Is Jack someone we have never heard of?

[Trevor Marriott]

I see that uteri and kidneys are omitted.

Helena

They would be included in the abdomen

[Debra A]

Hi Debs

I think you have to consider that there were diferent degrees of anataomical skills for example a medical student would have less skills than a doctor who in turn would have less skills than a surgeon. These doctors were obviously giving their opinions based upon their own medical and surgical skills, and not those of persons less skilled.

Hi Trevor,

Are you confusing anatomical knowledge with surgical skill? They did comment that a butcher or slaughterer would be more skilled with a knife in dissecting as they are accustomed to doing it several times on a daily basis, whereas a surgeon would rarely have to perform such dissection or limb removal.

Clearly in the case of Jackson by the reports she had been subjected to some form of illegal medical procedure (abortion) which the doctors initially considered was the cause of death. Then they change their opinions and suggest murder. Their opinions appear to be based on no hard evidence to suggest murder. The coroner then directs the jury to bring in a verdict of wilful murder. In my opionin having reviewed all of this it was a wrong verdict and it should have been left as an open verdict as were the other verdicts on the other part bodies.

It was reported by the papers that the death may have been due to an illegal operation, yes,that is something I have mentioned a great many times plus it was me that found some possible supporting evidence for that, that had never mentioned or picked up on before. However,the reason Bond and Hebbert ruled out an abortion ascause of death was the lack of internal damage that generally resulted as a consequence of the violent methods used by these types of practitioners. Bond also concluded the foetus had been removed after death, not before.

Abortion was never carried out through surgery to the abdomen or uterus, it was an internal procedure. Women who died from the result of illegal operations normally died from septicemia a few days or weeks after the procedure, that was the most common cause of death through abortion, not instant death.

The reason there were no children or old persons is quite simple, with regards to children they would not normally be considered due to the fact that the internal organs etc would not be fully developed. As to old people well as you know with old people their bodies age to the point where there is very little skin and muscle on the body and therfore the external organs are of very little use to an anatomist. So younger specimens weremuch sought after.

So, what exactly were these anatomists actually doing with these organs then? Wasn't the whole point of anatomical study to see a wide variety of different types of organs? Old, young,diseased etc.?

One has to consider that for a person to dismember a body they need some time. they also need somewhere out of the way. They then run the risk of leaving pools of blood where the dismemberment takes place. Then they run the risk of moving the body parts and being seen.

But yet that has never deterred a large number of people from using this method, especially in domestic situations. I'm sure you yourself as an ex murder squad detective must have come across at least one case?

Were the anatomists's lackys who disposed of these bodies invisible when dumping the body parts then? That carried the same risk factor seeing as it was illegal to dispose of human remains without a proper burial, no?

I would suggest that if any of these had been murdered or simlpy died of natural causes then why would the killer not simply leave the dead body behind where the murder took place or the natural death and simply disappear.

You misunderstand me. Anatomists gained their bodies from workhouses etc,yes? Unless the workhouses were bumping people off to sell off to the hospitals, anatmoists etc. the specimen had to be dead, right? In that case,an original cause of death should have been detectable in at least one case? It had to be disease or strarvation or something along those lines for young women to drop down dead?

Again, historically we know people will and do take the risk of cutting up a dead body rather than leave it where it is, especially if the murder occured on property owned by the murderer.

If I were a gambling man I would put money on perhaps the deaths being linked by reason of illegal operations being performed on the women. That would necessitate the person repsonsible having to get rid on the bodies to avoid being caught by the police. This would allow for the lack of professional medical knowledge as was described.

Except that the wonderful Drs Bond and Hebbert were there at the time, thought of that before you and discovered that one victim was a virgin who probably would never have been able to conceive and the Pinchin St victim had recently menstruated. A possibility exists with the Whitehall torso seeing as her pelvic organs and uterus were missing and never found. With Elizabeth Jackson there is a possibility death occurred as a result of attempting to procure an abortion maybe by administering a noxious substance, I have always said that, so you are not suggesting anything new, but it isn't a given. The doctors looked for traces of poision but with the windpipe and stomach missing they were unable to detect any. On rare occasions posions used in this type ofpractice sometimes killed females before the abortionists managed to damage their reproductive organs with probing instruments.

