of whom had volunteered to attend or were seen at their houses for the purpose. Among these he stated Mrs. Bravo and Mrs. Cox, and Mr. and Mrs. Robert Campbell, sen. (parents of Mrs. Bravo), and Mr. Wiliam Campbell (her brother) made statements to him voluntarily, without any request by him. He saw them and took their statements, under directions previously received from the Law Officers of the Crown. After setting forth fully all that he had done in the matter, Mr. Stephenson proceeded to state, "that from the statements he had then received, and also from information he had received which does not appear in any of these statements, I believe that some of the person who have made statements to me could, if they chose to do so, make further statements which in my judgment would be material either as going to their credit or as being on the circumstances attending the death, and that if a further inquiry were held on which they could be compelled to attend, and give evidence upon oath, further material evidence which was not befor ethe coroner's jury at the inquest might be forthcoming." The statements made were annexed to Mr. Stephenson's affidavit, but, as the Attorney-General stated, they did not substantiate a case against any particular person, though, as he intimated, they had satisfied him that justice required a further inquiry. Upon these matterials the application was now made. (The Times June 20 1876).

So it seems that in the Bravo case, the Solicitor for the Treasury acted at the behest of the Home Secretary, seeming because there was no Director of Prosecution? I am not sure that's right, this is about all that I know of it at this point.

Cheers,
Dave

[How Brown]

Thanks for the well wishes,Dave. I assume you had to wait in a line for a while. Thanks for bringing up the Bravo case,as I was all prepared to contact the Treasury to ascertain what Wontner was actually involved in the Mylett case for....thanks again,pal.

Mr. B: Thanks for your response to the question from this morning. i sent you an email and thanks for the link to the Treasury.

Hi Debs: Thank you as well for the posts and the comments about the mentioning of a "post' in regard to Mylett...and the ligature marks.:kiss:

[Paul]

Right, it doesn't have to be murder. In no sense is strangulation a natural death, whether the case is that you're so drunk that you pass out and fall over in such a way that compresses the larynx or someone garrotes you. It's either an accidental death or it's homicide (which is what I think too)--but either way it's not natural. In 1910, Anderson incorrectly describes the cause of death in 1910 as natural; by saying so, he gives the reader an impression that the death wasn't accidental, either. Possibly his error is due to the passage of 21 years after the events, or sloppy writing, but it is an error.


Anderson certainly made a mistake, but was it intentional? Do we seriously think that he was intentionally trying to deceive his readers into accepting that Mylett died from natural causes? Why would he have wanted to do that? Even allowing that he didn't want to admit to another murder in the East End, which personally I think is a lame argument, it would have made no difference to that purpose for him to have said that hers was an unnatural death or a death from natural causes.

I think Anderson was simply trying to distinguish between a murder and a death from, er, well, you know, causes that weren't murder?

[A.P. Wolf]

So like, Paul, you are speculating, just like Anderson, that Rose Mylett got up that morning, dressed herself in the same clothes she had been wearing all week, wandered around all day and night in those same clothes, but then suddenly strangled herself with an over-tight collar in some remote yard?

[Paul]

So like, Paul, you are speculating, just like Anderson, that Rose Mylett got up that morning, dressed herself in the same clothes she had been wearing all week, wandered around all day and night in those same clothes, but then suddenly strangled herself with an over-tight collar in some remote yard?

No. I'm not.

[A.P. Wolf]

The hand of god, then, Paul?

[Dave O]

Hi Paul,

No, I don't suggest that it was intentional. How could I know? I wrote "Possibly his error is due to the passage of 21 years after the events, or sloppy writing".

Cheers,
Dave

[Paul]

The hand of god, then, Paul?

If I understood what you are talking about, A.P., I could reply.

[Paul]

Hi Paul,

No, I don't suggest that it was intentional. How could I know? I wrote "Possibly his error is due to the passage of 21 years after the events, or sloppy writing".

Cheers,
Dave

Hi Dave,
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to intimate that you were suggesting it was intentional, but based on your comment that Anderson gave "the reader an impression that the death wasn't accidental either" I raised the rhetorical question of whther or not that impression was intentional and concluded that intent lacked a motive and thus seemed unlikely. Equally, if he never had any reason to suppose that Mylett died from natural causes, it would seem unlikely that he would he have misremembered it as being natural causes 21-years later. I'm therefore inlined to favour sloppy writing. Which doesn't surprise me as Anderson was a sloppy writer.

[Wickerman]

...
I understand from the reports that she was believed to have become unconscious through drink and fallen into a position where she compressed her larynx, or whatever the phrase was that Dr. Bond used, and died.


Has anyone sought a medical opinion on how easy/difficult it is to compress your own larynx and not realize it?
By 'realize' I mean, not wake up and cough!

How realistic is this premise?

[Paul]

Has anyone sought a medical opinion on how easy/difficult it is to compress your own larynx and not realize it?
By 'realize' I mean, not wake up and cough!

How realistic is this premise?

I haven't, but don't people pass out and drown in baths and such without waking up? I assume Dr. Bond would not have testified under oath to something he knew to be impossible.

[A.P. Wolf]

Wouldn't he, Paul?
Dr Thomas Bond in 1881:

'THOMAS BOND . I live at 17, Delahay Street, and am a F.R.C.S., assistant surgeon to Westminster Hospital, and lecturer on forensic medicine there—I have been many times examined in Courts of Justice on inquiries of this description—I have been in Court while the doctors gave their evidence—I have carefully attended to the description given by them of the appearance of the body, externally and internally—assuming that they are accurate in their description, the cause of death in my judgment was suffocation; I think sudden suffocation, by an absolute stoppage of the air into the lungs until death happened—that opinion is justified because of the condition of the heart—in slow suffocation the right side of the heart is usually full of blood; in very sudden suffocation we get the ordinary appearances of suffocation without the gorged state of the right side of the heart, what is termed an empty heart—supposing the pressure continued so as to stop the passage of the air, in two or three minutes death might be complete—in ordinary suffocation, that is slow suffocation, it would take four or five minutes, perhaps even more—it pressure was continued on the windpide that would be very likely to cause death quite suddenly, especially in a woman of low vitality from drinking, which does cause low vitality—I do not think the appearances were consistent with death from cerebral apoplexy—I should expect to find a great deal more congestion and effusion in the brain than I have heard described—a very violent blow on the throat might cause a shook sufficient to cause death from syncope—I do not think it a likely cause of death, but possible—Dr. Evans, I think rightly, said that he should not have expected the lungs to be so gorged, nor the brain so congested, nor should I; but apart from that, a drunken woman might have congestion of the lungs and brain—supposing a blow given to the throat sufficient to cause death from syncope, death might be quite sudden, from the immediate shock—it would be slower from a prolonged shock; the heart would be empty in that case—in a prolonged shock there is no absolute certainty in the condition of the heart, but we take it as a general probability that the heart will be empty—I do not believe that the woman herself could have caused pressure to the windpipe—I mean the woman would have to be very helplessly drunk to suffocate herself—there is a reflex action, which either raises the body or pushes away the object—I have tried that in a great number of cases of dead-drunkenness.
Cross-examined. In dead-drunkenness the action of pushing away might
See original (http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/images.jsp?doc=188102280080) http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/i/genericThumb.jpg (http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/images.jsp?doc=188102280080)
be done absolutely quietly, without any noise—in less drunkenness there might be a noise and an exclamation—I have said that syncope was a possible cause of this death, but I do not think it nearly so likely as the hypothesis that the other gentlemen have taken up—I think it a possible cause.
By the COURT. In death from syncope I cannot imagine any other cause than a blow on the face—it is not an unusual cause—there are a great many large vessels there—if this woman died of syncope it must have been produced by a most violent blow on the neck, and most probably death would follow on the blow—the sympathetic nerves are freely developed at that point, and the circulation is very free, so that it is a very likely place to cause syncope, but it would require a very violent blow.'

Perhaps you now know what I am talking about.

[Paul]

Wouldn't he, Paul?
Dr Thomas Bond in 1881:

'THOMAS BOND . I live at 17, Delahay Street, and am a F.R.C.S., assistant surgeon to Westminster Hospital, and lecturer on forensic medicine there—I have been many times examined in Courts of Justice on inquiries of this description—I have been in Court while the doctors gave their evidence—I have carefully attended to the description given by them of the appearance of the body, externally and internally—assuming that they are accurate in their description, the cause of death in my judgment was suffocation; I think sudden suffocation, by an absolute stoppage of the air into the lungs until death happened—that opinion is justified because of the condition of the heart—in slow suffocation the right side of the heart is usually full of blood; in very sudden suffocation we get the ordinary appearances of suffocation without the gorged state of the right side of the heart, what is termed an empty heart—supposing the pressure continued so as to stop the passage of the air, in two or three minutes death might be complete—in ordinary suffocation, that is slow suffocation, it would take four or five minutes, perhaps even more—it pressure was continued on the windpide that would be very likely to cause death quite suddenly, especially in a woman of low vitality from drinking, which does cause low vitality—I do not think the appearances were consistent with death from cerebral apoplexy—I should expect to find a great deal more congestion and effusion in the brain than I have heard described—a very violent blow on the throat might cause a shook sufficient to cause death from syncope—I do not think it a likely cause of death, but possible—Dr. Evans, I think rightly, said that he should not have expected the lungs to be so gorged, nor the brain so congested, nor should I; but apart from that, a drunken woman might have congestion of the lungs and brain—supposing a blow given to the throat sufficient to cause death from syncope, death might be quite sudden, from the immediate shock—it would be slower from a prolonged shock; the heart would be empty in that case—in a prolonged shock there is no absolute certainty in the condition of the heart, but we take it as a general probability that the heart will be empty—I do not believe that the woman herself could have caused pressure to the windpipe—I mean the woman would have to be very helplessly drunk to suffocate herself—there is a reflex action, which either raises the body or pushes away the object—I have tried that in a great number of cases of dead-drunkenness.
Cross-examined. In dead-drunkenness the action of pushing away might
See original (http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/images.jsp?doc=188102280080) http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/i/genericThumb.jpg (http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/images.jsp?doc=188102280080)
be done absolutely quietly, without any noise—in less drunkenness there might be a noise and an exclamation—I have said that syncope was a possible cause of this death, but I do not think it nearly so likely as the hypothesis that the other gentlemen have taken up—I think it a possible cause.
By the COURT. In death from syncope I cannot imagine any other cause than a blow on the face—it is not an unusual cause—there are a great many large vessels there—if this woman died of syncope it must have been produced by a most violent blow on the neck, and most probably death would follow on the blow—the sympathetic nerves are freely developed at that point, and the circulation is very free, so that it is a very likely place to cause syncope, but it would require a very violent blow.'

Perhaps you now know what I am talking about.

No. Perhaps you could clearly and succinctly explain yourself.

[Wickerman]

I haven't, but don't people pass out and drown in baths and such without waking up? I assume Dr. Bond would not have testified under oath to something he knew to be impossible.

I've heard of people drowning while drunk, only because they couldn't co-ordinate themselves to get out of a pool.
Never heard of anyone choking to death without knowing it (from a blocked air passage yes, but not from compression of the larynx).

Don't forget...the argument is supposed to be that her collar was pressing against her throat, all she had to do was straighten her neck and she was home free, not like she had to climb out of a swimming pool, or cough something out of her throat that was stuck!

The other flaw I see in this argument is that IF her collar was so stiff, it would not compress her larynx because it was resting on her collarbone or neck, not a firm surface to offer any kind of resistance.

Try this..wrap a narrow leather belt around your neck and compress your throat against it. The belt just sinks into your flesh around the neck, it certainly does not crush your larynx.

Lastly, we should not assume Bond would not say something wrong, he has demonstrated more than once he is quite capable of doing just that!

regards, Jon.S.

[A.P. Wolf]

Never mind little 'ol me, Paul... but 'ave a word, mate...
with Bond I mean.

[Paul]

Hi Jon,
Good points.

I've heard of people drowning while drunk, only because they couldn't co-ordinate themselves to get out of a pool. Never heard of anyone choking to death without knowing it (from a blocked air passage yes, but not from compression of the larynx).

I think the suggestion is that Mylett had become unconscious through drink, not that she was simply drunk.

Don't forget...the argument is supposed to be that her collar was pressing against her throat, all she had to do was straighten her neck and she was home free, not like she had to climb out of a swimming pool, or cough something out of her throat that was stuck!

As memory serves, Mylett was wearing a tight-fitting jacket buttoned to the neck with a high collar which was unhooked. I don't think Dr. Bond suggested that her larynx was compressed by the collar of her jacket, but by the neck of her jacket. He thought the rim of the collar was responsible for the mark on the throat which everyone else thought was caused by a cord used to strangle Mylett, and that it was caused while she was dying or when she was lying dead. I stand to be corrected on this though.

Lastly, we should not assume Bond would not say something wrong, he has demonstrated more than once he is quite capable of doing just that!

