Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rose Mylett - Murder or Accidental Death?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
    Hi Debs. With all that evidence, it's hard for me to understand why you think she died by accident. I also can't understand why you think it comes down to one single point of evidence. Cases rarely come down to one single point of evidence.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott
    Hi Tom,
    All what evidence, specifically? I do think it really is as simple as different interpretations of the neck wounds by duly qualified medical men of the time.

    I haven't ever said I think Mylett's death was accidental either-people just assume that's what I'm saying.
    I have always tried to approach the Mylett case by trying to understand if Dr Bond's suggestions were in some way wrong or 'out of kilter' with pathological knowledge of the time. This doesn't appear to be the case. Medical jurisprudence books of the time (which I've read many of over the years and find them fascinating) include cases studies of accidental asphyxia where a ligature mark was questioned. Dr Bond also received some support for his conclusions in the Lancet, Times etc. Other doctors were prompted to write in and share their experiences of similar cases-no one seemed to think Bond's conclusion,or the fact that it disagreed with other doctors opinions of he same set of circumstances was in any way abnormal procedure or anything other than his genuine, considered, professional opinion.

    We have no official post mortem records and the inquest reports of the post mortem are at odds with each other depending on the newspaper source. We have no full, blow by blow account of what exactly was discussed at the inquest, what the significance of asking about a post in the yard etc. Just vague references. Several witnesses claimed Mylett regularly drank to the point of becoming 'legless' and we know she had been retching earlier.

    The fact that Bond said the mark had faded or wasn't as prominent as he'd expect is seemingly supported by other evidence given at inquest when it appears that evidence that thug murderers could commit ligature strangulation without leaving a mark was discussed. This evidence could only have been given in support of Brownfield's claim of a homicidal ligature strangulation scenario and must have been for the reason Bond reported-the faintness of the mark? I can't think of any other reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    Hi Debs. With all that evidence, it's hard for me to understand why you think she died by accident. I also can't understand why you think it comes down to one single point of evidence. Cases rarely come down to one single point of evidence.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
    Hi Debs, thanks for that thoughtful and informative reply. Did these 'faint' marks remain faint or become more pronounced over time? As for the lack of witnesses, surely that would not be surprising if a murder occurred?

    Clark's Yard would be a good location for a prostitute to take a man, would it not? So it makes sense that Rose would have gone there with someone. But if she died accidentally, she did so alone and without any alcohol near. So what was she doing there?

    People who asphyxiate due to alcohol typically do so while vomiting, but there's no mention of vomit. So how does a young woman asphyxiate?

    And while I question why doctors would need a mortuary assistant to point out scratch marks to them, the fact that he does not negate the fact that they were present, and that's precisely what would be expected if she'd been strangled.

    I haven't studied the case as closely as you have yet, but there's an awful lot of evidence here that she was murdered and nary any evidence to the contrary. At least that I've seen yet.

    Was Bond from the very beginning of the opinion that she died accidentally?

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott
    Hi Tom, don't forget-as well as earning pennies, prostitutes also have to spend them sometimes. Alleyways were useful for both purposes.

    Mylett was spotted dry retching in the street earlier on in the evening. I don't know if it is connected but it is worth mentioning-perhaps she had been having problems all night? Who knows?

    I disagree about the evidence available. Murder or accident, all conclusion relies on the medical evidence and the interpretation of the neck marks alone.

    We also haven't got the full picture of what questions were asked or evidence given at inquest. Something about a post jutting out in the yard was discussed-perhaps that was discussed in the context of an accident happening? It is mentioned only briefly in the inquest reporting, as was the evidence given about 'thug' murders, so we haven't go the full details to asses what that was all about. I think it is Anderson who comments that 'less than expert' (something to that effect) evidence was given by someone at the inquest.

    Chivers pointed out the 'ligature' mark.

