Elizabeth Jackson-Abortion related or not?

[Debra A]

I cannot give you the source. I have found it in the course of gathering information into the four torsos. What I have written down is "Incision into the vaginal wall cartilage"

I will continue to search through of course unless you can come up with a similar victim who had their vaginal wall incised.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Is it something Dr Biggs pointed out to you?

[Debra A]

It was usually so scarring as to prevent later pregnancies. Or outright kill the patient. But it could be done with the blunt instruments they use now, as opposed to the knitting needle back alley types had access to. Where they would have gotten the graduated series of instruments necessary to do the job gently, I have no idea.

Thanks again, Errata. I just hope Trevor is paying attention to all your posts.

[Debra A]

What does a vaginal incision have to do with an abortion? The fetus is in the uterus, not the vagina. And harming the vagina will not result in spontaneous abortion the way injury to the cervix will. If that was an abortion attempt, they waited a really really long time for the pregnancy to terminate. Long enough for her to have given birth while still waiting, had she actually been pregnant.

Exactly, Errata.

[Debra A]

I cannot give you the source. I have found it in the course of gathering information into the four torsos. What I have written down is "Incision into the vaginal wall cartilage"

I will continue to search through of course unless you can come up with a similar victim who had their vaginal wall incised.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

My best guess, Trevor is that your source is actually the mention that there was an incision made from 'ensiform cartilage to pubes'.
That's an external cut from the bottom of the sternum (ribs) to the external pubic area according to my big book of anatomy for middle aged, female dummies and not an incision into the vaginal wall.

[Fisherman]

That isn't in the text, fish. Sorry. Got carried away.

No problem, Debra - I just realized that I should not have posted that on this thread anyhow, so sorry for that. Carry on!

[Debra A]

So the uterus and part of the bladder was secured "with one sweep of the knife"...

That isn't in the text, fish. Sorry. Got carried away.

[Fisherman]

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.

So the uterus and part of the bladder was secured "with one sweep of the knife"...

[Errata]

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?

What does a vaginal incision have to do with an abortion? The fetus is in the uterus, not the vagina. And harming the vagina will not result in spontaneous abortion the way injury to the cervix will. If that was an abortion attempt, they waited a really really long time for the pregnancy to terminate. Long enough for her to have given birth while still waiting, had she actually been pregnant.

[Errata]

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?

It was usually so scarring as to prevent later pregnancies. Or outright kill the patient. But it could be done with the blunt instruments they use now, as opposed to the knitting needle back alley types had access to. Where they would have gotten the graduated series of instruments necessary to do the job gently, I have no idea.

[Trevor Marriott]

Dr Biggs stated that there was no proof of abortion.

Yes he did, but he did say that the method he describes should not be ruled out, and would explain issues relating to the reproductive organs.

And he never suggested murder was the cause of death, equally he says that cannot be ruled out either. But again its the balance of probabilities based on what is available to us to evaluate.

I have no agenda with these torsos. My objective is to prove or disprove and that cuts both ways. I really dont give a monkeys either way, and in my opinion Jackson was not murdered.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

I cannot give you the source. I have found it in the course of gathering information into the four torsos. What I have written down is "Incision into the vaginal wall cartilage"

I will continue to search through of course unless you can come up with a similar victim who had their vaginal wall incised.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

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

Dr Biggs stated that there was no proof of abortion.

[Debra A]

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.

[Debra A]

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?

[Trevor Marriott]

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"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk