Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Post Mortem Clarification

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

  • CGP
    replied
    Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
    I don't see the "10" below DIVISION in Simon's copy?
    You're right. 10 is the folio number, I think, so it seems the documents were foliated after the taking of the photo posted by Simon and before the microfilming.

    Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
    If Bond sent his report to Anderson, wouldn't it be in an envelope?
    Therefore, would the envelope have a received stamp, not the contents?
    Does this mean Anderson's mail was received, opened, stamped, then left on his desk?
    Or, is that stamp an indication that this was filed (Received for filing) on the 16th, not received by Anderson on the 16th?

    The question mark ahead of the "16" might suggest uncertainty, could it mean sometime before the 16th?
    These cover sheets were created at the time of filing, were they not?
    Perhaps the police system was different from the one at the Home Office, where documents seem to have been stamped "Received" immediately they arrived. Maybe there could be a delay between letters to the police arriving and being stamped? The "Ultimate Sourcebook" doesn't usually note the police "Received" stamps, so it's difficult to judge.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicker Man
    replied
    Thankyou Chris/Simon.

    So the "16" issue is settled, good job Chris.
    I don't see the "10" below DIVISION in Simon's copy?

    If Bond sent his report to Anderson, wouldn't it be in an envelope?
    Therefore, would the envelope have a received stamp, not the contents?
    Does this mean Anderson's mail was received, opened, stamped, then left on his desk?
    Or, is that stamp an indication that this was filed (Received for filing) on the 16th, not received by Anderson on the 16th?

    The question mark ahead of the "16" might suggest uncertainty, could it mean sometime before the 16th?
    These cover sheets were created at the time of filing, were they not?

    Leave a comment:


  • CGP
    replied
    Simon

    Thanks. The date stamp is rather clearer in that photo. It would be interesting to know the significance of the figure "2" and the other annotations.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi All,

    BOND.jpg

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • CGP
    replied
    Originally posted by CGP View Post
    That was how it appeared to me, if the post-mortem report is the one referred to as "annexed". I wonder if it's possible that 16 November is a mistranscription of 10 November?
    Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
    Due to Nov. 16th being obviously later than the received date of Nov. 14th, then for the "annexed" report to be part of the same package, I also assumed the date we read as 16th (as you remarked below) must be a mistranscription for 10th.
    I photographed the file cover (from the microfilm at the National Archives), and the date given in the "Ultimate Sourcebook" is certainly not a mistranscription:
    kelly.jpg

    However, the date on the file cover does appear to be preceded by a question mark. Below is an extremely faint "Received" stamp with the day of the month, 16, written in by hand.

    I suppose this must be the "annexed report" that's referred to in Bond's "profiling" letter to Anderson dated 10 November. Anderson sent a copy of that letter to the Home Office on 13 November. Quite why the post mortem report wasn't officially "received" by the Metropolitan Police until 16 November, and then with a query indicated about its date, I find difficult to understand.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Okay, thanks Phil- for the record, I have just read through the 10th November Echo article on casebook and I can say that I can't see anything in that report, related to the post mortem or question of the missing organ, that I think is inaccurate.
    In fact, this article exactly describes the timeline I gave Trevor that he would not accept as correct!

    -That is that there was an examination at Miller's Court on Friday 9th and MJK's body was removed from room 13 at 4pm, afterwards a pail covered in newspaper was removed from the house and taken to Dr Phillips. This pail was reported to contain organs and was transported away in cab shortly after the body was removed.
    Then the Echo reports that the main post mortem was done on Saturday am at the Shoreditch mortuary as room 13 was not adequately equipped for a full post mortem and it also mentions that the doctors and detectives went back to look at the grate as it was thought small parts of the body were missing (on the 10th)

    Trevor claimed that there was one examination on the 9th, no post mortem at the mortuary on the 10th and that the pail covered in newspaper contained the missing heart and was found as a result of a search of the grate (on the 9th) and that Bond had already reported the heart missing from the room and he was not privy to it being recovered by 4.30pm on the 9th.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phil Carter
    replied
    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
    I believe Trevor made that mistake in his book with something related to the Harriett Buswell file and a 'special' report that Chris Phillips determined was something along the lines SPE mentions here, and not Special Branch related as Trevor had speculated

    Bond was writing his report for Anderson who had requested his opinions on aspects of the murders.

    You will have to be straightforward and just say which other aspect I need to accept too, Phil, as I don't recall saying something was inaccurate about the 10th November Echo article.
    Sorry Debs..am I little lost atm without access to the casebook page itself. Forgive me. I believe it comes from the initial posts I made on thay thread that you said SPE had cleared up the misunderstanding. .or suchlike. But with out seeing them I cannot be more specific.

    As far as the Special wording....I would agree if the letters H.O. we're not crossed out...This obviously refers to the Home Office. That's a place..A department if you like. Therefore in this case to me..personally..It is not a mistake but quite logical to this referring to another place..or department. ..Special Branch.
    I realise that other papers may very well be meant as a "special" case..but as I see it..given the above..I see it as quite logical..including the mention of the Head of SB ..Anderson..being the recipient. Sorry.


    Phil

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
    Hello Debs,

    I remember now two things. On the covering file note the paper is addressed to H. O. ..crossed out..and "Special" written in. I believe SHE argued that this was referring to a "special" case...but I got the distinct impression it was for Special Branch..seeing as Robert Anderson was the intended recipient..written in at the end of the notes.

