Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere The Psychopath - by Herlock Sholmes 9 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere The Psychopath - by Varqm 11 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - by Michael W Richards 33 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: It was Lechmere. - by Mike J. G. 56 minutes ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Evidence found from Amelia Dyer case in 1896 - by Merry_Olde_Mary 56 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: It was Lechmere. - by Mike J. G. 59 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere The Psychopath - (10 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - (6 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre Sq, The demise is almost complete - (4 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Recent 'Tour' - (4 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: It was Lechmere. - (4 posts)
Swanson, Chief Inspector Donald: Seaside Home - (4 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Doctors and Coroners

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #101  
Old 12-21-2015, 11:17 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben View Post
The views of Sequeira and Saunders with regard to the extent of "skill" evinced by the Eddowes mutilations are broadly in agreement with Bond's.
Strange conclusion Ben, Dr. Sequeira specifically made the point:
"I was present and heard the whole of the evidence of Dr. Gordon Brown at the last meeting I quite agree with the Doctor in every particular."

And we know from Dr Brown himself (previously quoted), that he saw some evidence of medical knowledge. He did not say the killer was greatly endowed with knowledge, but knowledge was evident, in his opinion.

Which then explains the next comment by Sequeira:
"I do not think that he was possessed of any great anatomical skill".

Which does not contradict Dr. Brown at all. The emphasis on "great", Sequira is not agreeing with Bond in this comment.
Bond said he saw "no scientific nor anatomical knowledge".

Sequeira is not agreeing with Bond, he is agreeing with Brown.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 12-21-2015, 11:20 AM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,555
Default

A number of modern experts, consulted by Trevor Marriott, were deeply divided on the issue of whether the assailant had any medical/surgical knowledge. Ian Calder, a consultant pathologist, was of the opinion that Eddowes' and Chapman's assailant must have had both knowledge of anatomy and experience in using it. In fact, given the level of skill and expertise that was demonstrated, he concluded that the organs could not have been removed at the crime scene, given the suggested time frame and poor lighting conditions.

On the other hand Dr Biggs , a forensic pathologist, concluded that the killer wouldn't have required any surgical or anatomical knowledge.

Interestingly, Dr Biggs asks whether Eddowes' kidney and uterus were surgically removed or simply hacked out by an unskilled person. On the other hand, Ian Calder comments that Annie Chapman's pelvic organs "appear to have been removed skilfully without damage to adjacent tissue." ( Marriott, 2015)

I think therefore the question as to whether surgical or medical skill was demonstrated by the killer is largely undetermined.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 12-21-2015, 11:25 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
A number of modern experts, consulted by Trevor Marriott, were deeply divided on the issue of whether the assailant had any medical/surgical knowledge. Ian Calder, a consultant pathologist, was of the opinion that Eddowes' and Chapman's assailant must have had both knowledge of anatomy and experience in using it. In fact, given the level of skill and expertise that was demonstrated, he concluded that the organs could not have been removed at the crime scene, given the suggested time frame and poor lighting conditions.

On the other hand Dr Biggs , a forensic pathologist, concluded that the killer wouldn't have required any surgical or anatomical knowledge.

Interestingly, Dr Biggs asks whether Eddowes' kidney and uterus were surgically removed or simply hacked out by an unskilled person. On the other hand, Ian Calder comments that Annie Chapman's pelvic organs "appear to have been removed skilfully without damage to adjacent tissue." ( Marriott, 2015)

I think therefore the question as to whether surgical or medical skill was demonstrated by the killer is largely undetermined.
where you been?
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 12-21-2015, 11:33 AM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,555
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
where you been?
Hi Abby,

I've been a little busy, but thanks for asking. Merry Christmas by the way.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 12-21-2015, 11:33 AM
Observer Observer is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post

On the other hand, Ian Calder comments that Annie Chapman's pelvic organs "appear to have been removed skilfully without damage to adjacent tissue." ( Marriott, 2015)
I don't have a clue what is meant by that. Two thirds of her bladder was taken away, not exactly a subtle manouvre.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 12-21-2015, 11:36 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Hi Abby,

I've been a little busy, but thanks for asking. Merry Christmas by the way.
same to you! and happy new year!
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 12-21-2015, 11:50 AM
Ben Ben is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,652
Default

Hi Jon,

Quote:
"I was present and heard the whole of the evidence of Dr. Gordon Brown at the last meeting I quite agree with the Doctor in every particular."
I wouldn't trust that quote if I were you, as it differs considerably from what the vast majority of inquest press reports quoted him as saying. We know that the "every particular" bit is nonsense because he clearly did not believe the killer had either anatomical skill or a design on a specific organ, whereas Brown clearly did. The Daily Telegraph reported his words as follows:

I saw the position of the body, and I entirely agree with the evidence of Dr. Gordon Brown in that respect.

In that respect, not "every particular".

Quote:
And we know from Dr Brown himself (previously quoted), that he saw some evidence of medical knowledge.
"Considerable knowledge" is what Brown claimed to have detected, which is quite different to Sequeira's view.

Regards,
Ben

Last edited by Ben : 12-21-2015 at 11:55 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 12-21-2015, 11:55 AM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,555
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer View Post
I don't have a clue what is meant by that. Two thirds of her bladder was taken away, not exactly a subtle manouvre.
Yes, I find Ian Calder's conclusions a little confusing. For instance, on one hand he refers to Eddowes autopsy report, which suggests she was subjected to a "frenzied attack." But on the other hand he concludes that both Chapman's and Eddowes' pelvic organs appear to have been removed "skilfully" and without damage to adjacent organs.

In fact, as I noted in my earlier post, he concludes that, given the time frame, poor lighting conditions,and degree of skill that was exhibited, Eddowes' organs could not have been removed at the crime scene, a conclusion I find somewhat incredible.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 12-21-2015, 11:59 AM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,555
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
same to you! and happy new year!
Thanks Abby. Happy New Year to you too!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 12-21-2015, 12:28 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben View Post
Hi Jon,

I wouldn't trust that quote if I were you, as it differs considerably from what the vast majority of inquest press reports quoted him as saying.
Is this the same 'Ben' who normally admonishes press versions of testimony in favor of the official version?
Here you choose to not accept the official version and go with a press version.

Quote:
We know that the "every particular" bit is nonsense because he clearly did not believe the killer had either anatomical skill or a design on a specific organ, whereas Brown clearly did. The Daily Telegraph reported his words as follows:

I saw the position of the body, and I entirely agree with the evidence of Dr. Gordon Brown in that respect.

In that respect, not "every particular".
The Daily Telegraph was the only one to use "in that respect", whereas the Times wrote:
"....he entirely agreed with Dr. Gordon Brown's evidence"

Daily News:
"and I entirely agree with it in all particulars."

Morning Advertiser:
"I heard his evidence at the last examination, and I agree with it.
The Coroner - You agree with it entirely? - Yes.


Star:
"I entirely agree with Dr. Gordon Browne in the evidence he gave last week."

A brief comparison with the majority of press versions shows your assertion is unfounded, in fact quite wrong.

The majority of press versions agreed with the official version.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.