An illegal abortionist who had accidentally killed a woman would hardly then go on and sell that woman's body to an anatomist or hospital do you really think? That's two illegal practices in one fell swoop without all the accompanying paperwork. Why would an illegal abortionist risk another doctor discovering his crime? Plus, where did Elizabeth get the money for an abortion? She was homeless and sleeping rough before she died. My last point- do you honestly believe that Elizabeth died during an abortion, her body then sold to an anatomist and dissected all in the space of 24 hours between the last definite sighting of her and the first of her body parts being washed up in the Thames? Really?

I notice you didn't answer my question about examples of other similar clusters of dumped anatomical specimens in other cities, parts of London or other years? Why don't we see those if anatomists were to blame? The anatomy Act spanned a large number of years, yet we get 4 discarded anatomical specimens in 3 years and only in the Thames? Full bodies too.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Are you confusing anatomical knowledge with surgical skill? They did comment that a butcher or slaughterer would be more skilled with a knife in dissecting as they are accustomed to doing it several times on a daily basis, whereas a surgeon would rarely have to perform such dissection or limb removal.



It was reported by the papers that the death may have been due to an illegal operation, yes,that is something I have mentioned a great many times plus it was me that found some possible supporting evidence for that, that had never mentioned or picked up on before. However,the reason Bond and Hebbert ruled out an abortion ascause of death was the lack of internal damage that generally resulted as a consequence of the violent methods used by these types of practitioners. Bond also concluded the foetus had been removed after death, not before.

Abortion was never carried out through surgery to the abdomen or uterus, it was an internal procedure. Women who died from the result of illegal operations normally died from septicemia a few days or weeks after the procedure, that was the most common cause of death through abortion, not instant death.




So, what exactly were these anatomists actually doing with these organs then? Wasn't the whole point of anatomical study to see a wide variety of different types of organs? Old, young,diseased etc.?



But yet that has never deterred a large number of people from using this method, especially in domestic situations. I'm sure you yourself as an ex murder squad detective must have come across at least one case?

Were the anatomists's lackys who disposed of these bodies invisible when dumping the body parts then? That carried the same risk factor seeing as it was illegal to dispose of human remains without a proper burial, no?



You misunderstand me. Anatomists gained their bodies from workhouses etc,yes? Unless the workhouses were bumping people off to sell off to the hospitals, anatmoists etc. the specimen had to be dead, right? In that case,an original cause of death should have been detectable in at least one case? It had to be disease or strarvation or something along those lines for young women to drop down dead?

Again, historically we know people will and do take the risk of cutting up a dead body rather than leave it where it is, especially if the murder occured on property owned by the murderer.



Except that the wonderful Drs Bond and Hebbert were there at the time, thought of that before you and discovered that one victim was a virgin who probably would never have been able to conceive and the Pinchin St victim had recently menstruated. A possibility exists with the Whitehall torso seeing as her pelvic organs and uterus were missing and never found. With Elizabeth Jackson there is a possibility death occurred as a result of attempting to procure an abortion maybe by administering a noxious substance, I have always said that, so you are not suggesting anything new, but it isn't a given. The doctors looked for traces of poision but with the windpipe and stomach missing they were unable to detect any. On rare occasions posions used in this type ofpractice sometimes killed females before the abortionists managed to damage their reproductive organs with probing instruments.

An illegal abortionist who had accidentally killed a woman would hardly then go on and sell that woman's body to an anatomist or hospital do you really think? That's two illegal practices in one fell swoop without all the accompanying paperwork. Why would an illegal abortionist risk another doctor discovering his crime? Plus, where did Elizabeth get the money for an abortion? She was homeless and sleeping rough before she died. My last point- do you honestly believe that Elizabeth died during an abortion, her body then sold to an anatomist and dissected all in the space of 24 hours between the last definite sighting of her and the first of her body parts being washed up in the Thames? Really?

I notice you didn't answer my question about examples of other similar clusters of dumped anatomical specimens in other cities, parts of London or other years? Why don't we see those if anatomists were to blame? The anatomy Act spanned a large number of years, yet we get 4 discarded anatomical specimens in 3 years and only in the Thames? Full bodies too.

Debs
You are correct I didnt answer that question that was an oversight on my part the answer could have been that an illegal abortionist was operating in that area at that time and for whatever reason either stopped or was stopped.

Jackson clearly was subjected to some form of an illegal operation that is fact. As to how she obtained money for such an operation I cannot speculate, but I am sure back street abortionists were not that expensive. She could have begged stole or borrowed the money, or simply saved it up from her earnings.

