Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

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

    Daily News 12th Oct .
    Dr. W.F. Saunders, 13 Queen street, Fellow of the Chemical Society, and public analyst of the City of London deposed: 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. I carefully examined the stomach and its contents more particularly for poisons of the narcotic class, with negative results, there being not the faintest trace of those or any other poison.

    The reality from Brown .....

    Taken from the A-Z page 72

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


    These statements can not possibly be reconciled .
    This can not be human error .
    Why did Saunders say what he said ?
    You can lead a horse to water.....

  • #2
    What’s wrong with it.

    Brown removed the stomach, sealed it in a jar an$ passed it on to saunders
    G U T

    There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by GUT View Post
      What’s wrong with it.

      Brown removed the stomach, sealed it in a jar an$ passed it on to saunders
      What's wrong with it was that Saunders didn't receive a jar .
      He received a stomach with its contents uninterfered with ....
      You don't tie a jar
      You can lead a horse to water.....

      Comment


      • #4
        Brown removed the stomach, and tied up the openings so its contents would not run out. He placed it in a jar and sealed the jar with his own private seal.

        Saunders received the jar and examined the stomach.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by packers stem View Post
          What's wrong with it was that Saunders didn't receive a jar .
          He received a stomach with its contents uninterfered with ....
          You don't tie a jar
          No the stomach was tied, not the jar. The tied stomach was then placed Ina. Jar and the jar sealed, pretty simple really if you have ever been in a morgue.
          G U T

          There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
            Brown removed the stomach, and tied up the openings so its contents would not run out. He placed it in a jar and sealed the jar with his own private seal.

            Saunders received the jar and examined the stomach.
            Exactly.
            G U T

            There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by GUT View Post
              No the stomach was tied, not the jar. The tied stomach was then placed Ina. Jar and the jar sealed, pretty simple really if you have ever been in a morgue.
              Simple if you want to make things up but it's quite straight forward what Brown said ....

              "I removed the contents of the stomach ...."

              And from the evening news of the 5th from Browns testimony ....

              "Examination showed that there was very little in the stomach in the way of food or fluid."
              You can lead a horse to water.....

              Comment


              • #8
                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."

                Clear from reports that as of the 5th he had examined the stomach for fluid and food but not for drugs .
                The question raised by the member of the jury may explain why the contents were then forwarded to Saunders and the long adjournement before Saunders being called ..
                It does not explain his nonsense though
                You can lead a horse to water.....

                Comment


                • #9
                  Sedgewick Saunders was at Eddowes' autopsy, so isn't it likely the stomach and contents were examined by Brown in his presence, then passed directly to him at the time for later detailed analysis?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    He wouldn't put them directly into a jar as it's awkward to get them back out. In a cloth tied into a bag it's easier to remove and spread out on the examining table. Jar would be for storage and transport.
                    Bona fide canonical and then some.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The Evening News, 20th October 1888, interviewed Dr. William Sedgwick Saunders, Medical Officer of Health and Public Analyst for the City of London, who had appeared at Eddowes’ inquest.

                      “I think it would be quite possible to mistake it for a pig’s. You may take it that the right kidney of the woman Eddowes was perfectly normal in its structure and healthy, and by parity of reasoning, you would not get much disease in the left. The liver was healthy, and gave no indications that the woman drank.”

                      This is interesting, for just five hours prior to her death, Catherine Eddowes had allegedly been arrested for drunkenness.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Simon.

                        I think Saunders is looking for signs of liver disease as would be the case with someone with a drinking problem.
                        You can't find evidence in the liver that she went on a bender five hours before her death.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It's interesting that advances in forensic toxicology were made decades before they discovered fingerprints. Poisoners getting nabbed after science done on an exhumed body back then was an incredible breakthrough.
                          Bona fide canonical and then some.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by packers stem View Post
                            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."

                            Clear from reports that as of the 5th he had examined the stomach for fluid and food but not for drugs .
                            The question raised by the member of the jury may explain why the contents were then forwarded to Saunders and the long adjournement before Saunders being called ..
                            It does not explain his nonsense though
                            I fail to see exactly what your issue is.
                            The quotes you made in the first post are perfectly compatible.

                            Saunders was a chemist, did you know that?
                            This is why Dr Brown gave him the stomach to analyze, it was beyond Brown's expertise. Chemical analysis takes time, hence the delay in Saunders making his report.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Hi Jon,

                              Why can't you find evidence in the liver that Eddowes went on a bender five hours before her death?

                              Regards,

                              Simon

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X