Sedgewick Saunders ....... why did he say the things he said ?

[Wickerman]

Simon.

The liver processes alcohol, it passes through, it doesn't store it.

Over time alcohol damages the liver which leads to liver disease, which is what Saunders was referring to.
A few drinks leave no identifiable traces in the liver, not identifiable in the 19th century. I don't know about today with all our hi-tech.
Plus, the autopsy was conducted some 18? hours after she was arrested, so the alcohol had plenty of time to dissipate in the body.
Not forgetting that Saunders didn't look at the stomach until a while after the autopsy.

[GUT]

Simon.

The liver processes alcohol, it passes through, it doesn't store it.

Over time alcohol damages the liver which leads to liver disease, which is what Saunders was referring to.
A few drinks leave no identifiable traces in the liver, not identifiable in the 19th century. I don't know about today with all our hi-tech.
Plus, the autopsy was conducted some 18? hours after she was arrested, so the alcohol had plenty of time to dissipate in the body.
Not forgetting that Saunders didn't look at the stomach until a while after the autopsy.

Even today there is no reliable indicator of someone having the occasional binge, CDT is good at detecting constant extreme drinking, but not much use for the now and then binge.

Likewise liver tests may show a regular really heavy drinker, but not the occasional binge, and while these women probably drank regularly I expect economics may have meant a real bender would very much e an occasional
Event.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

You have me in a quandary.

Who should I believe? You or Dr. Saunders?

Regards,

Simon

[John G]

As noted, the liver doesn't store alchol but uses enzymes to break it down into safe bi-products. However, if you binge drink the liver may get overwhelmed, causing blood alcohol levels to rise-this is why a blood test is conducted to determine if a driver is over the limit: see https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...l-9646319.html

The liver, which is capable of regeneration, will appear healthy unless there are signs of liver cirrhosis. However, for reasons that are not known not all heavy drinkers will contract the disease: see https://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/articles...dsomedont.html

Today, liver function tests can be carried out, however, even these tests are not completely reliable: a liver blood test may show normsl, or near normal, results even in advanced liver disease: see https://www.guidelinesinpractice.co....453912.article

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Jon,

You have me in a quandary.

Who should I believe? You or Dr. Saunders?

There is no contradiction. Saunders said "the liver was healthy, and gave no indications that the woman drank”, not "the liver was healthy, and gave no indications that the woman had been drinking”. A liver doesn't suddenly become unhealthy-looking after an evening booze-up; it takes years of regular alcohol abuse. It was signs of the latter that Saunders was looking for, and for which he found no indications.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

You have me in a quandary.

Who should I believe? You or Dr. Saunders?

Regards,

Simon

Simon.

No need to loose any sleep over this, Casebook is the place where members often believe what they want to believe.
Some of us can only state what is correct and let others decide for themselves.
I'm explaining Saunders, not contesting him.

[packers stem]

We know from Brown's report that Saunders was wrong about the remaining kidney so its quite possible he was also wrong about the liver .
He was a chemist , as Jon pointed out earlier in the post .It wasn't his field of expertise .
Maybe he shouldn't have been commenting on them

[packers stem]

There is no contradiction. Saunders said "the liver was healthy, and gave no indications that the woman drank”, not "the liver was healthy, and gave no indications that the woman had been drinking”. A liver doesn't suddenly become unhealthy-looking after an evening booze-up; it takes years of regular alcohol abuse. It was signs of the latter that Saunders was looking for, and for which he found no indications.

Everyone who knew Eddowes claimed she had had a drink problem for many years

[Sam Flynn]

Everyone who knew Eddowes claimed she had had a drink problem for many years

That doesn't mean she was consuming alcohol of sufficient strength with sufficient frequency to permanently damage her liver. Many of the other WM victims had "drink problems" too and, as far as I can recall, none of them had cirrhotic livers either.

[packers stem]

That doesn't mean she was consuming alcohol of sufficient strength with sufficient frequency to permanently damage her liver. Many of the other WM victims had "drink problems" too and, as far as I can recall, none of them had cirrhotic livers either.

May just not have been picked up on the others .
Point is she did have brights disease , which was noted by Brown's description of the remaining kidney during the autopsy though not directly mentioned by name , yet Saunders denied this completely for some reason .
Showing his denials are not to be taken seriously

[Batman]

Signs could be subtle or debatable. Poison detection is done by chemical reactions with contents of the stomach. Brights would be examined using microscopy with optics not much better than a magnifying glass.

She probably wasn't chronic.

[John G]

Bright's disease is an archaic classification, which essentially referred to inflammation of the kidney cells. As the causes are numerous and diverse-kidney stones being the most common cause- it is a pretty meaningless description.

[packers stem]

Bright's disease is an archaic classification, which essentially referred to inflammation of the kidney cells. As the causes are numerous and diverse-kidney stones being the most common cause- it is a pretty meaningless description.

The importance is not the cause John
It's the denial of its existence by Saunders despite Brown's autopsy .... was Saunders really there ?
Did he stay ?
If he did then why the nonsense over the stomach as had he been there at the time he would know full well that Brown removed and examined the contents.
He would also have heard Brown's description of the remaining kidney .

[Batman]

Bright's disease is an archaic classification, which essentially referred to inflammation of the kidney cells. As the causes are numerous and diverse-kidney stones being the most common cause- it is a pretty meaningless description.

This is it. On the exterior, the organ may have appeared just fine, but opening it up can reveal the extent of a 'disease'. So an appearance of a healthy organ can change quite dramatically upon pathology tests (dissection and analysis) and reveal the cause of something like renal failure of what was thought to be a healthy organ.

[John G]

The importance is not the cause John
It's the denial of its existence by Saunders despite Brown's autopsy .... was Saunders really there ?
Did he stay ?
If he did then why the nonsense over the stomach as had he been there at the time he would know full well that Brown removed and examined the contents.
He would also have heard Brown's description of the remaining kidney .

I see what you mean. Clearly Dr Saunders is contradicted by Dr Brown, which suggests to me that he wasn't present at the autopsy. Or if he was present, he wasn't paying attention!