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

[Batman]

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!

I go with the latter because I really doubt they were focusing on a cause of death from renal failure with the sight before them.

[Joshua Rogan]

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!

Times 1 Oct

"In the afternoon a post-mortem examination of the body was made by Dr. Brown, assisted by Dr. Sequeira, Dr. Phillips, and Dr. M'Kellar (the chief surgeon of the Metropolitan Police). Dr. Yarrow (H Division Metropolitan Police) and Dr. Sedgwick Saunders were also present at the examination. It may be stated that up to a late hour last night the body had not been identified."

[Wickerman]

Does this contention really boil down to Brown saying:
"...right kidney pale bloodless with slight congestion of the pyramids".

And, Saunders saying:
"You may take it that the right kidney of the woman Eddowes was perfectly normal in its structure and healthy,..."

"Perfectly normal", for a 46 year old woman?

Is there really an issue here?

[packers stem]

Does this contention really boil down to Brown saying:
"...right kidney pale bloodless with slight congestion of the pyramids".

And, Saunders saying:
"You may take it that the right kidney of the woman Eddowes was perfectly normal in its structure and healthy,..."

"Perfectly normal", for a 46 year old woman?

Is there really an issue here?

Well yes ..... that's one issue .
I guess you prefer to ignore contradictory statements , palpably incorrect ones in Saunders case ?

[Wickerman]

Ok, and the other issue seems to be the point you raised in the first post.

Brown said.
"I removed the contents of the stomach and placed it in a jar for further examination."

And Saunders said.
"I received the stomach of the deceased from Dr. Gordon Brown, carefully sealed with his own private seal. It had been carefully tied, and the contents had not been interfered with in any way."

But notice Brown is talking about a single organ - the stomach, "placed IT in a jar". The contents of the stomach could only be food in various stages of digestion.
Common sense tells you that a physician conducting an autopsy is not going to slice open the stomach and scoop out the contents when he only needs to tie both ends and remove the 'bag' (stomach) as a single organ.

The contents of the stomach (food) need to be analyzed away from contamination. You can't do that if you open the stomach and expose the contents inside while conducting the autopsy.
Chemical analysis of the stomach contents was beyond Brown's capability, so he had to seal the stomach and send it away with Saunders.
Which was probably why Saunders was invited to attend in the first place.

Saunders is more detailed in what he says he received, but remember neither doctor wrote those words themselves.
Browns testimony was written down by the court recorder, not a trained physician. whereas Saunders words were written by a reporter.

So, in each case whether those were their precise words is open to some debate.

Given the facts listed above, as several have pointed out here, there is no cause to take issue with either statement. Both statements are mutually supportive.

However, all that aside, I don't remember you explaining your end game. What precisely is it that you think you see?

You seem to think Brown is the senior party here, I am not so sure. Saunders was highly trained, he was the equal of Brown as a surgeon, but he also was a professional in chemical analysis. I called him a chemist, which was probably demeaning his stature to some degree. Which was not my intent.

[packers stem]

Ok, and the other issue seems to be the point you raised in the first post.

Brown said.
"I removed the contents of the stomach and placed it in a jar for further examination."

And Saunders said.
"I received the stomach of the deceased from Dr. Gordon Brown, carefully sealed with his own private seal. It had been carefully tied, and the contents had not been interfered with in any way."

But notice Brown is talking about a single organ - the stomach, "placed IT in a jar". The contents of the stomach could only be food in various stages of digestion.
Common sense tells you that a physician conducting an autopsy is not going to slice open the stomach and scoop out the contents when he only needs to tie both ends and remove the 'bag' (stomach) as a single organ.

The contents of the stomach (food) need to be analyzed away from contamination. You can't do that if you open the stomach and expose the contents inside while conducting the autopsy.
Chemical analysis of the stomach contents was beyond Brown's capability, so he had to seal the stomach and send it away with Saunders.
Which was probably why Saunders was invited to attend in the first place.

Saunders is more detailed in what he says he received, but remember neither doctor wrote those words themselves.
Browns testimony was written down by the court recorder, not a trained physician. whereas Saunders words were written by a reporter.

So, in each case whether those were their precise words is open to some debate.

Given the facts listed above, as several have pointed out here, there is no cause to take issue with either statement. Both statements are mutually supportive.

However, all that aside, I don't remember you explaining your end game. What precisely is it that you think you see?

You seem to think Brown is the senior party here, I am not so sure. Saunders was highly trained, he was the equal of Brown as a surgeon, but he also was a professional in chemical analysis. I called him a chemist, which was probably demeaning his stature to some degree. Which was not my intent.

I'm not sure why you're struggling with this Jon

Brown
I removed the content of the stomach and placed it in a jar for further examination. There seemed very little in it in the way of food or fluid, but from the cut end partly digested farinaceous food escaped .

Saunders
"I received the stomach of the deceased from Dr. Gordon Brown, carefully sealed with his own private seal. It had been carefully tied, and the contents had not been interfered with in any way."


It doesn't get clearer and requires no explanation
I can only assume that Dr Saunders is so important to your theory that you are trying to rewrite the language 😊

[packers stem]

Could It be that Saunders was one of the two doctors who felt the killer displayed no medical knowledge in mitre square ?