I don't doubt that Dr. Bond said things that were wrong and made errors (who doesn't?), although a list of examples would probably be useful for purposes of comparison, but the question here hasn't been whether Dr. Bond's conclusion was correct or more likely to be right than that of his colleagues, on which I am not qualified to comment. Just for clarification, the question is whether or not the police, and specifically Robert Anderson, against whom the charges have almost exclusively been laid, nefariously tried to alter the anticipated outcome of the inquest by having Dr. Bond willingly or as a consequence of pressure, challenge the medical evidence of Dr. Brownfield.

That Dr. Bond could be wrong is one thing, but the idea that Dr. Bond ventured what he knew to be a completely cock-and-bull story is something else altogether, especially if he did it in cahoots with the police to misdirect the course of the inquest. The ramifications of such an action and the implications for all concerned are so great – and the suggested motive of the police (that they did not want to admit to another murder) in comparison so banal – that some might consider it likely that Dr. Bond simply recognised the professional concerns of the police and after a re-examination of the body, when he observed far less damage to the neck than he'd have expected from a case of murder by strangulation, sought and expressed an explanation which satisfied both the agreed cause of death, strangulation, and the placidity of features and complete absence of signs of a struggle.

[Paul]

Never mind little 'ol me, Paul... but 'ave a word, mate...
with Bond I mean.

You talk in riddles, A.P., which doesn't progress this discussion one iota. If you have a point, then make it. If you don't....

[How Brown]

Just for clarification, the question is whether or not the police, and specifically Robert Anderson, against whom the charges have almost exclusively been laid, nefariously tried to alter the anticipated outcome of the inquest by having Dr. Bond willingly or as a consequence of pressure, challenge the medical evidence of Dr. Brownfield. -----Mr. B

Dear A.P. Mr. B has summed it up better than I could have because thats what I think too. I think Bond should be commended for finding alcohol when Brownfield didn't. Brownfield also made the mistake of declaring Mylett was childless...irrelevant,of course, in the realm of what killed or who killed her...but nonetheless another error.

...that some might consider it likely that Dr. Bond simply recognised the professional concerns of the police and after a re-examination of the body, when he observed far less damage to the neck than he'd have expected from a case of murder by strangulation, sought and expressed an explanation which satisfied both the agreed cause of death, strangulation, and the placidity of features and complete absence of signs of a struggle. ---Mr. B

Again.A.P....thats what I see here at work myself. Anderson,of course, states that no one would have thought it was a murder years later,had it not been for the WM...which is untrue.

Of all the elements in this saga, the one that stands out the most with me is that the police apparently toned down or ceased to investigate her death after the coroner's jury verdict. Its more important, to me at least, than why Dr. Bond went back and reexamined her corpse ( and aren't we glad he did?).

Back to the show...

[Debra Arif]

I don't doubt that Dr. Bond said things that were wrong and made errors (who doesn't?), although a list of examples would probably be useful for purposes of comparison, but the question here hasn't been whether Dr. Bond's conclusion was correct or more likely to be right than that of his colleagues, on which I am not qualified to comment. Just for clarification, the question is whether or not the police, and specifically Robert Anderson, against whom the charges have almost exclusively been laid, nefariously tried to alter the anticipated outcome of the inquest by having Dr. Bond willingly or as a consequence of pressure, challenge the medical evidence of Dr. Brownfield.

That Dr. Bond could be wrong is one thing, but the idea that Dr. Bond ventured what he knew to be a completely cock-and-bull story is something else altogether, especially if he did it in cahoots with the police to misdirect the course of the inquest. The ramifications of such an action and the implications for all concerned are so great – and the suggested motive of the police (that they did not want to admit to another murder) in comparison so banal – that some might consider it likely that Dr. Bond simply recognised the professional concerns of the police and after a re-examination of the body, when he observed far less damage to the neck than he'd have expected from a case of murder by strangulation, sought and expressed an explanation which satisfied both the agreed cause of death, strangulation, and the placidity of features and complete absence of signs of a struggle.

Hi Paul,
I absolutley agree on these points.

It shouldn't be forgotten that Bond was a lecturer on forensic medicine and medical jurisprudence and was used as an 'expert witness' in many cases.
Reading through medical jurisprudence textbooks of the period it becomes obvious that Bond was not going against the guidelines laid out for determining cases of homicidal strangulation, he was adhering to them.
It was stressed time and time again that in cases were there were no obvious signs of a struggle at the scene, the features were placid and there were no other injuries to the body resulting from violence, then alternative conclusion to death from homicidal strangulation should be sought first.

[Paul]

Hi Debra,
Thank you for that information. Excellent stuff. The Mylett case is certainly coming into sharp focus. Do you happen to have any specific references you could cite?
Thanks
Paul

[Debra Arif]

Hi Debra,
Thank you for that information. Excellent stuff. The Mylett case is certainly coming into sharp focus. Do you happen to have any specific references you could cite?
Thanks
Paul


Hi Paul,
I will try and post some specific references at a later date, I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment.
Here is a little sample of the type of advice given to medics in these books, this is just a brief version that doesn't mention the importance of circumstantial evidence at the crime scene etc., present in some of the other texts. I thought this one interesting though as it mentions the prejudice that may be encountered from the public in these types of difficult cases.

Taylor, Alfred Swaine. A manual of medical jurisprudence. 8th American ed., from the 10th London ed., ... / edited, ... by John J. Reese. Philadelphia, 1880

...It is not always in our power to distinguish accidental or self-inflicted from homicidal violence; and we are always bound to look to the probability of accident, or of previous attempts at suicide being the source of those personal injuries which may be apparent on a strangled body...
...The prejudice of the public mind is such, that the discovery of a strangled person, with any marks of personal injury or of poisoning in his stomach, would, in most cases, lead to a charge of murder, unless the facts rendered it clearly impossible that any attempt could have been made on his life. It is against this prejudice that a medical witness must strenuously guard himself: he may be abused for not joining in the outcry of the vulgar, but the best recompense for this abuse, will be the conviction that he is interposing the shield of science to protect a possibly innocent fellow-creature from the senseless denunciations of ignorance. Further, before a charge of murder by strangulation is raised against any person from marks or appearance found on a dead body, care should be taken that they admit no other reasonable explanation than the direct application of violence. Even if the marks indicative of strangulation are discovered, the question arises whether they may not have been produced by the deceased upon himself in an attempt at suicide which may have failed.
If the body of a person is allowed to cool, with a handkerchief, band, or tightly fitting collar round the neck, a mark resembling that of strangulation will be produced. Before any opinion is given that murder has been perpetrated, the medical proofs on which reliance is placed should be clear, distinct, conclusive and satisfactory.

One thing I also noticed, in the revised 1892 edition of this same book, edited by
Thomas Stevenson, mention is made in the case examples of accidental strangulation of
In 1888 a supposed murder occurred in Whitechapel, from a drunken woman having died from the accidental pressure of a bonnet-string on her throat

I'm assuming that this is refferring to Mylett's case, (maybe wrongly, please correct me if I am wrong here) although the bonnet mention is in error. If this is reffering to the Mylett case, is it a measure of how influential Bond may have been on the rest of the forensic medical community, in that they are going along with the accidental strangulation over homicide?

And lastly I wanted to mention the apparent support Bond received in this textbook;

Hamilton, Allan McLane. A system of legal medicine / by Allan McLane Hamilton and Lawrence Godkin ; with the collaboration of Prof. James F. Babcock ... [et al.]. New-York, 1894

Accidental suffocation may occur in people helpless from intoxication or debility, and the mouth covered over or the throat externally compressed. I am indebted to Dr. Hebbert for the report of the following cases-one a case which happened in London in 1889, and known as the Poplar mystery. A woman was found dead in an alley. The post-mortem signs were those of death from asphxia. The larynx was much congested, and both aryepiglottic folds were ecchymosed. Dr. Hebbert thought that the death was due to compression of the throat and closing of the mouth, as there were bruises on both cheeks and scratches on the throat, and the larynx was so markedly ecchymosed; but Mr. Bond, the well known English expert, thought the compression was caused by the head falling forward while helplessly drunk, and being compressed by a tight collar. And though the jury brought in a verdict of murder, it did not follow that Mr. Bond's opinion was wrong.

I am also left wondering by this section of text if Hebbert could be said to have entirely agreed with Brownfield and Harris on the mode of homicidal strangulation even though he agreed it was homicidal strangulation. " Dr. Hebbert thought that death was due to compression of the throat and closing of the mouth, as there were bruises on both cheeks "
I'm assuming that Hebbert means that the mouth was closed by the perpetrator, hence the bruises on the cheeks? How then does this tie in with Brownfield and Harris's conclusions that the perpetrator wound the ligature around his hands and crossed them over at the back of Mylett's neck? Surely both scenarios can't be possible can they?

[A.P. Wolf]

Debs, hand on heart, the report I posted earlier from Dr Bond did show he had the facility five years before to exactly determine the cause of death in Mylett's case?
And I mean exactly.

[Wickerman]

.... I am indebted to Dr. Hebbert for the report of the following cases-one a case which happened in London in 1889, and known as the Poplar mystery. A woman was found dead in an alley. The post-mortem signs were those of death from asphxia. The larynx was much congested, and both aryepiglottic folds were ecchymosed. Dr. Hebbert thought that the death was due to compression of the throat and closing of the mouth, as there were bruises on both cheeks and scratches on the throat, and the larynx was so markedly ecchymosed;...

If we only had some clearer description of the scratches on the throat, like location, number and direction. I don't believe this detail was mentioned in press reports of the time.
Annie Chapman had scratches to her throat which ran contrary to the cut. This would be consistent with the victim scratching at her own throat to try remove some tight implement around her neck. I'm thinking of the ligature.


....
I'm assuming that Hebbert means that the mouth was closed by the perpetrator, hence the bruises on the cheeks? How then does this tie in with Brownfield and Harris's conclusions that the perpetrator wound the ligature around his hands and crossed them over at the back of Mylett's neck? Surely both scenarios can't be possible can they?

Once again we lack detail, consider for instance if the bruises were similar to those described on the face of Mary Nichols. We can then conjecture how those came about, if the bruise pattern was the same then perhaps, just perhaps, the killer was almost about to run the knife across her throat, his left hand over her lower jaw left bruise marks. Due to lack of detail, this is conjecture of course.

[Paul]

Debs, hand on heart, the report I posted earlier from Dr Bond did show he had the facility five years before to exactly determine the cause of death in Mylett's case?
And I mean exactly.

Can you explain, please?

[Debra Arif]

Debs, hand on heart, the report I posted earlier from Dr Bond did show he had the facility five years before to exactly determine the cause of death in Mylett's case?
And I mean exactly.


Hi AP,
I'm assuming you are referring to this quote from Bond's testimony in the 1881 case?

I do not believe that the woman herself could have caused pressure to the windpipe—I mean the woman would have to be very helplessly drunk to suffocate herself—there is a reflex action, which either raises the body or pushes away the object—

I haven't read the case in full to understand exactly what was going on, but I will do, thanks for posting that.
This does also imply though that it is possible to suffocate yourself while very helplessly drunk.


Hi Wickerman,

In one version of Brownfield's medical testimony he mentions the impression of thumbs and middle and index fingers was plainly visible on each side
of the neck. He concluded that these were Mylett's own fingermarks, produced in an effort to remove the cord from her throat. He states there were were no signs of a struggle, except a mark on the cheek, but doesn't go into detail about that mark. This is a little different to Hebbert's supposed description of bruises on both cheeks.
There are several reports not available on casebook that mention the scratches and fingermarks, maybe one or more will have more detail, I'll check.

[A.P. Wolf]

I think, Debs, I was more taken with the following statement from Dr Bond:

'the cause of death in my judgment was suffocation; I think sudden suffocation, by an absolute stoppage of the air into the lungs until death happened—that opinion is justified because of the condition of the heart—in slow suffocation the right side of the heart is usually full of blood; in very sudden suffocation we get the ordinary appearances of suffocation without the gorged state of the right side of the heart, what is termed an empty heart'

It seems to follow then that Dr Bond would have been able to determine from an examination of the heart whether Mylett had been 'suddenly' suffocated - as in an attack by another person - or 'slowly' suffocated - as in a very rare case of self induced suffocation.
Nicht wahr?

[A.P. Wolf]

Life is an empty right heart, eh, Paul.

'
The left side of the heart was full of fluid black blood - particularly filled and particularly black - and the lungs were gorged with the same fluid black blood, meaning that for the space of several respirations she had not breathed before the heart ceased to pulsate. Looking at the condition of all the organs in conjunction with the mark round the throat, my opinion is that death was caused by strangulation by means of a cord being pulled tightly round the neck."

[Paul]

A.P.,
Thank you. Fascinating stuff and certainly food for thought.

Your quotation comes from an article in The Star which, as I am sure you are well aware, contained (sadly) unspecified statements which Dr. Brownfield denied making. Dr Brownfield also said that he "was most careful not to state to anyone more than what I had said at the inquest", and almost every newspaper report I have of what he said at the inquest makes no mention of the heart at all. I have one fleeting reference to the heart, however, in which it was described as "normal", which I take to mean blood-free on the right.

