Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Elizabeth Jackson-Abortion related or not?

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Errata View Post
    Wait a minute. That was the only injury to the uterus wasn't it? Or am I getting confused?
    What was the only injury?
    ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

    I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
      No its most likely death by murder and probably a serial killer.
      Thanks, John. Bang on topic.
      ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

      I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Debra A View Post
        Thanks Errata. Yes, these are all the same points I have argued against Trevor too -for eternity I feel!
        I still think it possible that the wilful murder verdict brought at inquest could be because the jury might have been influenced into that verdict by the Coroner suggesting that criminal abortionists could be very skilled and not leave a trace.
        It is certain there was no abortion because there was no birth as you say.

        The whole uterus was removed by the way, with a sweep of the knife that took in the upper part of her vagina and posterior portion of her bladder, so there was no attempt at life saving for Elizabeth here. .
        Debra
        I have had an initial reply from Dr Biggs. However I have written back for clarification on one point. Here is what he says having reviewed his orignal comments and observation

        Dear Trevor,

        "Not altering anything I said previously, and concentrating on the specific point about ‘abortion’…"

        "My understanding of what the abortionists got up to back then was that they didn’t try to remove the foetus, but that they simply tried to set in motion a chain of events that would lead to spontaneous death of the foetus and expulsion by ‘natural’ means at some point in the near future (once the patient had gone back to their home life and the abortion could be passed off as an unlucky miscarriage).

        The process usually involved dilating the cervical canal or squirting some noxious substance into the womb, rather than trying to physically traumatise the foetus. This often led to extremely rapid collapse and death due to catastrophic haemorrhage, cardiac air embolus or profound hypotension and bradycardia as a reflex response to stimulation of the cervix by stretching.

        So instead of carrying out a minor procedure, waving goodbye to the client and wishing them luck, they were suddenly presented with an extremely ill or totally dead patient… hence the panic and temptation to hastily dispose of a body before anyone could ask any questions.

        In the above situation, it would be perfectly possible for the uterus, cervix and vagina to appear normal to naked eye examination at post-mortem (i.e. no abortion or vaginal delivery would have taken place).

        In short, abortion-gone-wrong is still a very real possibility for this case, but it can’t be ‘proved’ as such."

        My observations

        I also note that with the Whitehall Torso no specific cause of death was found but the doctor did say “As the inside of the heart was pale and free from clots, it probably arose from haemorrhage or fainting “ (bradycardia)

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
          Debra
          I have had an initial reply from Dr Biggs. However I have written back for clarification on one point. Here is what he says having reviewed his orignal comments and observation

          Dear Trevor,

          "Not altering anything I said previously, and concentrating on the specific point about ‘abortion’…"

          "My understanding of what the abortionists got up to back then was that they didn’t try to remove the foetus, but that they simply tried to set in motion a chain of events that would lead to spontaneous death of the foetus and expulsion by ‘natural’ means at some point in the near future (once the patient had gone back to their home life and the abortion could be passed off as an unlucky miscarriage).

          The process usually involved dilating the cervical canal or squirting some noxious substance into the womb, rather than trying to physically traumatise the foetus. This often led to extremely rapid collapse and death due to catastrophic haemorrhage, cardiac air embolus or profound hypotension and bradycardia as a reflex response to stimulation of the cervix by stretching.

          So instead of carrying out a minor procedure, waving goodbye to the client and wishing them luck, they were suddenly presented with an extremely ill or totally dead patient… hence the panic and temptation to hastily dispose of a body before anyone could ask any questions.

          In the above situation, it would be perfectly possible for the uterus, cervix and vagina to appear normal to naked eye examination at post-mortem (i.e. no abortion or vaginal delivery would have taken place).

          In short, abortion-gone-wrong is still a very real possibility for this case, but it can’t be ‘proved’ as such."

          My observations

          I also note that with the Whitehall Torso no specific cause of death was found but the doctor did say “As the inside of the heart was pale and free from clots, it probably arose from haemorrhage or fainting “ (bradycardia)

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          Thanks, Trevor. That's in line with what I have been saying that death could have been caused instantly by poison being administered in Elizabeth's case and that would be the way it could be pregnancy related. Although I don't agree that physical trauma wasn't usually used during abortion practices. There are enough documented cases to show that also happened.


          Dr Biggs also appears to agree that an expulsion of the foetus through the usual route would have been detectable and a perfectly acceptable conclusion for Dr Bond to make and goes on to explain that something that caused an instant death before expulsion of the foetus would not show the same damage as an actual abortion.

          Is the last line starting 'in short' written by Dr Biggs? I'd have thought it would be more accurate to say that an attempt at abortion that went wrong could still be the cause, rather than an abortion gone wrong, which suggests the usual death from peritonitis and infections normally associated with successful abortion that caused a later death by setting up infection?

          I am pleased with Dr Biggs conclusions.
          ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

          I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Debra A View Post
            Thanks, Trevor. That's in line with what I have been saying that death could have been caused instantly by poison being administered in Elizabeth's case and that would be the way it could be pregnancy related. Although I don't agree that physical trauma wasn't usually used during abortion practices. There are enough documented cases to show that also happened.


            Dr Biggs also appears to agree that an expulsion of the foetus through the usual route would have been detectable and a perfectly acceptable conclusion for Dr Bond to make and goes on to explain that something that caused an instant death before expulsion of the foetus would not show the same damage as an actual abortion.

            Is the last line starting 'in short' written by Dr Biggs? I'd have thought it would be more accurate to say that an attempt at abortion that went wrong could still be the cause, rather than an abortion gone wrong, which suggests the usual death from peritonitis and infections normally associated with successful abortion that caused a later death by setting up infection?

            I am pleased with Dr Biggs conclusions.
            Me to, progress is being made at last !

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              In the above situation, it would be perfectly possible for the uterus, cervix and vagina to appear normal to naked eye examination at post-mortem (i.e. no abortion or vaginal delivery would have taken place).
              I am very happy to be told I'm wrong, but I find it extremely hard to believe that an attempt to manually dilate a cervix would not leave changes visible to the naked eye.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by MsWeatherwax View Post
                I am very happy to be told I'm wrong, but I find it extremely hard to believe that an attempt to manually dilate a cervix would not leave changes visible to the naked eye.
                Dont shoot me I am only the messenger.

                I think you have to take into account Victorian Doctors were just that, not gynaecologists like we have today.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 06-01-2016, 03:51 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                  Me to, progress is being made at last !
                  Dr Biggs has confirmed what I said, not you!
                  ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

                  I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by MsWeatherwax View Post
                    I am very happy to be told I'm wrong, but I find it extremely hard to believe that an attempt to manually dilate a cervix would not leave changes visible to the naked eye.
                    I would have thought it might have damaged the cervix of a woman who'd never given birth before and wasn't already in labour?
                    ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

                    I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Debra A View Post
                      Dr Biggs has confirmed what I said, not you!
                      I beg to differ, but let not argue over trivialities.

                      The balance of probabilities now swings towards Jackson not being murdered.

                      And you passed no comment on the likely cause of death of the Whitehall Torso who perhaps died in the same way thus ruling out murder.

                      Or perhaps the 1887 female torso who was found to have had an incision made in her vaginal wall and perhaps bled to death.

                      To me that looks very much like something which could have something to do with procuring an abortion.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                        I beg to differ, but let not argue over trivialities.

                        The balance of probabilities now swings towards Jackson not being murdered.

                        And you passed no comment on the likely cause of death of the Whitehall Torso who perhaps died in the same way thus ruling out murder.

                        Or perhaps the 1887 female torso who was found to have had an incision made in her vaginal wall and perhaps bled to death.

                        To me that looks very much like something which could have something to do with procuring an abortion.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        No. Dr Biggs has confirmed that there is no proof that Elizabeth's death was abortion related and that the foetus being removed from the abdomen has nothing to do with the cause of her death from 'an operation' as you suggested. Both Errata, me and others have said that an instant death could be the only explanation but that an abortion had not been performed as Bond concluded.
                        Dr Biggs doesn't seem familiar with the horrific and often violent methods inflicted on women to procure abortion and the damage done and often evident in cases where they describe a 'sound' or other implement (knitting needles have been mentioned) being introduced into the uterus often causing severe damage. The Coroner did advise the jury that some experienced criminal abortionists might not cause visible damage but I don't think that was the norm.

                        And if further proof was needed that you never read posts properly I have also said that the Whitehall case could be abortion related but there is no proof as there was no uterus or even pelvis or pelvic organs found, so that would be even more speculative to suggest abortion in that case.
                        Last edited by Debra A; 06-01-2016, 04:16 PM.
                        ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

                        I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Debra A View Post
                          I would have thought it might have damaged the cervix of a woman who'd never given birth before and wasn't already in labour?
                          Debra

                          What you think is irrelevant, its what the medical experts say that counts.

                          Perhaps when you become a forensic pathologist or a gynaecologist then you may be in a position to challenge someone of equal standing.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Debra A View Post
                            No. Dr Biggs has confirmed that there is no proof that Elizabeth's death was abortion related and that the foetus being removed from the abdomen has nothing to do with the cause of her death from 'an operation' as you suggested. Both Errata, me and others have said that an instant death could be the only explanation but that an abortion had not been performed as Bond concluded.
                            Dr Biggs doesn't seem familiar with the horrific and often violent methods inflicted on women to procure abortion and the damage done and often evident in cases where they describe a 'sound' or other implement (knitting needles have been mentioned) being introduced into the uterus often causing severe damage. The Coroner did advise the jury that some experienced criminal abortionists might not cause visible damage but I don't think that was the norm.
                            Its a waste of time with you, you wont listen. You think you know best. You have your own agenda, no matter what is put before you its not right and doesn't sit with your theory.

                            First you say you like his conclusions, then you are pulling them apart. How are you more knowledgeable in Victorian abortion methods than Dr Biggs ?

                            Three words I say again with regards to these torsos and in particular Jackson "balance of probabilities"

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 06-01-2016, 04:22 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              Or perhaps the 1887 female torso who was found to have had an incision made in her vaginal wall and perhaps bled to death.

                              To me that looks very much like something which could have something to do with procuring an abortion.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              I don't recall any vaginal incision mentioned in the Rainham case, perhaps you can reference it as I must have missed it. I can't see why an incision in the vaginal wall of a woman who definetly wasn't pregnant and had the uterus of someone who had never borne a child is indicative of an abortion. I seem to recall there were signs she had just menstruated too?
                              ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

                              I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                Its a waste of time with you, you wont listen. You think you know best. You have your own agenda, no matter what is put before you its not right and doesn't sit with your theory.

                                First you say you like his conclusions, then you are pulling them apart. How are you more knowledgeable in Victorian abortion methods than Dr Biggs ?

                                Three words I say again with regards to these torsos and in particular Jackson "balance of probabilities"

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                What are you talking about! I agree with Dr Biggs , he has supported what we have been telling you, perhaps that is why you are cross now?

                                I am merely pointing out that the historical record is full of women who an attempt at violent means to procure abortion has done severe damage. Dr Biggs is describing a very well carried out attempt that leaves no trace, which would be the rarer method I feel. That's just my opinion. You can put it to him if you like, if he has proof that I am definitely wrong then so be it. I wasn't aware he was a medical historian so apologies for doubting his expert opinion on historical abortion practices.
                                ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

                                I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X