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

[packers stem]

Our source for the Bright's Disease reference is Major Henry "Reliable Memoirs" Smith, isn't it?

Not at all
"Right kidney pale , bloodless , with slight congestion of the base of the pyramids .
To quote the A-Z
"There is no dispute ,however , that N P Warren is correct in saying that this report does show clear signs of Brights Disease in the right kidney "

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.

What is your interpretation of the words "as to that" following the line "I have not examined the stomach" ?
Altering the context of a sentence by omitting words doesn't help anybody

[packers stem]

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?

Either are possible Debs
All sorts of possibilities with this really

[Sam Flynn]

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 ?

I don't know. Perhaps it's possible to tell whether some poisons have been administered by the outward appearance of the stomach?

That aside, my observation about what that particular source said was accurate. He did not say "I have not examined the contents", but "I have not examined the stomach".

[packers stem]

That aside, my observation about what that particular source said was accurate. He did not say "I have not examined the contents", but "I have not examined the stomach".

Not really Gareth as you keep leaving off the words "as to that" which are vital to the context of the sentence .
He hadn't examined the content in relation to narcotics .
At no point did he say he hadn't examined the content , quite the opposite , he confirmed that he had removed the content which seemed little in the way of food or fluid .
And personally I think the jurors' question caught him and the inquest off guard .
Sending the stomach and contents to Saunders the conclusion of an after thought

[Wickerman]

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...

Ah, but just a second. We havn't finished with the last point you raised.
You said:
"So you're completely ignoring that he said he removed the content of the stomach ?"

When I replied, you then said:
"Unfortunately ,that falls down unless the press said abdomen .
They didn't"

But that reply was not true, was it.
The press do not even cover that portion of testimony.
So you have no examples to contest what I suggested.

Moving on...

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.

One of the points I endeavour to impress on posters is to not pick one press version that just happens to suit their theory. All the press versions need to be looked at because quite often the reporter will paraphrase testimony. So we can't be sure what a witness actually said.
A collective analysis of various press versions is more likely to provide a clearer picture of what the witness meant.

You have chosen the previous quote from the Daily Telegraph, and it suggests to you that Brown examined the stomach.

What does the Times say?
"By a juryman. - He did not think any drug was administered to the woman, judging from the breath; but he had not yet examined the contents of the stomach."

What does the Daily News say?
"By the Jury - I am going to examine the stomach on a future occasion to see if any drug had been administered."

So when we look at other press versions we get a better picture of what Dr Brown meant.
That he had not examined the stomach. Which is what we are saying he meant in the court version.

Now, you have your answer.
Any blame for the misunderstanding should be placed with the Daily Telegraph reporter, not Dr Brown.

[Bridewell]

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

You're right inasmuch as a witness can only give evidence of opinion in an area in which he is deemed to be an expert.

[Bridewell]

Brown says,

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

He doesn't say what he removed the contents of the stomach from. The best way of doing this, I would have thought, would be leaving the contents in their existing container - i.e. the stomach itself.

We seem to be in danger of making a major issue of what is in all probability a minor semantic discrepancy. In all probability Brown meant that he removed the stomach and its contents from the abdomen. That would fit with the Saunders account.

[packers stem]

Ah, but just a second. We havn't finished with the last point you raised.
You said:
"So you're completely ignoring that he said he removed the content of the stomach ?"

When I replied, you then said:
"Unfortunately ,that falls down unless the press said abdomen .
They didn't"

But that reply was not true, was it.
The press do not even cover that portion of testimony.
So you have no examples to contest what I suggested.

Moving on...


One of the points I endeavour to impress on posters is to not pick one press version that just happens to suit their theory. All the press versions need to be looked at because quite often the reporter will paraphrase testimony. So we can't be sure what a witness actually said.
A collective analysis of various press versions is more likely to provide a clearer picture of what the witness meant.

You have chosen the previous quote from the Daily Telegraph, and it suggests to you that Brown examined the stomach.

What does the Times say?
"By a juryman. - He did not think any drug was administered to the woman, judging from the breath; but he had not yet examined the contents of the stomach."

What does the Daily News say?
"By the Jury - I am going to examine the stomach on a future occasion to see if any drug had been administered."

So when we look at other press versions we get a better picture of what Dr Brown meant.
That he had not examined the stomach. Which is what we are saying he meant in the court version.

Now, you have your answer.
Any blame for the misunderstanding should be placed with the Daily Telegraph reporter, not Dr Brown.

Jon , you endeavour to impress on posters ... ?
The telegraph is regarded by most serious researchers as the primary press source ....
And that includes having a book written covering its accounts , sourcebook and casebook .
There is very good reason for this .
Telegraph accounts are written word for word to the best of the ability of the writer .
.
The questions from the coroner, the questions from the jury ..... these are included unlike other accounts which in most cases are written in summary fashion where the journalist has transposed into his own words
You should be wary of trawling every newspaper account in the search for something to back up your point .
It can lead you up the wrong path like with Sarah (four stories) Lewis where you don't fancy the court records or the primary newspaper sources so go for some regional newspaper account that suits .

You have said that you believe the official records to be incorrect because you have no press account to back it up .
I will not accept that .
That means the dismissal of the entire section of Brown's report concerning the injuries that wasn't released .... we have to trust the court record in this instance and there is absolutely no reason to disregard it .
Only when there are press reports , from a primary press source , that contradict should we question it .There aren't any .

You will believe what you choose to believe
Doesn't make it correct

[packers stem]

Brown says,

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

He doesn't say what he removed the contents of the stomach from. The best way of doing this, I would have thought, would be leaving the contents in their existing container - i.e. the stomach itself.

We seem to be in danger of making a major issue of what is in all probability a minor semantic discrepancy. In all probability Brown meant that he removed the stomach and its contents from the abdomen. That would fit with the Saunders account.

No , quite clearly
The content of the stomach is what it says on the tin.
Had he meant he removed the stomach from the abdomen he would have said as much .

The problem of semantics is only being raised because it seems some refuse to accept what Brown said .

[Wickerman]

Jon , you endeavour to impress on posters ... ?

Yes, I know what it sounds like. In other words, I've been kicking that can down the road for years.
Some posters will choose one press version that they can manipulate to support their theory, all the while ignoring other reports which show their theory is wrong.

The telegraph is regarded by most serious researchers as the primary press source ....
And that includes having a book written covering its accounts , sourcebook and casebook.

No, I've explained what "serious" researchers do.
Collate all the sources, not cherry-pick one favorite.

You seem to make reference to The News From Whitechapel?, which used the Daily Telegraph - is that what you mean?
I knew all the collaborators to that volume, and they used the D.T. because that is the only source they had. Dave Yost had a number of copies of that newspaper, thats why they use it. It was readily available.
Not sure what you mean by "sourcebook", are you referring to Evans & Skinner? They used the Times.

There is very good reason for this .
Telegraph accounts are written word for word to the best of the ability of the writer .

I just gave you the reason why they used the D.T.
But, you can't judge the accuracy of one sentence by some general belief that the paper is "the primary press source".
Each sentence needs to be judged on its own merit.
Some paragraphs & sentences in the D.T. are different to the same sections in the court record.

There are other newspapers which provide testimony in quotes, and often it is different to other so-called quoted sections of testimony.
They can't all be right.

When the court record, which only provides witness responses (ie; no questions), differs from the quoted testimony in the Telegraph, who do you believe?

Like I keep saying, don't choose one source. Collate all the sources. Only then can you present a credible opinion on what the witness meant.

It can lead you up the wrong path like with Sarah (four stories) Lewis where you don't fancy the court records or the primary newspaper sources so go for some regional newspaper account that suits .

You seem to have the wrong end of the stick, if you are referring to a genuine discussion.
There were no regional newspapers in that debate, just national.
Also, I compared the court testimony with nearly 20 press versions, line by line. Which is why I know the deficiencies of the court record in the Kelly case. I did the work, I wasn't guessing or trying to promote a theory.

You have said that you believe the official records to be incorrect because you have no press account to back it up .
I will not accept that .

I don't mind you contesting what I say, but it seems you have not understood my point.
The court record is not a verbatim account of the inquest, it couldn't be because it was written in long-hand. No-one has the time to capture everything said when writing in long-hand. So the court record only provides select testimony, and some paraphrasing. Specifically, no questions, and no summary by the coroner.

However, the press used short-hand, so their coverage is more complete. The press versions include details that the court record did not capture. Where this is not the case it is often because some medical details are not fit to print in the newspaper, so certain lurid or shocking details may be omitted by the press.

So overall we often find the press give a broader outline of what was said, but, they also include some paraphrasing & direct quotes. It's a mixture.
There is no verbatim account of any inquest testimony in these murders, sadly we only have Eddowes & Kelly with which to judge.

That means the dismissal of the entire section of Brown's report concerning the injuries that wasn't released .... we have to trust the court record in this instance and there is absolutely no reason to disregard it .

Yes, like in cases of shocking details we have little choice but to accept the court version.

Yet, getting back to the sentence in question, if you collate the press versions (as I said in the last post), you will better understand Dr Brown's meaning - that he did not examine the contents of the stomach.

[packers stem]

Sorry Jon
Running around with press reports is not going to give any justification to denial of the wording of the official inquest report .
There is nothing to suggest the records are incorrect .
Brown's testimony is one of the cornerstones we should be working from .

If you personally don't wish to believe what he said that is your choice .
I'm sure you will be very much in the minority .

[Wickerman]

Nick.

At last count about six members; GUT, Kattrup, Joshua, Sam, Bridewell and myself all do not agree that there is some conflict between what Brown & Saunders said about analyzing the stomach.

None of these members have invested in any collective theory about this murder. In fact there is likely some details in this murder that we, collectively, would not agree on.
Yet, on this point alone you have been given six different & independent opinions on what was meant by the two surgeons, all in agreement.

Yet, you think we are wrong?

Here we are seeing a stark difference between trying to understand what was meant, and promoting a personal theory.

[packers stem]

Nick.

At last count about six members; GUT, Kattrup, Joshua, Sam, Bridewell and myself all do not agree that there is some conflict between what Brown & Saunders said about analyzing the stomach.

None of these members have invested in any collective theory about this murder. In fact there is likely some details in this murder that we, collectively, would not agree on.
Yet, on this point alone you have been given six different & independent opinions on what was meant by the two surgeons, all in agreement.

Yet, you think we are wrong?

Here we are seeing a stark difference between trying to understand what was meant, and promoting a personal theory.

Jon it isn't difficult .
It's in plain English .

" i removed the content of the stomach" sounds like precisely what it's meant to sound like .
It's nothing to do with promoting a theory , it's about getting to the truth .
You list a number of people who , as far as I can see , dropped out of the conversation which usually suggests that they know there is no argument .
You have continued but don't try to create a group of followers as a way to back up your point .
The same post elsewhere and yours was the only dissenting voice , does that mean that everybody else who viewed the thread agreed with me ?

It's basic English Jon , it's about nothing else .

[Sam Flynn]

You list a number of people who , as far as I can see , dropped out of the conversation which usually suggests that they know there is no argument

How decent of you to admit it

[packers stem]

How decent of you to admit it

Had Jon had a case you would have followed I'm sure 😉