So, what you are saying is that if Mylett strangled accidentally then suffocation would have been slow and the right side of the heart would have been full of blood, but as it was the left side of the heart that was full of blood this shows that she died suddenly and was therefore murdered.

Right. Now, where is it said that if Mylett strangled accidentally that suffocation would have been slow?

And why do you think it was that Dr. Brownfield didn't draw the attention of the inquest to that simple and easily explained fact about the heart to contradict Dr. Bond?

[Debra Arif]

I think, Debs, I was more taken with the following statement from Dr Bond:

'the cause of death in my judgment was suffocation; I think sudden suffocation, by an absolute stoppage of the air into the lungs until death happened—that opinion is justified because of the condition of the heart—in slow suffocation the right side of the heart is usually full of blood; in very sudden suffocation we get the ordinary appearances of suffocation without the gorged state of the right side of the heart, what is termed an empty heart'

It seems to follow then that Dr Bond would have been able to determine from an examination of the heart whether Mylett had been 'suddenly' suffocated - as in an attack by another person - or 'slowly' suffocated - as in a very rare case of self induced suffocation.
Nicht wahr?



Thanks for clarifying your point AP,

I agree with Paul on this though, if it was so easy to ascertain a definite mode of suffoction from the internal appearances of the organs then there wouldn't have been any disagreement at all would there? Either Brownfield, or Bond, would have had science on their side.

Maybe the answer is progression of knowledge since the 1881 case?
I believe there was at least one study into the appearance of internal organs in cases of death from asphyxia by various methods, by Tardieu., where he noted no uniform appearance in the state of the heart, lungs or brain.

As mentioned by Paul, I also haven't seen a mention of the state of Mylett's heart in any of the other reportings of the inquest. Looking at the Times version of the Mylett inquest we get a different version of the state of the lungs to that described in the section you posted. In the Times version the lungs were said to have a normal appearance.

[A.P. Wolf]

Thanks Debs & Paul
A further clarification of my position on this would be to say that I believe Dr Bond in 1888 was using exactly the same pathological argument to dismiss the notion of a violent case of suffocation involving another hand, as he did in 1881 to justify, and prove, a violent case of suffocation involving another hand.
Now that ain't kosher.

[A.P. Wolf]

And no, Debs, I don't believe science had outrun Dr Bond's theories on this by 1888, as in 1894 police surgeon Samuel Lloyd pronouncing on a difficult case of suffocation (the Sophia Rasch case where she had obviously been suffocated by another person) had the following to say:

'the left side of the heart was contracted and empty, the right side was full of dark fluid blood; that is an indication of death by suffocation—the heart itself was perfectly healthy—the vessels of the brain were congested with dark blood, another indication of death by suffocation'

[A.P. Wolf]

Ah... I seem to have posted a contradiction.
Ah well, all to the common good.

[Debra Arif]

Thanks Debs & Paul
A further clarification of my position on this would be to say that I believe Dr Bond in 1888 was using exactly the same pathological argument to dismiss the notion of a violent case of suffocation involving another hand, as he did in 1881 to justify, and prove, a violent case of suffocation involving another hand.
Now that ain't kosher.

was he though AP?
In the 1881 case isn't Bond giving evidence to prove the likelyhood of a death from asphyxia due to the compression of the larynx by another hand vs death due to asphyxia caused by the woman laying face down in the bed?
The first one a quick death (2-3 mins) the second one a slower death (4-5 miins?
Bond did also conclude that Mylett died of asphyxia as a result of compression of the larynx...just not by another hand as in the first case.

Also, there are no detailed or consistent descriptions of Mylett's internal organs as far as I am aware. The times, Star and Daily News all have slightly different versions. the Star has the version you posted, the Times had the lungs as normal and didn't mention the heart, and the Daily News mentions the kidneys and lungs as being congested but also doesn't mention the heart.

[A.P. Wolf]

Debs, I've arrived somewhere else now; and that is the mark or scratch on Mylett's nose. Where do you think that came from?
It's an indicator of a cord being thrown over someone's head from behind and then being pulled down violently, meeting the nose, marking it and then coming down to the throat.
Look at the following two reports:

'Mr. Matthew Brownfield, of 170 East India road, Poplar, divisional surgeon of police, deposed that at 4.30 a.m. on Thursday morning he was called by the police to a woman who had been found lying in Clarke's yard. His assistant, Mr. Harris, attended and pronounced her dead. Witness made a post mortem examination yesterday morning. He found the body to be that of a woman about 30 years of age, 5ft 2in high, complexion fair, hazel eyes, and moderately stout. She was well nourished. Blood was oozing from the nostrils, and on the right side was a slight abrasion. On the right cheek was a scar apparently of old standing. The mark on the nose might have been caused by any slight violence. On the neck he found a mark which had evidently been caused by a cord drawn tightly round from the spine on the back to the lobe of the left ear.'

'After that, I looked at the body; I saw some marks on the face; and seeing them, it struck me very forcibly, that the man had not died a natural death. I thought there appeared to be a blow on the left jaw, two scratches on the right jaw, and a scratch on the nose. I left the room immediately, and went to the Coroner for his warrant. That was all that passed on the Tuesday. Afterwards I saw the body more particularly; I saw it with Mr. Burges; about one o'clock. I went to Mr. Burgess after I had obtained the warrant from the Coroner. Mrs. Mahoney and three or four more were present when Mr. Burgess was there; I firmly believe that Mrs. Killivar and Mrs. Doe were there. The second time there were five or six candles. I assisted in examining the body more minutely the second time. I then saw the marks I had observed the first time, and also observed a mark round the neck, as if a small cord had been tied round very tight, and under the jaw on the right side there was a black mark as if the skin had been drawn up, or twisted up.'

[Debra Arif]

Debs, I've arrived somewhere else now; and that is the mark or scratch on Mylett's nose. Where do you think that came from?
It's an indicator of a cord being thrown over someone's head from behind and then being pulled down violently, meeting the nose, marking it and then coming down to the throat.



Might well be, AP,
But again, we don't have an explanation from Brownfield or Bond for the slight abrasion found, apart from Brownfield's comment that 'the mark on the nose might have been caused by any slight violence.'

[Wickerman]

I'm intrigued at seeing mention of a bleeding nose. Back in '98/99 I had argued that Chapman had been strangled by a garrott but was concerned that Phillips made no mention of the 'telltale' nosebleed that is indicative of such an attack...hmm, interesting!

[Debra Arif]

I'm intrigued at seeing mention of a bleeding nose. Back in '98/99 I had argued that Chapman had been strangled by a garrott but was concerned that Phillips made no mention of the 'telltale' nosebleed that is indicative of such an attack...hmm, interesting!


Would it also be indicative of death by asphyxia too though I wonder?


One curious aspect for me is the reporting between the first two inquest hearings:
We are told in papers of the 24th December that Brownfield mentioned peculiar knots, through which the cord was passed in order to produce strangulation in his testimony at the opening inquest, the papers using this to speculate that a seafaring man could be responsible as this tallied with a 'sailor's lanyard' where a knife would be passed between the loops and knots of the cord to effect strangulation, the knife then being withdrawn and the cord removed. This, the papers report, would be a reason for the cord not being present when the body was found.
Trouble is, I can't see any mention of these 'peculiar knots' in Brownfield's testimony in any of the reports of the first inquest. Has anyone else come across them?

[Natalie Severn]

Debs,
There were several aspects of yours and Rob"s article on Rose Mylett that immediately rang a bell.
The first was the mention of 18 George Street where I remembered Emma Smith had lodged.Not only Emma either.At number 19 George Street Martha Tabram had lodged and the curious attack on Annie Farmer took place,all in 1888.So this "George Street" which ran between Flower and Dean Street and Thrawl Street, just off Commercial Street,was a kind of mini "hot spot" for victims of murderous attacks.It was also where Mary Kelly had lodged soon after taking up with Joe Barnett and where she was allegedly seen meeting GH"s man.

Having seen some similarities emerge between victims addresses I next noticed a similarity of "pick up" spot! For example,both Emma Smith and Rose Mylett travelled a fair way up the Whitechapel Road to Poplar to do their soliciting and both had been last spotted in Poplar.
Rose met her death in a yard off Poplar High Street ,a geographical point
not far from East India Dock Road and West India Dock Road and Burdett Road.Emma Smith had been seen soliciting close to the confluence of these roads on the night of her death 8 months before.
I noted too that you mentioned that a certain chemist of East India Dock Road had told the inquest that a man had been into his chemist shop buying a large amount of "sandalwood",the man claiming he was a postman.And apparently "sandalwood "was found in a phial in Rose"s clothing.Sandalwood being a rather expensive "cure" for syphilis which Rose appears to have been concerned about and to have had two spells in hospital for-the reason for the hospital treatment was not given which is therefore likely to have been syphilis.
Now why would a "postman" be buying such a large quantity of "medicine for syphilis" from a chemist in East India Dock Road? Sounds like he was doing a sideline in medical cures for the pox and had a small "clientele" built around East India Dock Road prostitutes-some of whom came regularly to Poplar all the way from from George Street Spitalfields!

[How Brown]

Thanks you dear Nats for bringing up Debra and Rob's solid article on Mylett in this month's Ripperologist

Thanks for pointing to the mention of the man with the phials ( Vials,over here....) of sandalwood. Very interesting....

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks How,I thought it just a bit co-incidental that several victims lived in George Street and that BOTH Rose Mylett and Emma Smith had lived at the very same address in 1888 which was number 18 George street with Mary the Deputy lodging house keeper giving evidence at both their inquests and both women travelling to Poplar to solicit.
Best
Nx

[Debra Arif]

Thanks for mentioning the article Norma,
18 and 19 george Street do indeed seem to have been mini hot spots for murderous attacks and female victims of violence. Probably one other name to add to the list would be Emily Horsenail, an inquest report from 22 Nov 1887 reported Emily, who resided at 19 George Street, Spitalfields was found dead in this lodging house one morning in November 87, the result of injuries from kicks to the stomach by 'some men she did not know' a few nights previously. Emily died as the result of peritonitis cause by severe injuries to her right side. No post mortem examination was made however.Emily was 24 and estranged from her husband, and had been living at the George Street lodging house for 3 or 4 years since her separation. The deceased was said to have acted as charwoman 'or anything' for a living.She had been out drinking on the night of her attack.

I wasn't aware that Emma Smith's patch was in Poplar, that's a new one to me.

Regarding the sandalwood oil, a an empty phial that had contained sandalwood was found on Catherine Mylett, we found reference to it being used in the treatment of gonnorhea, there is no direct evidence to say catherine had been suffering from gonnorhea though. Nurse Usher's statements to the inquest were never published in full but the papers did hint that catherine was suffering from some sort of veneral disease. unfortunately the case papers of the Infirmary hadn't survived to check it out.
It was strange that a supposed large quantity of sandalwood oil was said to have been bought by a postman in the area, but sadly there wasn't any further reporting into how that line of inquiry panned out. There is always the chance though that Catherine obtained the sandalwood in Whitechapel, which was also her home, Poplar being her 'work place.'

Thanks for the input Norma.

[Natalie Severn]

And what a very thorough and interesting article it was Debs-you and Rob did a brilliant job indeed!
Anyway regarding Emma Smith.It was reported in The Times of 14 April 1888 that Emma"s friend Margaret Hayes [or Hames] who was also a lodging at 18 George Street with Emma went with her near the part of the Burdett Road which corners Farrance Street and is close to the confluence with East India Dock Road and West India Dock Road.It was where she last saw her friend Rose [aka Catherine],she told the inquest,talking to a man dressed in dark clothes with a white scarf.It may be of interest that Margaret also told the inquest that she herself had been assaulted there just a few minutes before by two men who had run away.Margaret Hayes therefore decided to get away from that area "where there had been some rough work that night".She had seen Emma as she was leaving the neighbourhood at 12.15 am.She also told the inquest that she had spent time in the infirmary as a result of being hurt by men just before Christmas 1887.
The case of yet another woman in George Street who was murdered just before Christmas 1887,Emily Horsenail,certainly adds grist to the mill,although she seems to have been murdered actually inside the lodging house at 19 George Street [Martha Tabram"s and Annie Farmers old lodging house].
But Rose Mylett ,Margaret Hayes and Emma Smith appear to have got a routine of travelling up to Poplar each night from Spitalfields Whitechapel,to do "business"
Best

Norma

[Debra Arif]

Thanks Norma,
And thanks for the reference to Emma going to Poplar to work, i'll check that one out, sounds like the same spot anyway.

Emily Horsenail was only found in the lodging house dead, the incident had happened outdoors somewhere, a few days before her death after a night out drinking, although she didn't give the location of her attack.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Debs,
I am trying to bring up the Times Archives for 14 April 1888.Might you be able to try it Debs ? You may have more luck - it seems to be taking an eternity the way I am doing it.I think the newspaper article may carry more information on it.
N

[admin tim]

This thread will replace the corrupted Rose Mylett thread. Once posters are in here, I will delete the corrupted thread

[How Brown]

I'm in...

[Debra Arif]

Thanks Tim and How for sorting this.