    The other thing that I must say...is that there was nothing suspicious. .as you put it..about MJK's demise. It was straight forward murder. No suspicion or hint of anything else.

    If..as bouts you say..The Echo IS correct on that point Debs. .then equally it can be correct on other points too. .no?
    I believe Trevor made that mistake in his book with something related to the Harriett Buswell file and a 'special' report that Chris Phillips determined was something along the lines SPE mentions here, and not Special Branch related as Trevor had speculated

    Bond was writing his report for Anderson who had requested his opinions on aspects of the murders.

    You will have to be straightforward and just say which other aspect I need to accept too, Phil, as I don't recall saying something was inaccurate about the 10th November Echo article.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phil Carter
    replied
    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
    It's probably worth noting here that the Echo was an evening newspaper and it is the Saturday Evening (10th) and Sunday papers that first reported (for obvious reasons) that a post mortem was conducted at the mortuary on the morning of Sat 10th.
    The Nottingham Evening Post reports that it was Drs Phillips, Bond and Gordon Brown who conducted the Sat morning post mortem at Shoreditch mortuary.
    If the papers were correct about who was there, then the statement that Bond and Phillips were in full agreement after the post mortem, makes perfect sense.

    Bond 'assisted' at several post mortems where he was brought in by the treasury in cases of suspicious deaths. I've been reading the details of a few of those just today.

    Hello Debs,

    I remember now two things. On the covering file note the paper is addressed to H. O. ..crossed out..and "Special" written in. I believe SHE argued that this was referring to a "special" case...but I got the distinct impression it was for Special Branch..seeing as Robert Anderson was the intended recipient..written in at the end of the notes.

    The other thing that I must say...is that there was nothing suspicious. .as you put it..about MJK's demise. It was straight forward murder. No suspicion or hint of anything else.

    If..as bouts you say..The Echo IS correct on that point Debs. .then equally it can be correct on other points too. .no?


    Phil

    Leave a comment:


  • Phil Carter
    replied
    However..

    One thing I do remember is the dismissing of some newspaper comment.. (The Echo) but the acceptance of other newspaper comment.. ( The Telegraph...I think).

    What doesn't seem right to me somehow


    Phil

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    It's probably worth noting here that the Echo was an evening newspaper and it is the Saturday Evening (10th) and Sunday papers that first reported (for obvious reasons) that a post mortem was conducted at the mortuary on the morning of Sat 10th.
    The Nottingham Evening Post reports that it was Drs Phillips, Bond and Gordon Brown who conducted the Sat morning post mortem at Shoreditch mortuary.
    If the papers were correct about who was there, then the statement that Bond and Phillips were in full agreement after the post mortem, makes perfect sense.

    Bond 'assisted' at several post mortems where he was brought in by the treasury in cases of suspicious deaths. I've been reading the details of a few of those just today.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phil Carter
    replied
    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
    Hi Phil

    Which 'two different examples' [of what?] are you referring to?
    Hi Debs,

    Somewhere towards the end of that thread are two differing examples..One presumably...I hate that word...copied out by someone...of the "Bond notes". I think..from memory...Rob C was going to have a look at the original at some point...forgive me but am unable to get into the cb thread at the moment. My memory isn't all that good. My apologies.


    Phil

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Hi Phil

    Which 'two different examples' [of what?] are you referring to?

    Leave a comment:


  • Phil Carter
    replied
    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
    http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4220

    Yes, Phil. I agree. Stewart Evan's posts were particularly informative and straightened out a lot of the misunderstandings of the first few posts to that thread. He also confirmed there was a further post mortem ( SPE calls it an autopsy) on Saturday 10th which is why I started this thread because Trevor Marriott was adamant that there was one examination only on Friday 9th November and this thread was for his benefit so he would stop sending me PM's about it.
    Hello Debs,

    Firstly..I don't care who is right or wrong about things... and don't personally mind being wrong (as some..and I emphasise that..some of the above link shows).. what I did like was the coming together of the group to discuss, without malice, something that is..In actual fact..quite complicated. One-upmanship has never been a priority for me.
    Everybody on that thread...All those mentioned..had worthwhile contributions. For me personally, Dave's descriptions of the inner workings of the Coroner in question were most enlightening. The showing..by research and diligence that Bond was PROBABLY not the writer of the "Bond notes" but Hebbert, also really good.

    The two different examples still intrigue me though.

    Anybody ever get to the bottom of that little conundrum?

    Hello Robert,

    Yes..that's the one...Thank you. Glad some bits of my memory still work from time to time! ☺

    Phil

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
    Hello all,

    Seeing Dave on here it reminded me of a really good and informative, well discussed and positive thread on CB about 5 or 6 years ago called "The Echo, 10th November 1888" which definitively connects with this excellent thread here.
    Really good posts from Debs, SPE, Simon, Rob C, Dave O, Norma, Trevor, myself and others made it very interesting.
    I can't post the specific link on here from my phone.. but I am sure you will find it.



    Phil
    http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4220

    Yes, Phil. I agree. Stewart Evan's posts were particularly informative and straightened out a lot of the misunderstandings of the first few posts to that thread. He also confirmed there was a further post mortem ( see post#16 of that thread) on Saturday 10th which is why I started this thread because Trevor Marriott was adamant that there was one examination only on Friday 9th November and this thread was for his benefit so he would stop sending me PM's about it.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X