Hospital Protocol Question

[Errata]

If Malvina Haynes was in fact a tailoress and not a seamstress, it's possible that an attack on a "decent" woman was worth notifying the police over, and an attack on a prostitute was not.

[lynn cates]

police knowledge

Hello Errata. Makes one wonder whether that were known by the police?

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

or indeed the doctors

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi all,

Perhaps my point has been lost. Malvina was discovered by a constable, so there were police at the hospital the entire time she was, at least for that first day. My primary point is that, even as a matter of side conversation, don't you think Dr. Haslip would have mentioned, 'Wow, someone's at work. I have another lady beat about the head and bleeding from between.' When Smith died, Dr. Haslip KNEW the police were searching for a man in the Malvina Haynes case, and now Smith had graduated from assault victim to murder victim. Still no one tells the police. I don't think this was common practice, even in 1888.

Regarding Malvina, her husband had a good profession, she seems to have worked, and they didn't live in the worst area of town, so my first thought is to say she wasn't a prostitute. But then I wonder why she was where she was when she was, talking to strange men.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Tom

I'm thinking nobody necessarily made any connection - the assaults, and ultimate results, in fine detail, (the MO) were rather different after all...

Assaults on females, narrowing the field, prostitutes, were not in the least uncommon at the time...the latter especially...it'd be interesting to know how many prostitutes were assaulted daily...I suspect most weren't reported anyway.

Stop thinking please by today's standards... this is late 1880s England - a woman comes into the Hospital (voluntarily on foot, bleeding) needing urgent treatment for grievous abdominal/genital wounding...she's not particularly forthcoming about how she got the wounds...she's naturally ashamed...she may be either:

(a) deeply outraged and wants to report it!
(b) deeply ashamed and doesn't

Tom...which of those two women (and indeed which of a or b) is which?

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

recent connection

Hello Dave. I think Tom's point is that the doctor should have connected the two cases. I tend to agree.

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

The only problem I have with Tom's scenario is that, with Malvina Haynes, nobody knew what they were dealing with until she regained consciousness on the 9th, by which time Emma Smith had been dead for four days.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Dave. Thanks for your tips on research and how I should go about processing and weighing information, but 1888 was not the dark ages and communication between organizations were common place, including hospitals and the police. The two women were attacked less than a mile apart and in a similar fashion and presumably a similar motive. The police told Dr. Haslip they were keen to speak with Malvina the moment she awakened because they wanted a clue on her assailant. Surely Dr. Haslip should have suspected they'd be interested in Smith's case as well? She was awake and talking and might have provided some useful information. But he said nothing.

Forget Malvina for a moment. As soon as Emma Smith told the doctor what had happened to her, and he knew her injuries were fatal (so would she have by then), the police should have been notified. Nobody needed Emma's permission to contact the police. Use your head for a moment.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

Simon...absolutely...

Sorry Lynn...how is the doctor to connect the cases when the testimony is in one case non-existent, (patient unconscious), and in the other, probably unco-operatively concealed...

Emma clearly didn't want anything to do with the police (cf her earlier non-co-operation with Mary Russell and Annie Lee, plus her initial unwillingless to go to the hospital).

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

ubiquitous

Hello Dave. Well, he was involved in both cases.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Dave. Thanks for your tips on research and how I should go about processing and weighing information, but 1888 was not the dark ages and communication between organizations were common place, including hospitals and the police. The two women were attacked less than a mile apart and in a similar fashion and presumably a similar motive. The police told Dr. Haslip they were keen to speak with Malvina the moment she awakened because they wanted a clue on her assailant. Surely Dr. Haslip should have suspected they'd be interested in Smith's case as well? She was awake and talking and might have provided some useful information. But he said nothing.

Forget Malvina for a moment. As soon as Emma Smith told the doctor what had happened to her, and he knew her injuries were fatal (so would she have by then), the police should have been notified. Nobody needed Emma's permission to contact the police. Use your head for a moment.

Hi Tom

I made no suggestions whatever about your processing and weighing information. Similarly I did not suggest 1888 was the dark ages...You are clearly using invective to bolster your argument.

Doctors and police did NOT routinely communicate...please read the thread before you comment...or if you have proof otherwise, please supply.

"Presumably" is your word, not mine. Looking back at 1888 we all have to make some assumptions...I try not to make too many.

"The police told Dr. Haslip they were keen to speak with Malvina the moment she awakened" - she awoke three days after Emma died...so what do you make of that?

I'm trying my best, Tom, not to be as rude as you've been...please return the compliment...

Dave

[Bridewell]

If you've not already done so, the London Hospital Archive records are well worth a visit. Situated in the Co-operative (I think) Building on Prescot Street. You have to make a prior appointment, but the In-Patient Records are extant as, indeed, are those of the much smaller Bethnal Green Hospital.


Regards, Bridewell.

[Errata]

My point is, it doesn't matter what should easily be connected or not. Preconceived notions are peculiar things. If a doctor thinks that bad things happen to whores all the time, but bad things happening to "decent" women is unusual, he wouldn't put the two cases together in his head unless they were found literally right next to each other. It's a perception issue.

[Cogidubnus]

Well, he was involved in both cases.

Yes Lynn, one unconscious woman with severe head injuries, a second fully conscious woman with minor head injuries and horrific abdominal wounding...Amongst the mass of cases they're treating each day, this particular pair haven't really got THAT much in common after all have they...so what's to connect them?

If a doctor thinks that bad things happen to whores all the time, but bad things happening to "decent" women is unusual, he wouldn't put the two cases together in his head unless they were found literally right next to each other.

Hi Errata...I hear what you say, but why should the doctor connect them at all? They undoubtedly treated many injured women every day (among them the many unfortunates who were routinely picked upon) and what's to connect this particular pair (the one who could and I suppose may've spoken up, the other who couldn't and was hence mute about her background) ?

Don't get me wrong...I have no particular axe to grind here, but do feel we may be in danger of looking at this with the benefit of hindsight, coloured by a 20th/21st century viewpoint which wouldn't have applied in the LVP.

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

What I'm saying is...

What I'm saying is, if the patient wants her injuries reported to the police (I suspect, the default assumption made - hence the PC at Malvina's bedside until she recovers consciousness) then this can be done...

If, however, (and I suspect from Emmas earlier reluctance), she doesn't then the poor old doctor's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't...His sense of duty may tell him one thing, but his Hyppocratic Oath dictates the other...that the latter is taken seriously we cannot doubt as only a few years later an emminent doctor was taken to court and fined £12,000 in a case in which the breach of confidence issue played a large part (Kitson v Playfair).

I don't think any issue of negligence enters into it...

Respectfully
Dave