    As you know, Anderson, writing on events, gives the impression that Bond viewed the body once, reported his findings of a homicidal death and then viewed the body again and changed his mind after he [Anderson] had pressed his concerns about the homicidal aspect in a meeting. Anderson is the only source for this. Bond doesn't mention he viewed the body twice and neither does the coroner, saying that Bond viewed the body 5 days later than the other doctors so was at a disadvantage.The coroner apparently complained about the fact that doctor after doctor was sent to view the body, so it's puzzling why didn't he mention that Bond had been twice.
    I wonder if maybe Bond made his first conclusions based on Hebbert's notes alone after Hebbert attended the post mortem in Bond's place? Perhaps Anderson wasn't aware this was the case? Just a suggestion of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicker Man
    replied
    Dr Bond only viewed the body five days after the murder.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    Hi Debs, thanks for that thoughtful and informative reply. Did these 'faint' marks remain faint or become more pronounced over time? As for the lack of witnesses, surely that would not be surprising if a murder occurred?

    Clark's Yard would be a good location for a prostitute to take a man, would it not? So it makes sense that Rose would have gone there with someone. But if she died accidentally, she did so alone and without any alcohol near. So what was she doing there?

    People who asphyxiate due to alcohol typically do so while vomiting, but there's no mention of vomit. So how does a young woman asphyxiate?

    And while I question why doctors would need a mortuary assistant to point out scratch marks to them, the fact that he does not negate the fact that they were present, and that's precisely what would be expected if she'd been strangled.

    I haven't studied the case as closely as you have yet, but there's an awful lot of evidence here that she was murdered and nary any evidence to the contrary. At least that I've seen yet.

    Was Bond from the very beginning of the opinion that she died accidentally?

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
    The fact that debate on how she was murdered and the evidence that came from that medical debate renders the argument of accidental death rather weak if not non-existent. Do you agree?

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott
    I don't agree,no.
    Until Mr Chivers, the mortuary assistant, pointed out the marks on Mylett's neck, no one had suspected a murder-not the police nor attending doctor,Harris. There were no eye witnesses to her last movements and no one in the immediate area heard anything just before she died.
    All the doctors involved agreed that Mylett died from asphyxia-it was how that occurred that differed.

    Brownfield believed a line partially around Mylett's neck, was the result of strangulation by ligature. Bond believed the line was the impression left by Mylelt's collar as she lay dying or immediately after death. At no time did Bond say Mylett was strangled by her own collar as some suggest.

    Bond thought the line was too faint and there wasn't enough damage done to neck tissue for it to have been a ligature mark. Typically, ligature strangulation involves excessive force. Bond must have been correct in his observations as to the faintness of the mark because we see that evidence claiming that 'thug' murderers were capable of strangling with a ligature without leaving a mark at all, was discussed at the inquest. There would be no need for that suggestion at inquest if the mark had been very prominent?

    What it boiled down to was the medical evidence of Brownfield v Bond. Both believed asphyxia was the cause of death, both saw a faint mark around the neck and put it down to different things. What I find interesting is that although Hebbert never gave any medical evidence at the inquest -writing later for a medical jurisprudence text-he obviously does not agree with Brownfield's 'soap cutter' ligature suggestion either. The one thing that pointed to murder in the first place.

    Do you see where I'm coming from now?
    It's a pity that McKellar's thoughts aren't on record.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicker Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    Debs:
    I'm going with Brownfield's opinions.
    Absolutely!

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynn Cates
    replied
    footprints

    Hello Jeff. But if it were an accident, why no footprints?

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
    I havn't Voted..

    Anderson thought it was an accident.. Seems unlikely

    Tell us more? Do we have a fore and Against advocates?

    Yours Jeff
    Anderson said it was an accident. I wouldn't go so far as to say he actually thought it.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeff Leahy
    replied
    I havn't Voted..

    Anderson thought it was an accident.. Seems unlikely

    Tell us more? Do we have a fore and Against advocates?

    Yours Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Or that there's a lotta lazy people...or people who are on the fence about it, Tom.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    I wonder if the fact that there are only 9 votes means that most forum readers are say, 'Rose who?'

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    Hi Debs. I won't pretend that I've made my mind up about how Mylett was murdered. I'll need to look at it closer when the time comes. But then that's not the question I posed here. The fact that debate on how she was murdered and the evidence that came from that medical debate renders the argument of accidental death rather weak if not non-existent. Do you agree?

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Both were suggested as the methods that actually caused Mylett's death.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Why would both methods be used? Weren't the jury led to believe that the use of a ligature was expertly done in this case-barely leaving a mark, like the expertise shown by 'thugs'

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X