I think you are missing the two points of my post I first refered to specimens being legally obtained via the anatamoy act. and then I referred to the problem with dispsosing of murder victims by dismemberment.

An illegal abortionist who has a patient die on them could not leave the body in situ where they were performing illegal operations, nor could they simply dump it in the street, so the option would be to dismember it and dispose of it bit by bit. Such a person would have limited skills to dismember which is consistent with what the doctors say.

Like it or not its a theory that cannot be dismissed in my opinion. Especially as there is no evidence to suggest foul play with regards to the other unknown female victims, and the verdict of murder on Jackson is almost farcical.

[Debra A]

Debs
You are correct I didnt answer that question that was an oversight on my part the answer could have been that an illegal abortionist was operating in that area at that time and for whatever reason either stopped or was stopped.

Jackson clearly was subjected to some form of an illegal operation that is fact. As to how she obtained money for such an operation I cannot speculate, but I am sure back street abortionists were not that expensive. She could have begged stole or borrowed the money, or simply saved it up from her earnings.

I think you are missing the two points of my post I first refered to specimens being legally obtained via the anatamoy act. and then I referred to the problem with dispsosing of murder victims by dismemberment.

An illegal abortionist who has a patient die on them could not leave the body in situ where they were performing illegal operations, nor could they simply dump it in the street, so the option would be to dismember it and dispose of it bit by bit. Such a person would have limited skills to dismember which is consistent with what the doctors say.

Like it or not its a theory that cannot be dismissed in my opinion. Especially as there is no evidence to suggest foul play with regards to the other unknown female victims, and the verdict of murder on Jackson is almost farcical.

Trevor, it is a fact in the primary source inquest material that Hebbert and Bond ruled out abortion in the case of Elizabeth Jackson due to lack of violence shown on the internal reproductive organs and related external organs. They examined her remains, that was their conclusion, anything on your part is speculation. A legal verdict of willful murder was recorded at the time by those who were there, you cannot change that just because you don't agree 120 years later.

What is your evidence that an illegal operation was performed? Removal of a foetus after the death of the mother (that is what was concluded by medical experts of the time) does not constitute an abortion.

So, in effect you are arguing two different things here?
Was there an illegal abortionist in operation or were the anatomists to blame for the bodies in the Thames?

You didn't acknowledge my points about the reason illegal abortion could not have figured for definite in two of the cases, as stated again by two experts who performed an actual autopsy on all four sets of remains, as they appeared. Yet Bond and Hebbert also thought that the dismemberment in all four cases was most likely done by the same person.The anatomical knowledge, skill in disarticulating the joints and cutting the skin around the joints the same in all four cases and knowledge and skill probably possessed by a butcher or slaughter accustomed to cutting up animals regularly.

I have never tried to dismiss the abortion theory, I have mentioned it more than anyone else on here. But, I have never tried to pass it over as definite fact either like you are trying to do, evidently without even reading the detailed medical peer reviewed papers the pair wrote on the cases. It goes against the contemporary doctors findings and conclusions and that cannot be ignored.

[RivkahChaya]

How pregnant was Elizabeth Jackson? I was under the impression that she was fairly far along in her pregnancy. An abortion at that point basically becomes induced labor, with he fetus not surviving due to prematurity. It's no more comfortable than term labor, and sometimes worse, because the contractions at the beginning of an induced labor can be very painful.

A woman is going to have some really pressing reason for aborting a pregnancy that is more than halfway along. There are lots of fiction accounts of women seeking induced labors at eight months, in order to convince people that a certain man was the father, even though he wasn't, because her relationship with him didn't begin until nine months earlier, but I don't know whether that actually happened in real life (unless someone got the idea from fiction, but people in books always seemed to have access to a tea, and weren't inducing by breaking water with a knitting needle).

You have to consider the abortionist, too. If he, or she, wants to stay in business, he's not going to take on a lot of high-risk clients. He doesn't need bodies littering his doorstep. He may already be engaging in illegal abortion, but that doesn't mean he has no concern with whether his clients survive the ordeal. In fact, since he relies on word-of-mouth advertising, and probably a certain amount of repeat business, he probably wants to make things as safe and comfortable as he reasonably can.

So, how pregnant was she?

Also, if she was really far along, do we know someone wasn't specifically after the fetus, and tried to make the murder look like a ripper murder to cover his, or her, tracks?

[Rubyretro]

but people in books always seemed to have access to a tea

tea ? tea ? er.....tea....?

[RivkahChaya]

Just makin' fun of how easy it would go down in a penny romance novel-- the abortionist, or apothecary, or whoever, would give the woman an herb (unnamed, but ergot, I guess, if the writer had any idea what he or she was talking about, which is actually a fungus), and tell her to make a tea, and she'd go into labor just like that.

It probably had more to do with writers not wanting to be accused of giving directions for abortions in their books, than really believing it was that easy.

[Errata]

Just makin' fun of how easy it would go down in a penny romance novel-- the abortionist, or apothecary, or whoever, would give the woman an herb (unnamed, but ergot, I guess, if the writer had any idea what he or she was talking about, which is actually a fungus), and tell her to make a tea, and she'd go into labor just like that.

It probably had more to do with writers not wanting to be accused of giving directions for abortions in their books, than really believing it was that easy.

They used wormwood, pennyroyal, tansy and mugwort. If you were interested.

[Debra A]

How pregnant was Elizabeth Jackson? I was under the impression that she was fairly far along in her pregnancy. An abortion at that point basically becomes induced labor, with he fetus not surviving due to prematurity. It's no more comfortable than term labor, and sometimes worse, because the contractions at the beginning of an induced labor can be very painful.

A woman is going to have some really pressing reason for aborting a pregnancy that is more than halfway along. There are lots of fiction accounts of women seeking induced labors at eight months, in order to convince people that a certain man was the father, even though he wasn't, because her relationship with him didn't begin until nine months earlier, but I don't know whether that actually happened in real life (unless someone got the idea from fiction, but people in books always seemed to have access to a tea, and weren't inducing by breaking water with a knitting needle).

You have to consider the abortionist, too. If he, or she, wants to stay in business, he's not going to take on a lot of high-risk clients. He doesn't need bodies littering his doorstep. He may already be engaging in illegal abortion, but that doesn't mean he has no concern with whether his clients survive the ordeal. In fact, since he relies on word-of-mouth advertising, and probably a certain amount of repeat business, he probably wants to make things as safe and comfortable as he reasonably can.

So, how pregnant was she?

Also, if she was really far along, do we know someone wasn't specifically after the fetus, and tried to make the murder look like a ripper murder to cover his, or her, tracks?

Elizabeth was approx 7 along in her pregnancy.
Induced labour in unwanted pregnancy in Victorian England consisted of the forced introduction of instruments into the uterus to either kill the child in late pregnancy or bring on a miscarriage in early pregnancy. Breaking of the waters does not guarantee a woman will go into labour, it just wasn't enough.
The majority of women who died as the result of illegal operations in this era died due to septicemia or the effects of fever and infection caused by the use of instruments internally or the full products of pregnancy not always being expelled from the uterus completely. This was a painful and not instant death.


Elizabeth's vagina and cervix showed no signs of instrument use to induce a labour, nor any signs of labour. The only damage was an incision into the uterus by which the foetus was removed and the cutting of the cord. Doctors concluded it was done after the death of Elizabeth. This is not abortion.

The stage of the pregnancy maybe wouldn't have figured in the decisions some women made. Some single women of the period went as far as completely concealing pregnancy and birth and committing infanticide on their unwanted newborns. A fair number of newborns and babies with cut throats, headless or dismembered ended up in the Thames, down drains, in waste ground and many other places. Horrific for us to think about now but being a single mother with no means of support for yourself or your child was a fate worse than death for some.

[RivkahChaya]

Elizabeth was approx 7 along in her pregnancy.

Is the word "months" missing?

Breaking of the waters does not guarantee a woman will go into labour, it just wasn't enough.

I'm aware that it doesn't guarantee labor, but it was still an amateur method of abortion, or induced delivery. It wasn't something a professional abortionist would have used, but it was something a woman may have tried on herself, or gotten a friend to try. It was also (and still is) a good way of getting septicemia, mainly because it doesn't work quickly as a means of inducing labor. There's even a term for a woman's water breaking before labor begins, and babies that are born as a result of concern over infection being greater than concern over premature birth: "PROM babies"-- "premature rupture of membranes-- and it's a condition that needs to be managed in a hospital, usually with IV antibiotics.

The stage of the pregnancy maybe wouldn't have figured in the decisions some women made. Some single women of the period went as far as completely concealing pregnancy and birth and committing infanticide on their unwanted newborns.

My point really was that when a woman gets to a certain point in pregnancy, where an abortion still means having to go through labor, and this is a time when abortion had high risks, once a woman got to be about 7 months pregnant, I'm guessing that waiting for normal delivery, and letting the baby die, or killing it outright, would be a better choice than abortion, because abortion at that point would be a painful, dangerous, and long ordeal.

Basically, I'm arguing that she didn't go to an abortionist, and that abortion, and abortionists played no part in her murder, and we know that from what forensic evidence we have, but also because an abortion at seven months just doesn't make any sense. At least not a mechanical abortion.

(If she drank pennyroyal-ergot tea, in an attempt to induce early labor, that's another thing, but it's got no bearing in the matter at hand. )

[Debra A]

My reason for bringing any of this up was to point out to Trevor that the majority of women who died as a result of an illegal operations died as a result of septicemia etc. a few days after the procedure and not instantly. Elizabeth was last seen alive 24 hours before her remains began being washed up.

Of the instant deaths recorded in medical texts; one can read some horrific stories, but all left tell-tale evidence for medics to find.
Elizabeth's body showed no physical signs of an attempt at abortion by instrument use etc.
I'd like to ask Trevor again- what evidence he has to state that it was a fact that Elizabeth was subjected to some sort of illegal operation? As he claimed earlier.

[Trevor Marriott]

My reason for bringing any of this up was to point out to Trevor that the majority of women who died as a result of an illegal operations died as a result of septicemia etc. a few days after the procedure and not instantly. Elizabeth was last seen alive 24 hours before her remains began being washed up.

Of the instant deaths recorded in medical texts; one can read some horrific stories, but all left tell-tale evidence for medics to find.
Elizabeth's body showed no physical signs of an attempt at abortion by instrument use etc.
I'd like to ask Trevor again- what evidence he has to state that it was a fact that Elizabeth was subjected to some sort of illegal operation? As he claimed earlier.

Quote from your own dissertation

"All earlier press reports of the incidents relating to the finding of the various body parts contained an explanation by the medical men, Bond in particular, that the victim in this case most likely met her death as a result of an 'illegal operation' performed upon her, this had become the accepted motive for the victim's death. The general consensus was that the victim's identity was destroyed to shield the person or persons involved in the operation."

The truth is as I stated previous the Doctors then changed their opinion with no evidence to back up why they were then suggesting foul play. As a result the coroner "directed" the jury to deleiver a farcical verdict of murder.

Everthing points to her dying as a result of some illegal procedure of some sorts. She was 7 months pregnant the foetus was removed. Having regard to the dismemberment someone took a lot of time and went to great length to dispose of the "many" parts. A foetus was also found in the thames.

I have given plausible answers to all you questions regarding all of this. The issues you seek to rely on clearly dont stand up to close scrutiny.

[Debra A]

Quote from your own dissertation

"All earlier press reports of the incidents relating to the finding of the various body parts contained an explanation by the medical men, Bond in particular, that the victim in this case most likely met her death as a result of an 'illegal operation' performed upon her, this had become the accepted motive for the victim's death. The general consensus was that the victim's identity was destroyed to shield the person or persons involved in the operation."

How manipulative can one person get!!
The context of that sentence was to show how the press were pushing the idea of an illegal operation as the cause of death (the same way they were linking the abdominal mutilations to JTR but you haven't repeated that one!).

This is the very next line in the same dissertation:
"At the inquest, Dr. Bond and the other medical men were to give their final opinion that there was no evidence to suggest the victim had actually died as the result of an illegal abortion as first thought. "

The truth is as I stated previous the Doctors then changed their opinion with no evidence to back up why they were then suggesting foul play. As a result the coroner "directed" the jury to deleiver a farcical verdict of murder.

The final conclusions and jury verdict came after careful examinations that showed no evidence of an illegal operation. Initially the press had run with the fact that the woman had been pregnant and therefore abortion must be the cause...similar to what you appear to be doing.

Everthing points to her dying as a result of some illegal procedure of some sorts. She was 7 months pregnant the foetus was removed. Having regard to the dismemberment someone took a lot of time and went to great length to dispose of the "many" parts. A foetus was also found in the thames.

The foetus was removed after death. There was no physical evidence of abortion so to turn a previous argument back on you-what would be the point of someone risking dismembering her body and remoing the foetus after death if there was no evidence that an illegal operation was attempted? It wasn't successful if the foetus was still in tact in the womb and there was nothing to evidence someone had done any procedure so, what exactly were they covering up?
The foetus found in the Thames was examined and found not to be related. It was of five month gestation (Elizabeth was visibly heavily pregnant to family and friends).

Evidence pointing to something does not make it a fact. It is a possibility, no more. I do recognise and have mentioned the possibility that Elizabeth was seeking help out of her situation many many times. But I am mindful that it goes against the inquest findings.
Bond and Hebbert were unable to detect poison as Elizabeth's stomach and windpipe were missing. I myself think Elizabeth may even been given a poisonous substance and died as a result.

I have given plausible answers to all you questions regarding all of this. The issues you seek to rely on clearly dont stand up to close scrutiny.

No you haven't. You have stated it is a fact an illegal operation was carried out on Elizabeth and that is simply not true. You are fabricating your own evidence and ignoring what was established at the time to push your own conclusions as facts.

1. Doctors testified that there was no evidence that an illegal operation had occured.
2. A verdict of willful murder was brought in by the jury.

These are the facts, Trevor.

[RivkahChaya]

My reason for bringing any of this up was to point out to Trevor that the majority of women who died as a result of an illegal operations died as a result of septicemia etc. a few days after the procedure and not instantly.

Oh. Uh, yeah. I can tell you from many public debates about abortion back when I was in college in the 1980s that this is true. There's a pretty shocking picture in Our Bodies, Ourselves, of a woman who died as recently as, IIRC, 1968 (it was the late 60s, but I don't remember the exact year), and was found alone in an hotel room.

One of the reasons that you didn't find "illegal abortion" as a case of death on death certificates is that it was rarely the direct case of death, but rather an indirect one (women who died "in childbirth" didn't actually die of birth complications, either, up to about the 20th century, but usually of infections, even if the infection resulted from an intervention for a complication). I actually had a so-called "pro-life" person try to argue the position that abortion shouldn't be legal, because women didn't really used to die of illegal abortions all the time, as evidenced by the fact that we don't ever find it listed as a cause of death on death certificates. I'm not making that up.

Could "illegal operations" be a euphemism for anything besides abortion? I'm just curious. Clearly, the coroners think she was mutilated by a thrill killer, and not as an attempt to cover something else, but just thought I'd ask.

PS: Debra, in case it's not clear, I'm totally agreeing with you.

[Trevor Marriott]

How manipulative can one person get!!
The context of that sentence was to show how the press were pushing the idea of an illegal operation as the cause of death (the same way they were linking the abdominal mutilations to JTR but you haven't repeated that one!).

This is the very next line in the same dissertation:
"At the inquest, Dr. Bond and the other medical men were to give their final opinion that there was no evidence to suggest the victim had actually died as the result of an illegal abortion as first thought. "




The final conclusions and jury verdict came after careful examinations that showed no evidence of an illegal operation. Initially the press had run with the fact that the woman had been pregnant and therefore abortion must be the cause...similar to what you appear to be doing.



The foetus was removed after death. There was no physical evidence of abortion so to turn a previous argument back on you-what would be the point of someone risking dismembering her body and remoing the foetus after death if there was no evidence that an illegal operation was attempted? It wasn't successful if the foetus was still in tact in the womb and there was nothing to evidence someone had done any procedure so, what exactly were they covering up?
The foetus found in the Thames was examined and found not to be related. It was of five month gestation (Elizabeth was visibly heavily pregnant to family and friends).

Evidence pointing to something does not make it a fact. It is a possibility, no more. I do recognise and have mentioned the possibility that Elizabeth was seeking help out of her situation many many times. But I am mindful that it goes against the inquest findings.
Bond and Hebbert were unable to detect poison as Elizabeth's stomach and windpipe were missing. I myself think Elizabeth may even been given a poisonous substance and died as a result.



No you haven't. You have stated it is a fact an illegal operation was carried out on Elizabeth and that is simply not true. You are fabricating your own evidence and ignoring what was established at the time to push your own conclusions as facts.

1. Doctors testified that there was no evidence that an illegal operation had occured.
2. A verdict of willful murder was brought in by the jury.

These are the facts, Trevor.

Did it not occurr to you and obviousl not the doctors at the time that she may have simply bled to death during some for of an operation which went wrong.

Forget what the doctors said there was no evidence of foul play so where is the evidence to show she was murdered. The doctors could not prove foul play they simply "presumed" she had been murdered as I said previous it was farcical.

This has over the years led to another ill conceived myth known as "The Torso Murders"