Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    No, I don't think so.
    Brown did not examine the contents of the stomach for the presence of a drug
    That's correct , he confirmed that much

    or anything else.
    That's not correct
    He confirmed perfectly clearly that the content ( that he had confirmed that he had removed from the stomach) seemed very little in the way of food or fluid .

    Note content .....so in that same sentence the it could equally refer to the content .

    I find it highly unlikely that the stomach ,minus the already removed content (the removal of which can't be in question without disregarding the rest of Brown's testimony ) , would be of any use to Saunders , therefore unless Brown put the content back in , he sent the content in a jar .
    Either way , it was not uninterfered with .
    Saunders could not possibly have received the stomach ,containing content , as he stated .
    Why he said he did is what should be important here
    You can lead a horse to water.....

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by packers stem View Post

      He confirmed perfectly clearly that the content ( that he had confirmed that he had removed from the stomach) seemed very little in the way of food or fluid .
      Saunders did say the stomach had not been interfered with, so it had not been opened.
      You seem to be forgetting Brown was an experienced surgeon. How many hundreds of stomachs do you think he has lifted out of an abdomen in his years of practice?
      Don't you think he could tell by the weight alone that there was little "food or fluid" in this stomach?

      He was quoted as saying:
      "There seemed very little in it in the way of food or fluid,.."

      If he had opened the stomach he would know for sure, he wouldn't say "seemed".
      His words "seemed very little" indicate he had not opened it, he was guessing. Which in turn suggests he was judging by the weight - the stomach was light, not heavy as it would be if it contained substantial food or fluid.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
        Saunders did say the stomach had not been interfered with, so it had not been opened.
        You seem to be forgetting Brown was an experienced surgeon. How many hundreds of stomachs do you think he has lifted out of an abdomen in his years of practice?
        Don't you think he could tell by the weight alone that there was little "food or fluid" in this stomach?

        He was quoted as saying:
        "There seemed very little in it in the way of food or fluid,.."

        If he had opened the stomach he would know for sure, he wouldn't say "seemed".
        His words "seemed very little" indicate he had not opened it, he was guessing. Which in turn suggests he was judging by the weight - the stomach was light, not heavy as it would be if it contained substantial food or fluid.
        So you're completely ignoring that he said he removed the content of the stomach ?
        Any particular reason why you brush past this rather clear statement ?
        You can lead a horse to water.....

        Comment


        • #49
          Yes, I put that error down to the court recorder who wrote 'stomach' for abdomen.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
            Yes, I put that error down to the court recorder who wrote 'stomach' for abdomen.
            Unfortunately ,that falls down unless the press said abdomen .
            They didn't
            They repeated stomach
            So there was no error .

            We can run around this forever and a day
            One of them was wrong
            I'm sticking with Brown giving us the correct version of events .
            You can go with Saunders if you wish but both can't be correct .
            It is that simple
            You can lead a horse to water.....

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by packers stem View Post
              Unfortunately ,that falls down unless the press said abdomen .
              They didn't
              They repeated stomach
              So there was no error .
              Ok, but can you show me which press used the quote you took from the A-Z in your first post?
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                Ok, but can you show me which press used the quote you took from the A-Z in your first post?
                You know that that section was kept back from the public
                He did however mention the contents of the stomach in response to the jury

                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.

                "I have not examined the stomach as to that

                This clearly means that he had examined the contents but not tested for drugs .
                Had he not said "as to that " you may have had a point .
                You haven't .
                He also stated that the contents have been preserved for further analysis .
                No mention of them still being in the stomach or even of the idea that the stomach itself would be analysed
                You can lead a horse to water.....

                Comment


                • #53
                  Well, we know that her stomach didn't kill her, so why the fuss?
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                    Well, we know that her stomach didn't kill her, so why the fuss?
                    If Saunders was being economical with the truth regarding the arrival of the stomach and it's contents how much weight do his findings hold ?
                    Stomach contents of the rest of the C5 were not packed off to Saunders or any other chemist that we know of.
                    In the Stride case we know that to be true as Phillips was asked to recheck the stomach for grapes .
                    A bucket was delivered to Phillips from Miller's court that people suppose was the stomach although we have nothing concrete but again ,no independent 'expert' in the field .
                    Why Eddowes ? Was it down to the comment of the juror or were there other reasons to believe that she may have been drugged ?
                    You can lead a horse to water.....

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by packers stem View Post
                      If Saunders was being economical with the truth regarding the arrival of the stomach and it's contents how much weight do his findings hold ?
                      From what I've seen here, it could well be that there was some inconsistency in the press and/or inquest records, which would hardly be Saunders' fault. Given his training and long experience (not every Tom, Dick or Harry gets an obit. in the British Medical Journal), I'd suggest that his findings would have carried quite some weight.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                        From what I've seen here, it could well be that there was some inconsistency in the press and/or inquest records, which would hardly be Saunders' fault. Given his training and long experience (not every Tom, Dick or Harry gets an obit. in the British Medical Journal), I'd suggest that his findings would have carried quite some weight.
                        He missed the symptoms of Brights disease in the remaining kidney and was adamant it was healthy which wasn't a great start .
                        Not sure where you see an inconsistency in the records of Brown's testimony .There is only one record of what he did with the stomach content and that's the official one .
                        There are press records of him being asked about the possibility of drugs in which again he confirmed that he had checked the content but not for drugs
                        You can lead a horse to water.....

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by packers stem View Post
                          [Brown] did however mention the contents of the stomach in response to the jury

                          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.

                          "I have not examined the stomach as to that

                          This clearly means that he had examined the contents but not tested for drugs.
                          Not quite. He says "I have not examined the stomach", not "I have not examined the contents of the stomach" and goes on to mention separately that the contents of the stomach have been preserved for analysis. I don't know that Dr Brown would have possessed the necessary equipment to conduct such an analysis anyway, which might explain why he handed that particular task over to Saunders. (If Brown had been able to do the analysis himself, why didn't he?)
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by packers stem View Post
                            He missed the symptoms of Brights disease in the remaining kidney and was adamant it was healthy which wasn't a great start .
                            Our source for the Bright's Disease reference is Major Henry "Reliable Memoirs" Smith, isn't it?
                            There are press records of him being asked about the possibility of drugs in which again he confirmed that he had checked the content but not for drugs
                            See my post immediately above. If that's the press record you're referring to, Brown said nothing about examining the contents of the stomach, but that said contents had been preserved for analysis.
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by packers stem View Post
                              Why Eddowes ? Was it down to the comment of the juror or were there other reasons to believe that she may have been drugged ?
                              Nick, could it be because Eddowes was the only murder to be dealt with by the City Police and their divisional surgeon and various professionals? I have mentioned before the previous City analyst, Meymott Tidy, who was the author of Medical Jurisprudence texts and wrote chapters on how a crime scene should be dealt with in terms of taking sketches and describing the clothing of the victims and any corresponding wound and clothing weapon marks. They seemed to be pretty organised and efficient.

                              Or maybe Coroner MacDonald sparked something off when he wrote to the Star(?) on 4th October asking if Eddowes stomach had been analysed for poison?
                              ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

                              I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                                Not quite. He says "I have not examined the stomach", not "I have not examined the contents of the stomach"
                                Why would you think he would mean the stomach minus its contents as by this point he had already confirmed that he had removed the content from the stomach ?
                                You can lead a horse to water.....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X