Norma, you should be able to post the Times article now, it was a technical problem. all sorted now. Thanks.

[Rob Clack]

Hi Norma,

Just a couple of points.
Farrance Street was in Limehouse not Poplar, although Poplar was quite close by.

There's nothing to suggest Margaret Hames or Emma Smith knew Catherine. Catherine had only stayed at George Street for three months prior to her death.

Emma Smith wasn't last spotted in Poplar (or even Limehouse) as she made her way back to her lodgings and spoke to the residents in her George Street lodgings.

Here's Farrance Street in relation to Clark's Yard.

http://i787.photobucket.com/albums/yy154/RobClack1969/Limehouse.jpg

And here is the junction of Farrance Street and Burdett Road in 1954

http://i787.photobucket.com/albums/yy154/RobClack1969/fFarranceStreet20February1954.jpg

Rob

[How Brown]

Dear Rob:

Thank you for the very nice map.

Could you give us an idea of how far from the center of Spitalfields that area of London above is ?

[Rob Clack]

It's about half hour walk from the centre of Whitechapel to Poplar (that is walking along the Commercial Road).

http://i787.photobucket.com/albums/yy154/RobClack1969/TheWhitechapelMurders1888to1891.jpg

Rob

[Rob Clack]

And just to point out, the pointless Press Trawl in the latest Rip is nothing to do with me and Debs. There's a photo of the St Mary and Joseph's Catholic Church, Poplar in the press trawl section. Catherine Mylett would not have worshiped there.

Rob

[How Brown]

Thanks for that Rob.

Man, Poplar and Limehouse are really Far East End neighborhoods aren't they ?

Those are beautiful maps by the way.

[Debra Arif]

Hello Rob,
Thanks for posting those maps, I wasn't sure how close Burdett Road was to Clark's Yard myself.

Regarding the 'pointelss press' trawl thing, I'm sure that like me you don't think the press trawl itself is pointless, just that it was a Rose Mylett press trawl (that had been done only a few issues previously anyway) and repeated a lot of the stuff in our article, and just seemed pointelss both of them appearing in the same magazine?

The St Mary and Joseph's Catholic church picture Rob mentioned in the press trawl, was captioned 'where Rose Mylett would proably have worshipped' in case anyone is wondering what Rob is talking about, and that information is nothing to do with us or our research.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Rob,
Thanks from me too for the maps which are so clear and helpful.
I take your point about where Emma Smith was last seen which was in the Royal Whitechapel Hospital where she was cared for until she died.

However my points were really to highlight the following:

a] that Margaret Hames was the last person to see Emma Smith BEFORE HER ATTACK,when she was standing talking to the chap at the corner of Burdett Road and Farrance Street.A number of people saw her AFTER her attack,when she had crawled back to 18 George Street-----but not before or during the attack.The remarkable thing was that not only did nobody see her getting back from Limehouse but no policeman either ,and this is recorded,no policeman ,despite several being on duty in the vicinity of where she "said" the attack took place,heard any cries for help or heard any noise or saw the men she claimed attacked her.And this was stated,at the inquest to have been very strange and puzzling to the police involved.

b]The other point I thought might be worth pointing out was that both women had lived at 18 George Street in 1888.I didnt actually set any store by them actually "knowing" each other -it didnt matter to the point I was making ,which was specifically that both women had lived at 18 George Street in 1888,the year when the Ripper struck most notably .

c]Finally,irrespective of whether or not the spot Emma was seen at was at the corner of Burdett Road and Farrance Street, [and not in Poplar but Limehouse ] and the spot Catherine Mylett was found in was in Poplar, if you look closely at just how close to East India Dock Road and West India Dock Road are positioned vis a vis both those spots , it may be of significance---- it seems these women and Margaret Hayes [who also lived in George Street and had suffered an 1887 attack] these three women traipsed quite a long way at night from George Street,Whitechapel, to get business in that far East End area ,bordering Docklands.
Both the spot in Poplar and the spot at the corner of Farrance St/Burdett Road are quite close to East India Dock Road and West India Dock Road as your map shows.It may be of interest that someone even then thought it of significance that a man supposed to be a postman went to to a chemist in East India Dock Road to purchase a large quantity of expensive Sandalwood then used for the treatment of syphilis and that an empty phial that had contained Sandalwood had been found on the person of Catherine aka Rose Mylett.
Again,
Many Thanks for these brilliant maps Rob,
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Debs,
The problem Debs was that I couldnt even obtain the news item on Emma Smith"s inquest from The Times Archive let alone post it and thought you might know better than me how all that works......but its ok I will get it somehow.
Best
Norma

[Rob Clack]

Hi Norma,

Referring to your points.

a, Thanks for clarifying what you meant.

b, It's just that you mentioned in an earlier post:

Anyway regarding Emma Smith.It was reported in The Times of 14 April 1888 that Emma"s friend Margaret Hayes [or Hames] who was also a lodging at 18 George Street with Emma went with her near the part of the Burdett Road which corners Farrance Street and is close to the confluence with East India Dock Road and West India Dock Road.It was where she last saw her friend Rose [aka Catherine],

So it sounded to me as if you were saying Margaret Hames knew Catherine.

c, I agree, the Limehouse and Poplar area were quite popular as they were quite close to the docks and Limehouse was well known for it's opium dens.

Rob

[Rob Clack]

Should also mention that at the other end of Burdett Road near to it's junction with Mile End Road is Maidman Street.

Rob

[Rob Clack]

Hello Debs :)

Also there are parts of the press reports that are mistakes and readers might find it confusing as whether we are wrong or the press got it wrong. For example, Mathew Brownfield's address is given as 170 East India Dock Road in the Evening News, 22 December, and is given as 171 East India Dock Road in The Star, 24 December, which is the correct address.
Courtain Chivers is spelt Cheevers by the Evening News, 24 December. Working nearly two years together to get the article done and trying hard to make sure all the names and facts were right and there's these unnecessary press reports.

Rob

Hello Rob,
Thanks for posting those maps, I wasn't sure how close Burdett Road was to Clark's Yard myself.

Regarding the 'pointelss press' trawl thing, I'm sure that like me you don't think the press trawl itself is pointless, just that it was a Rose Mylett press trawl (that had been done only a few issues previously anyway) and repeated a lot of the stuff in our article, and just seemed pointelss both of them appearing in the same magazine?

The St Mary and Joseph's Catholic church picture Rob mentioned in the press trawl, was captioned 'where Rose Mylett would proably have worshipped' in case anyone is wondering what Rob is talking about, and that information is nothing to do with us or our research.

[Debra Arif]

c]Finally,irrespective of whether or not the spot Emma was seen at was at the corner of Burdett Road and Farrance Street, [and not in Poplar but Limehouse ] and the spot Catherine Mylett was found in was in Poplar, if you look closely at just how close to East India Dock Road and West India Dock Road are positioned vis a vis both those spots , it may be of significance---- it seems these women and Margaret Hayes [who also lived in George Street and had suffered an 1887 attack] these three women traipsed quite a long way at night from George Street,Whitechapel, to get business in that far East End area ,bordering Docklands.



I find this interesting too Norma, that all three of these ladies lived in Whitechapel, yet diid their business nearer the dock areas, probably because there would be more sailors about, who often splashed their shore leave cash on prostitutes and treating prostitutes to drinks , which I think links to what Sam Flynn has said in the past in a way, that if JTR was a sailor, unless he had ties to Whitechapel, then he would have probably looked for victims nearer the dock areas, and as these particular attacks show, these women were just as vulnerable and available.

[Sam Flynn]

Indeed I did say that, Debs - and thanks for remembering!

[Debra Arif]

Indeed I did say that, Debs - and thanks for remembering!

I soak up all the good stuff, Sam!

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Rob for spotting that.Yes I meant the last time she saw her friend Emma!
I noticed the reference to Maidman Street when I first read the article.With its connection to Catherine Mylett appearing to end in 1881 when she moved on I doubt it had to do with her death but I suppose it could be the case that several women who sold their bodies had a connection to the street and Ada Wilson seems to me to have been one of those women.In fact it could even be that 9 Maidman Street was a kind of mini brothel and maybe there were other "mini brothels" down that street too.


Debs and Rob,
Returning to these two apparent "sailors" that were seen by Ptolomey at about 8 pm outside "Clark"s Yard" which sounds a dead ringer for "Dutfields Yard" but this time in Poplar.The scene sounds strangely like the one where Liz Stride and two men were seen by Schwartz.
Both Ptolomey and Schwartz spoke of two men behaving strangely ,one sort of "keeping watch" while the other did the bullying.In both cases the height of the man "keeping watch" was put at 5ft 11,while the shorter one"s height was given as either 5ft 7 ins or 5ft 5 ins.The short bullying one is,in both cases causing the woman to shout,but not very loudly,"No,no,no!"
But its very early in the evening when Catherine is having this altercation with the short fellar though it sounds like they maybe came back and were seen later coming from the direction of "Clarks Yard" about 4am by Neos Green from whom they asked directions to West India Docks.
Now Neos,a resident of Poplar High street heard them say,"Make haste Bill,and we shall be in time to catch the ship." I must say I find this suspicious behaviour given that a woman was lying dead yards from the encounter but also that they were talking in such a loud way---as though thats what they wanted Neos to believe,viz---They were sailors hurrying to catch their boat-------when in fact they may have been the murderers hurrying away from the crime scene,


Its the third "pairing" we hear of.The first was in the case of MarthaTabram---another resident of George Street.That time there were two "soldiers" were they too "working in tandem?" PC Barrett said that at 2am he had seen a "soldier",a Grenadier Guardsman,loitering at the Wentworth St junction with George Yard.He said he "was waiting for a man who had gone with a girl".They were never found these two "soldiers" and doubt was cast on by Pearly Poll,Martha"s companion that night about the Grenadier Guard bit since the two men she and Martha had been drinking with had had white bands round their caps meaning they were Coldstream and not Grenadier Guards. But I wonder were any of them real "soldiers" or "sailors"------or had this pair of men just acquired the gear -maybe from some prostitutes who practised scams on drunken soldiers and sailors to nick their gear and anything else they found on them?It might have helped potential murderers to "camouflage" themselves like that to deflect suspicion.

[Debra Arif]

Norma,
I think Catherine very likely spent her last hours in the company of real sailors, in fact I think it's the likely reason she chose that area as her patch, she maybe went where her favoured type of 'clientelle' were to be found.
I've read of other cases where women from places like St George East and Whitechapel have specifically gone out of their area to 'drink' with sailors. One account even ended in the cut throat murder of one woman out on the street, after spending most of the evening drinking with the same two sailors(this seems to be what happens often, more like a date with the promise of more than straight forward soliciting for business). The murderer went back to his ship and was aided in escaping from the police by the captain of his ship, he was caught up with eventually though through leaving a distinctive jacket behind. I posted the story a couple of years ago on here somewhere.
I recall something Monty posted about Liz Stride and a 'green velvet patch' a while ago, something to do with presents from sailors, I'll have to look for that again.

[Natalie Severn]

Yes Debs.The simplest answer may well be the correct one here. There is just something strange about her case.The nature of the neck markings--- an almost invisible line thought to have been made by strangulation by string,marks that didnt apparently appear clearly until some days later.A straightforward cut throat murder happening after a drunken quarrel,yes,but a rather neat little line causing fatal compression a lot less likely.
I always tend to see the Ripper as a lurker,a man who appears in the wake of others.So while I dont automatically count Catherine Mylett out ,and I think its very possible Jack the Ripper was a sailor,I wonder what this particular sailor got out of killing Catherine unless it was killing for killings sake ? Jack may well have been capable of this ,but a rage killer in this instance, making a neat little mark part of the way round her neck ----it doesnt quite add up.
Best
Norma

[A.P. Wolf]

An inch and a half is quite a depth into a person's neck, Natalie, a tight collar will never fit that strange bill of convenience. The powers that were to be were so vexed by this issue that they actually fell out with each other in public print, an unusual event I think you will agree.
The 'sailor' is always the easy option, let's talk turkey, seeing it's almost Christmas.

[Debra Arif]

An inch and a half is quite a depth into a person's neck, Natalie

Chivers gave the depth as an eighth of an inch on the first morning, and a quarter of an inch when the coffin lid went down.

[A.P. Wolf]

Give a wolf an inch and he'll take a mile... eh Debs?
I think last time we had this discussion we sort of agreed to disagree.
One thing I learn't in my many years as a sailor is that the breed very rarely kills women, they don't have the time; and I'd suggest that the two men seen in association with poor Rose were more likely her pimps or protectors.
Didn't one of the examining surgeons make the claim that the wound got smaller over the period of time he was involved with the body?

[Debra Arif]

A typically male trait, AP, exaggerating the inches.

Even Bond and Hebbert agreed to disagree on the medical evidence, so I am cool with that. The medical evidence was so all over the place anyway that no one (except the jury who were probably influenced by the un-named witness who gave evidence on thug murders) could make up their mind what had happened. And like was said in the article, even Hebbert never really agreed with the mode of strangulation described by Brownfield and Harris, even though he agreed it was murder, so the marking on the neck could not have shown a specific technique that clearly. Bond is nearly always criticised in this case, but personally I think Dr. Brownfield was a man excited by the prospect of having JTR on his manor!

I didn't say I actually thought Catherine was murdered by a sailor, I just think she was most likely in company with sailors that night, earning her living. According to newspapers there had been a similar strangulation murder in the same area, although we have never been able to find details of it anywhere.

[Natalie Severn]

Debs,
I have always understood ,from a reading of the Ultimate Sourcebook"s letters and files on the matter ,that there was unanimous agreement between at least 4 doctors on what had happened.I have"nt the Sourcebook to hand here, but from Chief Surgeon Mackellar who viewed the corpse down to Drs Brownfield and Harris and at least one other, all agreed it was a case of murder by strangulation.True they were uncertain and curious as to exactly how she had been strangled,but they were all agreed she had been strangled . Stewart Evans"s and Keith Skinner"s book also quotes Dr Phillips on this case saying there was a suspicion that the killer of Catherine-the book refers to her as "Rose" , "must have known the theory of strangulation"----presumably about how to compress certain arteries in the neck to bring about unconsciousness without leaving much ,if any markings.This appears to have been the case and it looks as if it was this absence of strangulation marking ,in the first instance ,that was the cause of much confusion----added to her "peaceful "expression!
However, we know thanks to yours and Rob"s article, that at least one person who viewed the corpse 17 days after her death,William Randall,an assistant to Courtain Chivers,when he was fastening down the lid of Catherine"s coffin, "noticed the mark around her neck was still clearly visible" He described it "as being about a quarter of an inch deep and there was a bruise to the left of it".So he seems to have been sufficiently alarmed or impressed by this that he thought the matter ought to be brought to the attention of Inspector Bridgeman. Several others,earlier on, had claimed the mark was not visible or was only barely visible [eg Dr Harris for example who was one of the first to examine her ]. Dr Bond went so far as to claim the mark was "not visible" four days after her death.

[Debra Arif]

Norma,
As we outlined in the article, and using several newspaper sources, as well as the Sorcebook, Harris and Brownfield autopsied the body first, Munro and Anderson were both a bit dubious when Brownfield stated his findings at the inquest (it didn't add up with what police on the scene had reported) and so wanted further clarification from another medical expert. They chose Bond, and asked him to view the body, Bond was out of town and could not go, so McKellar was asked in his place, meanwhile Hebbert took it upon himself to go in Bond's place after intercepting the letter to Bond.
Harris, Brownfield, Hebbert, McKellar, Bond, that's 5 doctors who viewed the body, 4 ultimately saying it was murder, one saying not.
Of the four doctors who agreed it was murder, we have the account of three of them. Harris and Brownfield held a similar view on the technique used, Hebbert had a different view.

If Bond had been available that day we would have only three views probably.

Are you sure about Dr. Phillip's quote Norma, or was that Brownfield using Phillip's observations on another murder to apply to Catherine Mylett?

[Natalie Severn]

Debs,
I havent access to the Ultimate Sourcebook at present but what I recall is a reporter from the Star trying to get a statement from Dr Phillips who was careful in what he said and rather beat about the bush.He didnt appear to want to be quoted on it.But the reporter claimed he had spoken to Dr Phillips or in some way come by a statement from him,where Dr Phillips is said to have compared the strangulation of Mylett to certain elements of the Stride murder where the murderer was believed [by Dr Phillips presumably] to have had knowledge of "the theory of strangulation" and ,in the Mylett murder ,the murderer appeared to have used a very similar "tourniquet" method to stop the flow of blood through the arteries and bring about unconsciousness followed by death.But in Stride"s case he is presumably talking only about how the murderer may have "subdued" her because if this was how it happened it was swiftly followed by cutting the throat in her case-but not in Catherine Mylett"s case.

[How Brown]

Dear A.P.

As an aside here...I am curious as to where it was posited that the wound on Ms. Mylett's neck was as deep as you have stated previously.

It really isn't a significant difference...1/8th and 1/4 of an inch and in fact, isn't it true that as the body begins to desiccate after death and in consideration of how much time elapsed from the moment they brought her into the mortuary and the closing of her coffin, wouldn't that explain the minute difference between the original determination of 1/8th of an inch when she was first examined and the depth at the time when her desiccation was in progress ?

Nice thread by the way....I hope people will take the time to read Deb's and Rob's article at some point in time.

[Debra Arif]

Debs,
I havent access to the Ultimate Sourcebook at present but what I recall is a reporter from the Star trying to get a statement from Dr Phillips who was careful in what he said and rather beat about the bush.He didnt appear to want to be quoted on it.But the reporter claimed he had spoken to Dr Phillips or in some way come by a statement from him,where Dr Phillips is said to have compared the strangulation of Mylett to certain elements of the Stride murder where the murderer was believed [by Dr Phillips presumably] to have had knowledge of "the theory of strangulation" and ,in the Mylett murder ,the murderer appeared to have used a very similar "tourniquet" method to stop the flow of blood through the arteries and bring about unconsciousness followed by death.But in Stride"s case he is presumably talking only about how the murderer may have "subdued" her because if this was how it happened it was swiftly followed by cutting the throat in her case-but not in Catherine Mylett"s case.


Norma, the article you mention is the Star report (included in the Mylett file as it was the subject of letters between McKellar and Brownfield, the former wanting to know if Brownfield had given this interview as alleged by the Star)
The article is from Dec 24th and quotes Brownfiled directly, supposedly. It then goes on to comment that when asked by newspapermen, Phillips declined to make any comment, the paper then goes on; 'but from another source' and then quotes Phillip's views, through this 'other source'
I can't see anywhere that Phillip's was ever questioned by authorities about these supposed comments, like Brownfiled was.

There's nothing anywhere to suggest Phillip's viewed the body of Mylett, but one interesting comments made by Brownfield at the last inquest, and I don't think this have ever been mentioned before prior to our article, was that Brownfiled claimed (according to one newspaper, which must always be taken with a pinch of salt) he had been visited by someone from the Home Office, representing the Home Secretary, telling Brownfield that the authorities were keen for the doctors who had seen the Whitechapel victims to see Catherine Mylett's body.

We know that originally only Bond had been asked to view the body and the circumstance surrounding that, him being away, was the cause of Hebbert and McKellar arriving at the mortuary, and not intentional sending of 'doctor after doctor' lso I do wonder if any other doctor involved with the Whitechapel victims got to view the body too? I'd expect it to be phillip's if anyone did,but there is no proof he did.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Debs. I too think Dr Phillips was being cautious and "professional" about talking to the press -because of the small storm then building about whether a police doctor,Dr Brownfield, had given an interview to The Star. Given that Dr Phillips at no stage appears to have denied how "The Star" of 24th December,interpreted his thinking on the matter,-that is that whoever murdered Catherine Mylett appeared to "know the theory of strangulation" then I think its probably safe to say that this was his thinking after seeing the neck injuries sustained by her-though we cant be 100% certain he saw her injuries.
It doesnt seem to me that what Dr Phillips thought was actually much different from what Dr Brownfield"s thinking was when he gave evidence at the inquest.So if Dr Phillips did express an opinion, like the Star stated , then he could have formed such an opinion after only "discussing" it all with Dr Brownfield.
To return to Dr Brownfield.He was quite explicit at the inquest viz relaying to the coroner his belief about a cord having been used to cause strangulation.."He[Brownfield] had since found the mark could be produced by a fourfold lay cord."
Then the coroner asks him
"Do you think she could have done it herself?"

and Dr Brownfield answers:

"No I dont think so.If she had done it, I would have expected to find the cord around the neck; but it was not,nor has any cord been found near the spot."

Then Brownfield explains his own theory to the coroner:
"I think the murderer must have stood to the rear of the woman,and having the ends of the string wrapped round his hands,thrown the cord around her throat,and crossing his hands so strangled her.Where the hands crossed would be just where the marks of the cord were absent."

A little later Brownfield also tells the coroner what his own thinking is about a "tourniquet" being used........

"I may say that having studied the question as to the position of the man,and the force used,I think it quite possible that the cord was run through two holes or rings,and twisted by the turn of the wrist until death ensued."

Debs,
In the Ultimate Sourcebook, I remember reading Chief Surgeon Mckellars views on the matter which supported Brownfield"s findings but I just cant remember if I saw his actual report.Have you seen Mckellar"s report----in other words have I missed it in your article?

Best


Norma

[Debra Arif]

Hi Norma,

To return to Dr Brownfield.He was quite explicit at the inquest viz relaying to the coroner his belief about a cord having been used to cause strangulation.."He[Brownfield] had since found the mark could be produced by a fourfold lay cord."
Then the coroner asks him
"Do you think she could have done it herself?"

and Dr Brownfield answers:

"No I dont think so.If she had done it, I would have expected to find the cord around the neck; but it was not,nor has any cord been found near the spot."

Then Brownfield explains his own theory to the coroner:
"I think the murderer must have stood to the rear of the woman,and having the ends of the string wrapped round his hands,thrown the cord around her throat,and crossing his hands so strangled her.Where the hands crossed would be just where the marks of the cord were absent."

A little later Brownfield also tells the coroner what his own thinking is about a "tourniquet" being used........


Brownfield was quite specific in describing the mode of strangulation used on Catherine. But, we have to be mindful too that Brownfield also (reportedly as there are no official inquest papers) was quite confident when he stated to the court that Catherine Mylett had 'never been a mother' which was definitely an incorrect observationon his part.

There is also the question of alcohol in Mylett's stomach, Brownfield (reportedly again) saying he had found no trace of alcohol or poison in Mylett's stomach. Dr Bond also analysed the stomach contents and found the equivalent of one teaspoonful of alcohol in one tablespoonful of the remaining stomach contents. Note, this is not one teaspoonful of alcohol in the entire stomach contents, as some people have taken it to mean when I first mentioned it. There is no doubt from witness testimony that Mylett had been drinking that night, one witness even stated she had bought Mylett a drink herself.

So, I wonder how far can we trust Brownfield's theories as to the method of strangulation?



Debs,
In the Ultimate Sourcebook, I remember reading Chief Surgeon Mckellars views on the matter which supported Brownfield"s findings but I just cant remember if I saw his actual report.Have you seen Mckellar"s report----in other words have I missed it in your article?



The only reference to McKellar's opinion I could find in the sourcebook, Norma, was just the line in a communication from Monro dated 23 December 1888, where Monro says that Mckellar fully supports the divisional Surgeon, in that death was caused by strangulation. I couldn't find anywhere that gave his opinion on the mode of strangulation used.

It may also worth noting that it was Monro who raised the question of whether someone found with 'placid features' could have been a victim of strangulation, and not the doctors involved.
Harris and Bond both acknowledged that placid features could exist in a body that had been strangled. However, the dispute was, Harris (who admitted it was his first case of strangulation) thought the features would be placid in a case of quick and violent strangulation, as in the scenario he described using a 'soap cutter method.'
Bond was of the opposite opinion in that he said he would have expected a more contorted expression in the case of a quick strangulation as described, he was not saying that placid features ruled out strangulation. He had many years experience of these types of cases.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

Brownfield was quite specific in describing the mode of strangulation used on Catherine. But, we have to be mindful too that Brownfield also (reportedly as there are no official inquest papers) was quite confident when he stated to the court that Catherine Mylett had 'never been a mother' which was definitely an incorrect observationon his part.

There is also the question of alcohol in Mylett's stomach, Brownfield (reportedly again) saying he had found no trace of alcohol or poison in Mylett's stomach. Dr Bond also analysed the stomach contents and found the equivalent of one teaspoonful of alcohol in one tablespoonful of the remaining stomach contents. Note, this is not one teaspoonful of alcohol in the entire stomach contents, as some people have taken it to mean when I first mentioned it. There is no doubt from witness testimony that Mylett had been drinking that night, one witness even stated she had bought Mylett a drink herself.

So, I wonder how far can we trust Brownfield's theories as to the method of strangulation?




The only reference to McKellar's opinion I could find in the sourcebook, Norma, was just the line in a communication from Monro dated 23 December 1888, where Monro says that Mckellar fully supports the divisional Surgeon, in that death was caused by strangulation. I couldn't find anywhere that gave his opinion on the mode of strangulation used.

It may also worth noting that it was Monro who raised the question of whether someone found with 'placid features' could have been a victim of strangulation, and not the doctors involved.
Harris and Bond both acknowledged that placid features could exist in a body that had been strangled. However, the dispute was, Harris (who admitted it was his first case of strangulation) thought the features would be placid in a case of quick and violent strangulation, as in the scenario he described using a 'soap cutter method.'
Bond was of the opposite opinion in that he said he would have expected a more contorted expression in the case of a quick strangulation as described, he was not saying that placid features ruled out strangulation. He had many years experience of these types of cases.


Hi Debs,
Thanks for the above.
I am back now and have in front of me ,"The Ultimate JtR Sourcebook" in which there is a long report from Monro to the Home Secretary:
First Monro speaks of the initial Police and medics thinking on the case as well as his own experience -as a policeman-of "cases of strangulation "
viz he writes "-the features of the murdered woman would have been swollen,livid,discoloured and staring and that there would be livid marks of the cord on the neck,accompanied probably with abrasion of the skin"-[all underlined].He goes on ,"I therefore sent off the Asst. Commissioner Mr Anderson and directed Dr Bond "etc etc -and Dr Hibbert ,[we know, went in his place---in the first instance].
Monro continues ,clearly having wanted a second opinion sooner rather than later, "so on learning this I asked the Chief Surgeon, Mr MacKellar,to be good enough to proceed to the spot and give me the benefit of his opinion........I saw Mr MacKellar on his return,and this gentleman fully supports the Divisional Surgeon in his opinion that death was produced by strangulation.
There is therefore no doubt that the case was one of murder-and murder of a strange and unusual type"

Later in the letter Monro states,"How this murder could have been carried out,without a sign of the ground being disturbed by the struggles of the victim,or of her murderer,I confess is very difficult to understand.Whether she may have been rendered insensible before being murdered is a matter for consideration "
he ends the letter by describing it as " a mysterious crime".

Clearly certain aspects of this murder baffled the experts.But there is nothing as far as I can see to suggest Monro altered his opinion as expressed above,or that the Chief Surgeon altered his opinion, or Brownfield and his assistant altered theirs.It sounds too that Dr Phillips did have views on the matter of a tourniquet having been used,he had probably been approached as one of the doctors who had seen the ripper victims,as you suggested.

Something of interest I noted was that the witness Ptomoley,who saw the "men dressed as sailors"---near the crime scene arguing with the murdered woman, said that " though in other respects they were dressed as seaman,one had a fur cap, drawn partly over his face,while the other wore a round black hat.

Best

Norma


Monro,s words in his letter to Home Secretary Matthews on 26.12.1888.

[Debra Arif]

Clearly certain aspects of this murder baffled the experts.But there is nothing as far as I can see to suggest Monro altered his opinion as expressed above,or that the Chief Surgeon altered his opinion, or Brownfield and his assistant altered theirs.It sounds too that Dr Phillips did have views on the matter of a tourniquet having been used,he had probably been approached as one of the doctors who had seen the ripper victims,as you suggested.

Something of interest I noted was that the witness Ptomoley,who saw the "men dressed as sailors"---near the crime scene arguing with the murdered woman, said that " though in other respects they were dressed as seaman,one had a fur cap, drawn partly over his face,while the other wore a round black hat.

Best

Norma


Monro,s words in his letter to Home Secretary Matthews on 26.12.1888.

Norma, it definitely was a baffling case for the authorities as far as I can tell too, and not just a cut and dried case of Bond going against other doctors opinions under the pressure of Anderson maybe?

We clearly see that Monro was also unsure about it being murder at first, and it was only after McKellar, the Met police Chief Surgeon, confirmed Brownfield's homicidal strangulation finding that Monro accepted that it was murder too. No one seems to have had much confidence in Brownfield's initial findings, maybe mainly because they were unprepared for what he was about to say at the inquest and thought they were dealing with accidental death or suicide. The police on the scene had even sussed out a scenario of how an accidental death may have happened, i.e. Mylett falling against the post jutting out from a wall.

Bond had gone against the findings of another doctor in an inquest hearing after this incident too. Bond happened to have been present at the mortuary on another matter when the autopsy of a newborn who's mother was accused of murder was done. The autopsy doctor gave evidence at the inquest that the mother had murdered the child soon after birth, mainly citing the large amount of swelling and bruising to the child's head as evidence of it having been 'battered' to death. Bond appeared at the the inquest (I think this was against protocol too as he wasn't officially involved in the case at all) and gave contradictory evidence that the newborn's injuries were as a result of 'birth trauma' and backed it up with case histories he'd seen before. The woman was saved from a murder charge by Bond's efforts, and walked free from the inquest.

This has nothing to do with Mylett but I just thought it interesting to illustrate the type of doctor Bond was, thorough and fair and basing his opinions on past experience? It seems that way to me anyway.
There was once a question of how qualified Dr bond was, I did note that in 1873, a full 15years before the WM murders, Bond had been in the position of 'Acting Chief Surgeon to the 'Metropolitan Police'. it was a temporary position obviously, but it looks like it was the same positon McKellar was holding in 1888.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Debs,
Thanks for that. The story about his intervention regarding the woman facing a murder charge certainly shows Dr Bond as a decent and fair minded person here which is all to the good because I still have many reservations about him.I tend to see him in his role as the man responsible for suggesting the "canonical five" victims which Macnaghten took up so readily and which may have thwarted both police investigations at the time as well as having dogged Ripperology ever since.Not only that but certain aspects of his "profile" of JtR appears to have led Sir Robert Anderson directly towards a preoccupation with the" type of people" who, as relatives, could have shielded the ripper, and as we know Anderson decided he would be likely to be amongst what he termed "low class Polish Jews" in Whitechapel"-for Anderson continued to add insult to injury in this case,stating in print in a Blackwoods magazine article,"it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile Justice".
Well Debs, I believe that to be a very incautious statement,at best,and actually downright disgraceful. Nor am I alone, for even then Robert Anderson"s remarks provoked a strong condemnation from the Editor of The Jewish Chronicle and the Chief Commisioner of the City Police.
And Dr Bond chose his own path,which,in my view was to acquiesce to Sir Robert Anderson ,at several crucial developments in the case including his conclusions after the second assessment he made regarding Catherine [Rose] Mylett ,and under evidently strong pressure from Robert Anderson-----even, when the majority of the medical profession disagreed with him profoundly about it.


My Best to you Debs,


Norma

Ps Debs,did you or Rob find anything more on the statement by the witness Ptolomy,as to this "fur hat " one of the "sailors" was said to have been wearing and which was pulled over his eyes?It wasnt made of astrakhan was it?

[How Brown]

Not to deviate from the thread, but you make a good point Nats on the impact of Bond's report which was the origin of the canonical five ( To jazz it up, maybe we ought to call them the Bond Girls). Reading through today's posts, your last post rang a bell.

That's going to be a new thread....and thank you for the inspiration. You too, Debs.

[Natalie Severn]

Well thankyou kindly How!So we can now look forward to this new thread where there are likely to be a lot of canonicals getting in a twist!
N x

[How Brown]

You're more than welcome Nats....you and Deb have the floor here, so let me get outta here and let you two ladies resume the conversation.

Thank you again

How

[Natalie Severn]

How,
I think Debs is going to be quite busy for a couple of weeks so perhaps we will have to leave it until she comes back unless someone else wants to join us in these "deliberations" in the meantime! I will get thinking about your new thread on the influence of Dr Bond"s view about a canon of five victims .
Best Wishes
Norma

[Debra Arif]

Hi Norma,
I tend to see him in his role as the man responsible for suggesting the "canonical five" victims which Macnaghten took up so readily and which may have thwarted both police investigations at the time as well as having dogged Ripperology ever since.

I can only add my own personal viewpoint here, and it may be slightly off but I'm sure someone will put me right if it is.:)
The way I see it, Bond was asked by police to look at the Whitechapel murder case notes only from Bucks Row onwards. He was involved in the Kelly postmortem and was asked his opinion on if the five cases were all done by the same hand, I don't think he was ever asked if any of the previous cases fitted,or given the notes on those, I don't think it's a case of Bond being given free reign to pick out his choice of ripper victims from the files, therefore ignoring the murder of Tabram etc. This was done in Novemeber 1888, when Kelly was the last murder attributted to JTR, once the murder of McKenzie occured in 1889, Bond also thought that she was a likely victim of the same hand. It is Macnaghten who invented the 'canonical five' maybe for his own purposes, not Bond.



Ps Debs,did you or Rob find anything more on the statement by the witness Ptolomy,as to this "fur hat " one of the "sailors" was said to have been wearing and which was pulled over his eyes?It wasnt made of astrakhan was it?


There was nothing further given on the fur hat, Norma. Many people wore fur hats, and it could have been made of astrakhan, I don't really see the significance, can you explain?

[Debra Arif]

p.s. Norma, How, I am around until Sunday, but can only do quick visits....you'll have to ignore my spellings because of this....I can't seem to get Brownfield right , no matter how carefully I try to type it! :)

[Natalie Severn]

Well Debs,as you know, there is a vast disagreement about the role Dr Bond played in the Ripper case.
Like Sir Robert Anderson he arrived very much as a "Johnny come lately" to the 1888 Whitechapel murder scene ,both men having made their first appearance on the day Mary Kelly had been murdered,Kelly often being referred to as the last or "final" victim of Jack the Ripper.
Like Sir Robert ,Dr Bond immediately began to make to assert himself quite forcefully on the scene and began by making some extemely controversial statements about the case.
The first statement he made was on the 10th November,the day after Mary Kelly had been murdered.He did this apparently in direct response to Robert Anderson"s request about the level of "expertise" or "skill" the ripper might be thought to possess.
So, the very first victim Dr Bond saw was the 5th or 6th in the series.And boy did he get the most grotesque eyeful for as we all know poor Mary Kelly had been so savagely mutilated that her face was beyond all recognition and her body too, which had been stripped to the bone in parts.So Dr Bond,unsurprisingly since this was the very first time he had seen a "ripper victim" concluded that this "Ripper" had not even the skill of a "butcher" and possessed no surgical or anatomical skill whatsoever.
But Dr Bond, had not even seen any of the previous victims attributed to the ripper,where Doctor Phillips of H Division and Dr Brown , a City of London Police Surgeon had said uneqivocally to the coroner that in the case of Annie Chapman [DrPhillips] and Catherine Eddowes [Dr Brown] the Ripper showed surgical expertise and anatomical knowledge.But Dr Bond took it upon himself, just as he did later in the case of Rose Mylett, to contradict the vastly experienced Dr Phillips and the equally experienced Dr Brown,both of whom had seen these victims.True there had been some differences of opinion among the doctors ,and there probably was a need to clarify the matter but its interesting to note that "the Lancet" the prestigious medical journal,came down on the side of the ripper possessing both some surgical knowledge and anatomical skill.

I wrote last night about Dr Bond"s "profile".It has to be borne in mind that this "profile" was composed within just "one day" of Mary Kelly"s murder,ie the profile was produced on 10th November 1888 with Dr Bond ,again ,it has to be said, never having seen the other four victims but making controversial statements about the direction the murderer had used the knife and in some cases even the times of their death.
Dr Bond"s conclusion about where and how the murderer lived, contributed ,in my opinion, to prematurely leading the case away from the line of looking for someone with medical training which is what had been happening to a large extent and instead beginning to "re- focus" on the local Jewish Community -the "low class Polish Jews"as Anderson termed them ----who,he believed, would go to any lengths to "protect their own from Gentile Justice".

So in short,I believe Dr Bond"s pronouncements were,at the very least,contentious in terms of how helpful,accurate or misleading,they ultimately proved to be.
Regarding the fur hats,I think they were commonly worn by the Russians or Eastern Europeans,as they often are today.....!
Cheers Debs,
Norma

[Debra Arif]

Thanks for your interesting points and thoughts, Norma. There is much too much in your post for me to read, digest and comment on at this moment in time, as you know. I will come back to this in a couple of weeks when I can give it more time, and maybe some others will have posted their thoughts by then too.

Debs x

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Debs.Points taken.Maybe too,this may best continue, as How suggests, on the new Bond thread ie if its my criticism of Dr Bond"s assessments and conclusions that you or others will want to address.
Meanwhile,

kindest thoughts

Norma
x

[Jon Simons]

Further to Debs and Rob`s excellent article and possibly of some interest, witness Charles Ptolomey, a 43 year old Dubliner, is listed as Chil C Ptolomey in the 1891 Census, and lived two doors away from Dr Brownfield, at 175 East India Rd.

Also, as noted by the authors, Dr Brownfield`s assistant , Dr George James Harris was indeed an inexperienced medic, have only qualified as a Doctor in 1888, and by 1891 had moved back to Ansty, in his home county of Leicestershire.

[Debra Arif]

Thanks for the kind words about the article, Jon, and thanks for the additional details, particularly on Dr Harris. I knew he was inexperienced but maybe not that inexperienced! Perhaps his being first on the scene was the whole problem in the Mylett case.

Norma, just a quick one regarding Phillips and Bond. There is no question that Phillips too was a respected divisional surgeon, who's opinion was highly regarded, and police should probably have taken notice of Phillips suggestion that precise photographs should be taken of the wounds and mutilations of any future victims, made after the death of Chapman.
Bond was 'Johnny come lately' in a lot of cases as you say mainly because his opinion was sought out in a lot of cases that were out of his jurisdiction, he was Divisional surgeon for Westminster. Phillips was called into some of the ripper cases because it was his territory. Bond was a lecturer in forensic medicine, which is the real reason his opinion was sought out in many cases and asked to give an overview, I feel. The notes that Bond worked on were written by Phillips and Brown most likley anyway, and this sort of difference of opinion amongst doctors probably occurs even today.
Regarding Bond and Anderson, I have already given the reasons why I think Bond was called in by Anderson to give an opinion, and one only has to read the cases Bond was involved in from the 1870's onwards to see why. Bond later was of the opinion that Mckenzie was a ripper victim, an idea which Anderson himself was firmly against, he stated that she wasn't.