[Wickerman]

I'm not sure why you're struggling with this Jon

Brown
I removed the content of the stomach and placed it in a jar for further examination. There seemed very little in it in the way of food or fluid, but from the cut end partly digested farinaceous food escaped .

Saunders
"I received the stomach of the deceased from Dr. Gordon Brown, carefully sealed with his own private seal. It had been carefully tied, and the contents had not been interfered with in any way."


It doesn't get clearer and requires no explanation

But it is clear to me. That is why I am puzzled why you keep hinting at a problem.
I don't see one.

Brown is saying there was little food in the stomach, but some partly digested food escaped as he removed the organ.
This could only be from the lower end (pyloric sphincter), as the upper end (esophagus) is where undigested food enters the stomach.
So, some food escaped?
Why is this an issue?

Saunders says nothing to contradict this.

I can only assume that Dr Saunders is so important to your theory that you are trying to rewrite the language 😊

I can't imagine anything I have spoken about that includes Saunders, or his opinions.

Could It be that Saunders was one of the two doctors who felt the killer displayed no medical knowledge in mitre square ?

I've heard enough experienced medical opinion here on Casebook over the years to allow me to think the killer did display some expertise.
I don't think the killer was a surgeon, but he did have some limited experience, in my opinion.

[packers stem]

But it is clear to me. That is why I am puzzled why you keep hinting at a problem.
I don't see one.

Brown is saying there was little food in the stomach, but some partly digested food escaped as he removed the organ.
This could only be from the lower end (pyloric sphincter), as the upper end (esophagus) is where undigested food enters the stomach.
So, some food escaped?
Why is this an issue?

Saunders says nothing to contradict this.

He doesn't say anything to contradict the fact that some partly digested food escaped .
What he does contradict is the first line from Brown

I removed the content of the stomach ...

If someone found a wallet and removed the credit cards and placed them in a seperate envelope .He then passes the wallet to someone who says the contents of the wallet hadn't been interfered with would you a see a contradiction ?

I'm surprised you can't see the issue

[Sam Flynn]

Surely "interference" would have constituted Brown actively altering the contents of the stomach (e.g. washing it out with saline or infusing it in preserving fluid), not the accidental spillage of some food.

[packers stem]

Surely "interference" would have constituted Brown actively altering the contents of the stomach (e.g. washing it out with saline or infusing it in preserving fluid), not the accidental spillage of some food.

When Brown stated the he removed the content ...... it is what it says on the tin

[Sam Flynn]

When Brown stated the he removed the contents ...... it is what it says on the tin

If something had been removed, one wouldn't describe it as having been "interfered with", unless one were being extremely euphemistic (cf. "Annie Chapman's uterus was interfered with"... no, it was removed).

I can't help feeling that something has gone missing in translation here. How would Brown be able to "remove" the contents of the stomach whilst leaving it otherwise intact, unless he used a pump or several scoops with a long spoon?

Furthermore, why would he even want to remove the contents, if he intended to send the stomach for further analysis?

[packers stem]

If something had been removed, one wouldn't describe it as having been "interfered with", unless one were being extremely euphemistic (cf. "Annie Chapman's uterus was interfered with"... no, it was removed).

I can't help feeling that something has gone missing in translation here. How would Brown be able to "remove" the contents of the stomach whilst leaving it otherwise intact, unless he used a pump or several scoops with a long spoon?

Furthermore, why would he even want to remove the contents, if he intended to send the stomach for further analysis?

The answer is in the telegraph of the 5th

Telegraph of the 5th ....

"Juror: Was there any evidence of a drug having been used? - I have not examined the stomach as to that. The contents of the stomach have been preserved for analysis."

Seems obvious that the idea that the stomach contents should be sent to Saunders was prompted by the question from the juror .
The testimony shows that at that point Brown had examined the stomach content but not tested for narcotics .
Saunders was just in his own world it seems

[packers stem]

This likely explains the long adjournement before Saunders being called

[Wickerman]

The answer is in the telegraph of the 5th

Telegraph of the 5th ....

"Juror: Was there any evidence of a drug having been used? - I have not examined the stomach as to that. The contents of the stomach have been preserved for analysis."

Seems obvious that the idea that the stomach contents should be sent to Saunders was prompted by the question from the juror .
The testimony shows that at that point Brown had examined the stomach content but not tested for narcotics .
Saunders was just in his own world it seems

No, I don't think so.
Brown did not examine the contents of the stomach for the presence of a drug, or anything else. He preserved the whole stomach for analysis.
Thats what he says.
He doesn't say why, that's all. The 'why' is the reason Saunders was at the autopsy, Brown was giving the stomach to Saunders.

Saunders will have been at the autopsy at the request of Dr. Brown. This is the custom.

The coroner is the one who decides if an autopsy is necessary, and he assigns one surgeon to lead the autopsy - Dr. Brown.
Any other professionals in attendance need the permission of Dr Brown to be there.
So, Saunders was there at the request of Dr Brown.
Given Saunder's expertise in chemical analysis, there must have been some question as to what Eddowes might have in her stomach.

There's nothing here. It's just a formal procedure that can be found at any autopsy.