Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Victimology, MO, signature

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

  • DJA
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
    You know Dave, you may be on to something. Widely ignored, Sutton may be a strong "Doctor" candidate. So say he treats Eddowes and suspects Bright's Disease. But he can't know for sure unless he operates and Eddowes won't agree. So he kills Eddowes and removes half of her kidney to conform his "external" diagnosis.

    One of our early casebook contributors, Dr. Mike Villa, an Internist, was positive the murderer had been a surgeon.

    And the George Lusk connection... didn't he build or own one of the buildings Sutton lived in?
    Thanks for your interest Scott,

    Eddowes/Conway and Nichols were both Sutton's inpatients together from December 1867. At least in my opinion.
    Both were part of a published study on rheumatic fever. The strep that causes it can eventually reside in the gut.
    It can infect/cause problems throughout the body.Related to neurasthenia/chronic fatigue syndrome.Some families are genetically prone.
    We are looking at Gull-Sutton disease. Often misunderstood.
    Due to Kate's kidney problems,that would make her a star patient research wise.
    I suspect she also had cancer, due to Mitre Square mutilations. Unrelated to the above,however suggests she was still a patient.

    Mary Ann Kelly had her own experiences with Sutton when she was about 9 years old.
    Sutton was her church's Vestry Board medical officer (along with Thomas Stevenson).
    Suffice to suggest she was blackmailing him .... again. The others joined in.
    All about Sutton's sexual orientation.

    Lusk might have renovated a small section of the London Hospital. Also attempted to join the Freemasons
    Sutton was Gull's protege. Openshaw,who started the London Hospital Lodge, was Sutton's.
    Sutton quoted St. Luke's gospel in a Freemason like manner.
    Sutton was known to investigate illness by touch.

    There is so much on Sutton ..... Stride's cachous,Chapman's TB,etc,etc.
    He is the link between the five victims.
    As the trainee nun told us ..... Mary Kelly was the key.
    Really doubt Jack's identity was that big a secret in certain circles.
    Look at how quickly Abberline was sent in.

    One gigantic cover up.

    Ciao,

    Dave Adams.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Sorry, the last post was worded badly. The conjectures were serious.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    You know Dave, you may be on to something. Widely ignored, Sutton may be a strong "Doctor" candidate. So say he treats Eddowes and suspects Bright's Disease. But he can't know for sure unless he operates and Eddowes won't agree. So he kills Eddowes and removes half of her kidney to conform his "external" diagnosis.

    One of our early casebook contributors, Dr. Mike Villa, an Internist, was positive the murderer had been a surgeon.

    And the George Lusk connection... didn't he build or own one of the buildings Sutton lived in?

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    And what about Barts, UCH, St Thomas's and the Middlesex? What if Guy's had beds available, for that matter?
    We're just interested in accuracy.
    Tautology.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by DJA View Post
    Guy's had a history of overcrowded women's wards
    And what about Barts, UCH, St Thomas's and the Middlesex? What if Guy's had beds available, for that matter?
    You and Sam simply enjoy splitting hairs.
    We're just interested in accuracy.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Why do you use the word accepted, rather than admitted?

    Do you imagine a bedridden Polly Nichols running a dangerously high temperature was rejected by her nearest hospital (Guys), which was also involved in the the rheumatic fever research, and told to cross the river to see if the London Hospital had a spare bed?
    Because she was accepted into the study when she was admitted.
    Guy's had a history of overcrowded women's wards.
    Check it out!

    She had been ill for 12 days,bedridden for 8.Perhaps the closest hospital could/would not admit her.I don't know.
    Lot worse happens here in Melbourne in 2018.
    One of the reasons I spent years fundraising for St Vincent's Hospital in Melbourne.
    Also used to help out at Ozanam House.
    Some of my alcohol and drug work was setting up the prototype for the decentralisation of services in Victoria.It was known as WDAS,Westernport Drug and Alcohol Services.That prototype has spread and been duplicated successfully.
    I spent time at the coalface in modern times.

    You and Sam simply enjoy splitting hairs.
    Last edited by DJA; 12-07-2018, 02:30 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by DJA View Post
    Indeed.

    Two of them were involved in the study.

    These two patients were accepted at the London Hospital.

    Life is like that.
    Why do you use the word accepted, rather than admitted?

    Do you imagine a bedridden Polly Nichols running a dangerously high temperature was rejected by her nearest hospital (Guys), which was also involved in the the rheumatic fever research, and told to cross the river to see if the London Hospital had a spare bed?
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 12-07-2018, 01:41 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Indeed, but Central London had - and still has - many, many hospitals. Guy's, Bart's, St Thomas's, Middlesex and UCH were all big hospitals which were closer to where Nichols and Eddowes were living in 1867.
    Indeed.

    Two of them were involved in the study.

    These two patients were accepted at the London Hospital.

    Life is like that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by DJA View Post
    They would have been admitted where there was room for them,preferably with some relative peace and quiet.
    Indeed, but Central London had - and still has - many, many hospitals. Guy's, Bart's, St Thomas's, Middlesex and UCH were all big hospitals which were closer to where Nichols and Eddowes were living in 1867.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Who was the author?

    Leave a comment:


  • Batman
    replied
    Originally posted by DJA View Post
    You have a very fertile mind.

    OK,so which of the CV5?
    Eddowes

    Behind this, the liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument. Below this was another incision into the liver of about two and a half inches, and below this the left lobe of the liver was slit through by a vertical cut.

    There was a cut from the upper part of the slit on the under surface of the liver to the left side, and another cut at right angles to this, which were about an inch and a half deep and two and a half inches long. Liver itself was healthy.

    The pancreas was cut, but not through, on the left side of the spinal column.

    Three and a half inches of the lower border of the spleen by half an inch was attached only to the peritoneum.

    None of that has medical value.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Originally posted by Batman View Post
    You do realize that many of JtR's victims had their internal organs slashed, including kidney piercing, which, has no known medical value at all.
    You have a very fertile mind.

    OK,so which of the CV5?

    Leave a comment:


  • Batman
    replied
    Originally posted by DJA View Post

    Excerpt from Wikipedia .....

    Gull and Sutton point out that Dr. Bright and others have fully recognised that the granular contracted kidney is usually associated with morbid changes in other organs of the body and that these co-existent changes were commonly grouped together and termed "chronic Bright's disease." The prevailing opinion at the time was that the kidney was the organ primarily affected, inducing a condition that would spread to other parts of the body and thereby cause other organs to suffer.
    You do realize that many of JtR's victims had their internal organs slashed, including kidney piercing, which, has no known medical value at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    In this instance, though, isn't it a case of two women who lived elsewhere in London being treated in an East End hospital?

    I'm basing that on Gary's helpful info about Eddowes living in Westminster in 1867. Thanks, Gary... and Debs.
    They would have been admitted where there was room for them,preferably with some relative peace and quiet.

    Still happens today in Melbourne,Sydney and Brisbane.
    Lost my sister-in-law in September 2012 in Sydney and my brother on 28 June this year in Brisbane.
    Both had to travel from one side of town to the other.

    A significant part of my early research centered on Guy's Hospital.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
    Yes, there’s no real reason to assume that MAN or Cath C are Nichols and Eddowes, nor to assume there’s any significance to it if they are - but of course it would interesting to know

    Doesn’t seem very likely, though, the ages are off and the names very common.
    Sutton had a recurring problem with maths.
    It is why most people have his age wrong.

    Both women had a strep infection that resides in the intestines,which is known to travel to the kidneys.

    Odd that two similar women resided next to each other before their murders.

    Excerpt from Wikipedia .....

    Gull and Sutton point out that Dr. Bright and others have fully recognised that the granular contracted kidney is usually associated with morbid changes in other organs of the body and that these co-existent changes were commonly grouped together and termed "chronic Bright's disease." The prevailing opinion at the time was that the kidney was the organ primarily affected, inducing a condition that would spread to other parts of the body and thereby cause other organs to suffer.

    Gull and Sutton argued that this assumption was incorrect. They presented evidence to show that the diseased state could also originate in other organs, and that the deterioration of the kidney is part of the general morbid change, rather than the primary cause. In some cases examined by Gull and Sutton, the kidney was only marginally affected while the condition was far more advanced in other organs.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X