[Jon Simons]

Hello Debs

Until I`d read your article I didn`t know that Harris`s christian names were George James.

The Medical Register on Ancestory for 1891 shows Dr George James Harris as at Ansty, Leicestershire.

The date given for his entry on the Medical Register is July 30th, 1888.

He qualified as a Physician in 1888, and as a Surgeon in 1889.

[Debra Arif]

Many thanks, Jon.
...is hello the new Hi nowadays? I've noticed it being used more and more lately in a way it never was before...:)

[Caroline Morris]

Hi All,

Late to this thread - sorry - but I was fascinated to read the speculation about a possible two-man team, disguised as soldiers, sailors or what have you (perhaps something different for each outing?), picking off women who were unfortunate enough to encounter them.

There are quite a few witness accounts scattered across the various attacks that could point to a pair of devils, not just the one. And I'm wondering about the MO (as I did many years ago with my 'master and apprentice' scenario) when they were working together and whether they could also have killed separately on occasion. We don't know, for instance, that the torso killer(s) didn't have help.

A pair could have played 'bad cop, good cop', one with rougher edges shoving the prospective victim around a bit, enabling the other to step in and kill her with kindness - or surprise - using his superior killing methods. If the rougher one did some killing of his own, it might explain why so many of us see more than one 'group' of murders/assaults within the whole Whitechapel series, especially if we include the torsos.

Two men working in tandem might actually begin to make more sense of the evidence than three or more multiple lady killers springing up independently.

It may sound really far-fetched on the surface, but Brady and Hindley (and Fred and Rose West to a lesser extent) certainly got great advantage out of pooling their different 'resources' in order to commit their hideous crimes.

I do think Mylett's death was another very rare one, and I view her as a very possible ripper victim, at a time when the fire may have been leaving his belly. Another factor may have been the winter. Outdoor predators, in tune with many other types of offender, operate better when they're not freezing their nips off.

Psychologically speaking, I can't see there's anything to choose between a killer like Jack going out with a bang in November or a whimper in December.

Then starting up again cautiously the following summer?

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks for this Caz,I have been thinking along similar lines actually.After all,the fur hat one of these "sailors" was said to have been wearing and noted to have been "pulled down over his eyes" by the Ptolomy witness and one of the women who saw the pair near Clark"s Yard,is very likely to have been one of the Russian hats seen in several of the photos of newly arrived immigrants from Eastern Europe.Now even then it was considered a bit odd for one of these "sailors" to have been wearing a fur hat!

I wonder too about their heights: one was about 5ft 7,the other 5ft 11 and those heights correspond well with 5ft 11 inch "pipe man" in Berner Street who chased Schwartz to the Railway arches on this side of Cable Street .The shorter man in Berner Street,"broad shouldered" man, had allegedly swaggered up to Liz Stride and assaulted her.
Also what about the two men dressed as "soldiers" one of whom was standing outside George Yard a 2.30 am around the time of Martha was murdered and who may have been one of the soldiers they said they were drinking with.
So Caz,could these two "sailors" have been getting themselves up as different types of "armed services" men-one keeping watch while the other did the murders----and yes indeed was George Hutchinson"s "astrakhan man" none other than the "fur hatted-sailor" who Ptolomy saw?
Cheers
Norma

[How Brown]

From Leeds....6 days after the death of Mylett....questions over whether it was a murder.

The reader is encouraged to read the recent article written by Rob Clack and Debra Arif in November's Ripperologist ( Issue 108 )

The Leeds Mercury (Leeds, England)
Wednesday, December 26, 1888

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Photo%20Thanksgiving/mylett.jpg

[Roy Corduroy]

A very good magazine article. Thank you Debs & Rob and those who helped you. The map work was outstanding, showing the location of Clarke's Yard, the mortuary and related points.

Roy

[Debra Arif]

Thanks Roy, took me ages to do those maps....Rob's rubbish at stuff like that, as everyone knows! ;)

[Rob Clack]

Everything I didn't know I've learned from Debs :).

[Debra Arif]

Here's another murder case that Dr. Bond was called in to give his expert opinion on after two local medical men, who originally conducted the post mortem, produced a report that the treasury solicitor found astonishing in its deductions:


By THOMAS BOND, M.B., F.R.O.S.

This case is interesting from the fact that there was complete
divergence of opinion between the two medical men who made
the post-mortem examination on the deceased woman and
myself. I happened to be out of town when sent for by the
police to conduct the post-mortem examination, therefore the
two local medical men were left to themselves, unassisted by an
expert, and quite inexperienced in such examinations.
The Treasury Solicitor, on receiving their report, was
astonished at their deductions, and desired me to critically
examine the report and to read through the whole of the
evidence in the case.
I herewith append the report of the post-mortem examina-
tion, which, no doubt, was carried out with great care and was
perfectly accurate as to facts, but the deductions from those
facts were quite contrary to the opinion I formed, and to the
opinion subsequently formed by the judge and jury. The man
Chipperfield was found guilty and hanged.

THE WESTMINSTER HOSPITAL REPORTS.
EDITED BY E. G. HEBB.

VOLUME X.

LONDON:
J. & A. CHURCHILL,
7, GREAT MARLBOROUGH STREET, W.
1897.

This time the jury went with Bond on his conclusions.

[Nemo]

Hi Debra

Any idea who the local medical men were?

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Debs,
It would be interesting to see what Dr Bond was talking about here.I mean this is the third or fourth time he has contradicted other medical men to my knowledge-the first time being when he contradicted Dr Phillips"s opinion over the time of Mary Kelly"s death and the nature of some of her injuries.He then went on to contradict the opinions of several of the other doctors regarding the previous victims of Jack the Ripper regarding several aspects of their deaths----and he hadnt even seen the corpses or these victims let alone examined their injuries .The first time he was called to examine a "ripper victim" was when he was called to examine the corpse of Mary Kelly.This was requested by Robert Anderson who had recently returned from nearly six weeks "holiday" abroad which he began just after Polly Nichols was found murdered in Bucks Row.
I found it odd that no sooner had he returned from Paris that October,than Anderson began to "overturn" other medical expertise through using a Whitehall Police surgeon ,Dr Bond,instead of a Whitechapel Police Surgeon,as had been the case,[except ofcourse where Dr Brown was called in over the City of London murder of Catherine Edddowes.
Interesting too that Coroner Baxter suddenly disappears off the radar and instead of having a full inquest over a period of some five or six days,as had happened with the previous murders with Baxter in charge,we get a speedily conducted inquest lasting only a day .Remarkable too because nobody knew who Mary Kelly really was at the time, so relatives appear not to have been able to be traced and contacted ,and even if they had would they have been in time to assist with identification? Mary was found dead on a Friday and the Inquest began in Shoreditch on the following Monday morning,therefore no working week day in between!

Nor does it rest there.

When it came to Rose Mylett,as we now know, Anderson himself decided to challenge not just one but five doctors simultaneously,even challenging the Surgeon -in -Chief in this instance----with Dr Bond in rapid response mood ofcourse!

Many Thanks for posting the above.I just hope the chap who was executed by hanging was actually guilty of murder and it wasnt just a case of Dr Bond being disputatious!

Best

Norma

[Debra Arif]

Hi Norma,
The case cocerned Alfred Chipperfield and his wife. They were both found in an Islington cab with their throats cut. Alfred survived but his wife did not, her dying words were that Alfred had cut her throat. The two local medics thought the woman committed suicide as her throat was slit from left to right and she was right handed, Bond showed how Alfred could have done it standing in front of her and also produced other crime scene evidence to back up his claims, things that had not been taken into account by the other medics.

The thing with Bond is, as well as being divisional surgeon for Whitehall, he also worked at the Westminster Hospital as head of surgery and also he was a lecturer on forensic medicine, a post he had held since at least 1872. I think most of the divisional surgeons held other posts too, much the same as modern day police surgeons. Phillips was the equivalent of a modern day GP I believe? Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Experts are relied upon today in cases of murder and mysterious death, and often contradict other medical witnesses. I believe Bond was probably the expert of his day and wasn't called in because he was a divisional surgeon but because this was his speciality. Bond was called in to give his opinion in many many other cases, too numerous to mention, I wonder how many of the other doctors involved in the Whitechapel murders were requested to get involved in cases outside of London for their knowledge and reputation? He was used simply because of his experteise and experience.
I can't find any criticism of Bond in contemporary sources, it seems to be a modern day thing. Bond was highly respected by friends and colleagues alike, he is also mentioned in contemporary legal and medical sources as an 'acknowledged expert' an 'expert witness' and advisor to the treasury.


Having said that, even experts can be wrong and I'm not saying Bond was any different in this respect, but his opinion was sought out when there was a serial killer on the loose and no other clues were forthcoming.The police needed all the help they could get from the people most qualified to help. I cannot understand why Bond is knocked for doing what was requested of him.

Debs

[Debra Arif]

Hi Debra

Any idea who the local medical men were?

They were just local Islington doctors, Nemo.

[Nemo]

Thanks

I was thinking that his derogatory statements did not discount them being doctors, probably local gp type doctors as you mentioned

[Natalie Severn]

Debs,
I will get back to you properly on this in a day or two,However,it is not true to say that Dr Phillips was like a local GP.He was not.He was the Divisional Police SURGEON for Whitechapel and had been so for eleven years.I have often read through his reports,which I would encourage all those to do who criticise his training or his skill.They reveal a highly articulate man clearly well trained and experienced regarding surgical knowledge and surgical jargon.
Dr Bond was,as far as anyone has discovered ---EXACTLY THE SAME-vis a vis training ,expertise and experience as a Police Surgeon.The difference being that he was attached to the Commissioners Office in Whitehall.Clearly the JtR case baffled Anderson ,initially ----especially since he was being carpeted by Matthews the Home Secretary,for having been away on holiday for all bar one of the murders atributed to JtR.His first sight of a murder victim of JtR was the most horrific of all the murders in terms of mutilation and crucially---it was the first sight of one of the victims by Dr Bond and it is this, above all ,that I would say calls for caution in assessing his findings.
Dr Bond next went on to dispute the findings of previous police surgeons.
Now Dr Brown for the City of London Police and Dr Phillips for H division, disagreed over the degree of expertise revealed by JtR [if it was him] in the case of Catherine Eddowes.
But DR Phillips had actually seen several of the other victims injuries which,like Dr Bond,Dr Brown had not so he was in a better position to compare.
So while its complicated, and I totally accept that Dr Bond was a distinguished figure etc,it requires careful thought to decide whether or not he was in a position to "contradict" the evidence of other professionals who had examined and done post mortems on the victims , victims whom he hadnt even seen.
Then ofcourse ,and very significantly in my view,we are given our "vehicle" to take us straight into the whole local Polish Jew community saga ,namely a "Profile of JtR " ---served up on a plate as it were, and boy was it served up "hot"!!!
and with such speed -----"November 10th 1888" the profile was served up---just ONE day after Mary was murdered!
Hey---but what are we told that is particularly significant by Anderson"s favourite doctor?
Well for one thing---and maybe its all we really need to know ,we are told that "he probably lived among his people " !
Anderson must have loved him dearly-!
Cheers

Norma

[Debra Arif]

Norma, I'm not talking about Phillips' role as a police divisional surgeon, I meant that Phillips probably also had another role besides that of divisional surgeon, as did Bond, Bond's was as a lecturer on Forensic Medicine according to various sources, as well as surgeon at the Westminster Hospital. What was Phillip's other role besides divisional surgeon?
What I am trying to question here is the assumption that Bond was called into the Whitechapel murders because of some sort of 'favouritism' and not for his vast and acknowledged experience.
Bond was asked, and provided an opinion, based on his own knowledge and past experience.

[Natalie Severn]

Debs,
OK.I agree that Dr Bond was called in because of his expertise.What I am questioning are not his "credentials" but " when " and "why" he was called in.In every instance concerning the Whitechapel murders up and including Rose Mylett, he contradicts the opinions and conclusions of previous Police surgeons.In the case of Rose Mylett he even went further: he changed his mind "mid" course" after some farcical mortuary visits with Robert Anderson steering his elbow,and then decided he agreed with Anderson thereby contradicting a team of five experts including the Surgeon in Chief.Its quite astonishing.
But what about Dr Phillips? Isnt the fact that he was an experienced Police Surgeon of eleven years standing sufficient? Dont his reports -available in " The Ultimate Source" book rather speak for themselves in terms of knowledge,precision and detailed information?
What exactly is Robert Anderson saying?
That neither he or Dr Brown,several other Police Surgeon experts including the Police Surgeon in Chief ,Mr MacKellar didnt really know what they were talking about? That Dr Phillips of Whitechapel,Dr Brown of the City of London Police didnt have sufficient expertise to examine the corpses of the victims, assess their findings and reach a reasonable conclusion?That only Dr Bond knew what he was doing?
Also I dont at all think Dr Bond was called in because of any kind of "favouritism".

Best Wishes
Norma

[Debra Arif]

Whilst researching our Catherine Mylett article, published in Ripperologist 108, Rob and I came across an earlier newspaper story (November/December 1887) that could refer to one of the witnesses in the Mylett case and might have a bearing on her later witness testimony.

Alice Graves (also spelt Greaves, Groves etc. in various newspaper accounts) was a young woman residing at 18 George Street,Whitechapel. She called on mortuary keeper,Courtain Thomas Chivers at the time of the Mylett investigation, and after viewing the body gave the name 'Lizzie' for the deceased and said she had shared a room with her at the George Street address. She knew Lizzie as a woman who earned her living on the streets. Alice Graves also revealed that she had seen Lizzie at 1.45 on the morning she died; she was outside the George Tavern in Commercial Road, in the company of two men, and the worse for drink. Alice could not describe the men, nor did she think she could recognise them again.
Alice Graves was reported to be one of the last people to have seen Catherine Mylett alive that night.

The earlier story I mentioned from Dec 87 involves a young woman, Alice Groves, [variously, Greaves, Graves] aged 21, and of 18 Thrawl Street Spitalfields. She was charged [on her own confession] with wilfully murdering her male child aged 14 months, between 12 and 1 o clock on Christmas morning, by throwing it over the parapet of london bridge into the River Thames. Alice confessed to a P.C. on Boxing Day whilst drunk, but maintained that the story was true even after sobering up.
After much investigation by police, no child was found and after making inquiries amongst the friends and family of Alice, police were satisfied that she had never been a mother in the first place. Inquiries were also made into the state of her mental health but no conclusions were reported. Alice was eventually discharged and given into the care of her father, who had given a bad account of her in court.

As yet, I don't know if the two women in these two separate incidents are definitely the same person but there are similaritiies about their circumstances that make me think they could be. Both young women, both residents of lodging houses at Spitalfields (and ones frequented by unfortunates) both seemingly unfortunates (reading between the lines)
I have been meaning to check the census to see how many single young women of the name Alice Graves , Greaves or Groves are resident in the Spitalfields area in 81/91 but haven't had chance as yet. If anyone else would like to take on the challenge I would love to hear the results.

If the two women were the same person it would bring Alice's sighting of Catherine Mylett at 1.45 am, in the company of two men, on the morning of her death, into question. It seems obvious that the woman in the 87 incident, nearly a whole year previously, was someone with obvious problems, someone who lied to police, possibly for attention seeking purposes.

[Rob Clack]

Here are some of the newspaper articles regarding this 1887 incident.

The Times, Wednesday 28 December 1887
http://i787.photobucket.com/albums/yy154/RobClack1969/AliceGravesTheTimesWednesday28Decem.jpg

The Times, Wednesday 4 January 1888
http://i787.photobucket.com/albums/yy154/RobClack1969/AliceGravesTheTimesWednesday4Januar.jpg

Lloyds Weekly News, Sunday 1 January 1888
http://i787.photobucket.com/albums/yy154/RobClack1969/AliceGrovesLloydsWeeklyNewsSunday1J.jpg

The Morning Post, Wednesday 4 January 1888
http://i787.photobucket.com/albums/yy154/RobClack1969/AliceGravesTheMorningPostWednesday4.jpg

Aberdeen Weekly Journal Saturday 31 January 1887
http://i787.photobucket.com/albums/yy154/RobClack1969/AliceGrovesAberdeenWeeklyJournalSat.jpg

Rob

[How Brown]

Rob,Debs...

I can imagine the "double take" that either or both of you did when you saw these 1887 articles...that was very observant to spot the trouble with Graves' story.

It certainly should put her Mylett-based testimony into a new light.
The fact that she is listed as living at "18" Thrawl St. in one story and "18" George St. in the other is likewise suspicious, Debs...from your post yesterday.

This is very good detective work...and thank you very much for sharing the scans of those Times articles, Rob.

[Rob Clack]

Some new press articles I've come across on Catherine Mylett's death.

The Echo, Saturday 22 December 1888
7887
7888
7889
7890

The News of the World, Sunday 23 December 1888
7891

The Standard, Tuesday 25 December 1888
7892
7893

The Echo, Thursday 27 December 1888
7894
7895

The Echo, Wednesday 2 January 1889
7896

And

The Echo, Thursday 3 January 1889
7897
7898
7899

Rob

[Debra Arif]

Thanks for posting these, Rob,
Some intersting new snippets among these.
I have never seen the bit about Catherine probably 'bolting' down her food in a hurry. Also the snippets about Brownfield and Harris experimenting with strangulation methods and Brownfield getting Harris under his 'control' quite easily are interesting....(I'm trying to keep those thought out of my head ;))
...and a mention of jack the Ripper from a witness too, that always seems to come up after the event doesn't it? That the victim had some sort of warning just before her death, it comes up in the Elizabeth Jackson case.
Great work, well done.

[Rob Clack]

Hi Debs,

Just don't watch 'Deliverance' :)

Rob

[How Brown]

Ditto to Debs' remarks...nice finds Rob and thanks for sharing them.

[Caroline Morris]

I find the bit about Catherine M 'bolting' her last meal intriguing too.

I have often wondered if the ripper got into a prospective victim's good books with the promise of something hot for her to eat. Did he find it all too easy to lure a very hungry and dehydrated Kate Eddowes towards Aldgate via Mitre Square with such a promise? MJK had her late night/early morning fish and potatoes, and now we have Mylett bolting down what must have been a very welcome meal of meat and potatoes, very shortly before she died. Was the meal an unexpected treat from a generous stranger? Or did she buy it herself and was so hungry that it hardly touched the sides?

It's still my firm belief that her death was no accident, and the timing of that meal could well be significant. But is there any possibility that swallowing her food far too quickly, without chewing it properly, could have contributed to an accidental death after all?

Love,

Caz
X

[Debra Arif]

The footnote below appeared in an 1892 article discussing whether or not another Whitechapel murder had accurately been predicted by a certain psychic and whether the prediction had similarities to the death of Catherine Mylett.
I personally haven't seen it before, the interesting bit to me being the mention of inquiries with police about the murder, by the writer (?) seem to have ended in the writer being told that there was no murder but a 'death in a drunken sleep.'
I wonder if these inquiries were made in 88 or in 92 when the article appeared?

Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research Volume 7 Page 219 1892
8061

[How Brown]

Excellent find Debs.
Off the top of my head, I couldn't provide the name of the writer ( It certainly wasn't the once prominent, Edmund Gurney, who died in the Summer of '88 in Brighton)....

...but we do know of someone who didn't think Mylett's demise was a murder.
Thats Sir Robert Anderson.

Is there a way of finding out some of the names of individuals affiliated with the SPR in 1892 ?

Thanks for sharing this Debs :nod:

[Debra Arif]

Hi Paul,
I will try and post some specific references at a later date, I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment.
Here is a little sample of the type of advice given to medics in these books, this is just a brief version that doesn't mention the importance of circumstantial evidence at the crime scene etc., present in some of the other texts. I thought this one interesting though as it mentions the prejudice that may be encountered from the public in these types of difficult cases.

Taylor, Alfred Swaine. A manual of medical jurisprudence. 8th American ed., from the 10th London ed., ... / edited, ... by John J. Reese. Philadelphia, 1880

...It is not always in our power to distinguish accidental or self-inflicted from homicidal violence; and we are always bound to look to the probability of accident, or of previous attempts at suicide being the source of those personal injuries which may be apparent on a strangled body...
...The prejudice of the public mind is such, that the discovery of a strangled person, with any marks of personal injury or of poisoning in his stomach, would, in most cases, lead to a charge of murder, unless the facts rendered it clearly impossible that any attempt could have been made on his life. It is against this prejudice that a medical witness must strenuously guard himself: he may be abused for not joining in the outcry of the vulgar, but the best recompense for this abuse, will be the conviction that he is interposing the shield of science to protect a possibly innocent fellow-creature from the senseless denunciations of ignorance. Further, before a charge of murder by strangulation is raised against any person from marks or appearance found on a dead body, care should be taken that they admit no other reasonable explanation than the direct application of violence. Even if the marks indicative of strangulation are discovered, the question arises whether they may not have been produced by the deceased upon himself in an attempt at suicide which may have failed.
If the body of a person is allowed to cool, with a handkerchief, band, or tightly fitting collar round the neck, a mark resembling that of strangulation will be produced. Before any opinion is given that murder has been perpetrated, the medical proofs on which reliance is placed should be clear, distinct, conclusive and satisfactory.



I've dug out this old post of mine ( the underlined portion since reproduced in the new A to Z in the Mylett entry) as I have just recently noticed an occurence where Dr Hebbert (with thanks to Dr Bond), in one of his lectures from 1888, quotes from Taylor's book.
It shows the likes of Bond and Hebbert were familiar with this particular textbook and probably others like it.

[Debra Arif]

The man who noticed the marks on Catherine Mylett's neck.

INQUESTS 50 YEARS AGO

Last of the Coroner's Officers Retires.

The last of the old Coroners' Officers, Mr T.C. Chivers, has just retired after fifty years' servicein the East London district. He recalled, in an interview with a representative of the Morning Post the other day, some of his experiences.

" In my early days," he said, "there were no mortuaries.If a dead body was found it was taken to the nearest public-house, and the publican was obliged to find a place for it-usually an outhouse. The inquest was heldin the same public-house, sometimes even in front of the bar.The publican did not mind because he received a fee for his trouble, and the event usually brought custom.The want of a proper place in which to hold the post-mortem became such a scandal that a doctor on one occasion performed the post-mortem in a Wapping churchyard in the open air as a protest against the lack of proper accomodation. This drew public attention to the matter, and a few "dead houses"-which were mere wooden huts-were erected. One of them may still be seen in Limehouse Churchyard, and another in Poplar High-street, though they are no longer in use."

"One of the longest inquests I remember occupied thirteen days, and concerned the deaths of seven survivors from the collision between the Franconia, a German vessel, and the Strathclyde off Dover. They were brought toLondon and died on reaching Poplar. Sir Walter Phillimore, now Lord Phillimore, was one of the counsel engaged in the case."

Cases in which Mr.Chivers had to inquire were the "Jack the Ripper" murders and the Sidney-street tragedies. He officiated at the inquest on the spies shot at the Tower during the war,the first of whom was Lody. The heaviest toll of death with which he had to deal was after an air raid when in one day inquests were held on 54 bodies at the London Hospital. He retains with pride his staff of office. It is of brass, about 8in. long, surmounted by a royal crown. With that he went to knock at the door of the house where a sudden death had occured and demand admittance "in the name of the Queen."

The Straits Times, 23 November 1921

[How Brown]

Thanks Debra....that's an interesting article.

"Cases in which Mr.Chivers had to inquire were the "Jack the Ripper" murders and the Sidney-street tragedies. He officiated at the inquest on the spies shot at the Tower during the war,the first of whom was Lody. The heaviest toll of death with which he had to deal was after an air raid when in one day inquests were held on 54 bodies at the London Hospital. He retains with pride his staff of office. It is of brass, about 8in. long, surmounted by a royal crown. With that he went to knock at the door of the house where a sudden death had occured and demand admittance "in the name of the Queen."

Air raid in WW1 ?
"in the name of the Queen" during WW1 ?I wasn't aware that Britain was bombed by Germany during WW1...and had thought King Edward was on the throne during WW1.

What do you make of it Debs ?

[Debra Arif]

How, I did a quick check and this was the first German air raid in WW1, according to this site:
http://www.historyonthenet.com/WW1/WW1_timeline.htm

28 Nov 1916 First Aeroplane raid
The first German air raid on London took place. The Germans hoped that by making raids on London and the South East, the British Air Force would be forced into protecting the home front rather than attacking the German air force.

Doesn't the "in the name of the Queen" quote refers to his past use of his staff of office when having to enter where any sudden death had occurred? and is not related to the WW1 incident? More a case of him recounting the past traditions of his profession?

[Wicker Man]

'Aitch, Google on "Zeppelin Air Raids over England"

..You're welcome.

[How Brown]

I stand corrected on both counts...

Thanks Debs & Wick !!!

[Robert Linford]

They didn't just bomb London. They got Hartlepool Utd's football ground too.

[Caroline Morris]

...and had thought King Edward was on the throne during WW1.

George V I think you'll find, Howie.

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert Linford]

Yes, Edward died in 1910, having jumped off a cliff to prove he could fly :

[How Brown]

Thanks for the info Caz and Robert.
Now youse know what the reason was that I was 19 years old in the 5th grade.

[Colin Roberts]

Air raid in WW1 ?
"in the name of the Queen" during WW1 ?I wasn't aware that Britain was bombed by Germany during WW1...and had thought King Edward was on the throne during WW1.

I believe that the so-called 'White House', i.e. 56 Flower & Dean Street, was badly damaged, during a German air raid, in 1917.

[Chris G.]

They didn't just bomb London. They got Hartlepool Utd's football ground too.

The Bounders! :nono: