Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Fisherman 8 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Fisherman 10 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by caz 11 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Fisherman 20 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Harry D 25 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by MrBarnett 26 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - (78 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report - (3 posts)
General Discussion: Mary Kelly Jack the Ripper celebrity ghost box session interview - (2 posts)
Rippercast: Donald Rumbelow at the Cloak & Dagger Club 1999- The Siege of Sidney Street - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Doctors and Coroners

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 10-13-2018, 10:33 AM
Batman Batman is online now
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,603
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
I see what you mean. Clearly Dr Saunders is contradicted by Dr Brown, which suggests to me that he wasn't present at the autopsy. Or if he was present, he wasn't paying attention!
I go with the latter because I really doubt they were focusing on a cause of death from renal failure with the sight before them.
__________________
Bona fide canonical and then some.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-13-2018, 11:01 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is online now
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,870
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
I see what you mean. Clearly Dr Saunders is contradicted by Dr Brown, which suggests to me that he wasn't present at the autopsy. Or if he was present, he wasn't paying attention!

Times 1 Oct

"In the afternoon a post-mortem examination of the body was made by Dr. Brown, assisted by Dr. Sequeira, Dr. Phillips, and Dr. M'Kellar (the chief surgeon of the Metropolitan Police). Dr. Yarrow (H Division Metropolitan Police) and Dr. Sedgwick Saunders were also present at the examination. It may be stated that up to a late hour last night the body had not been identified."
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-13-2018, 03:24 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,808
Default

Does this contention really boil down to Brown saying:
"...right kidney pale bloodless with slight congestion of the pyramids".

And, Saunders saying:
"You may take it that the right kidney of the woman Eddowes was perfectly normal in its structure and healthy,..."

"Perfectly normal", for a 46 year old woman?

Is there really an issue here?
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-14-2018, 03:22 AM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Does this contention really boil down to Brown saying:
"...right kidney pale bloodless with slight congestion of the pyramids".

And, Saunders saying:
"You may take it that the right kidney of the woman Eddowes was perfectly normal in its structure and healthy,..."

"Perfectly normal", for a 46 year old woman?

Is there really an issue here?
Well yes ..... that's one issue .
I guess you prefer to ignore contradictory statements , palpably incorrect ones in Saunders case ?
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-14-2018, 06:18 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,808
Default

Ok, and the other issue seems to be the point you raised in the first post.

Brown said.
"I removed the contents of the stomach and placed it in a jar for further examination."

And Saunders said.
"I received the stomach of the deceased from Dr. Gordon Brown, carefully sealed with his own private seal. It had been carefully tied, and the contents had not been interfered with in any way."

But notice Brown is talking about a single organ - the stomach, "placed IT in a jar". The contents of the stomach could only be food in various stages of digestion.
Common sense tells you that a physician conducting an autopsy is not going to slice open the stomach and scoop out the contents when he only needs to tie both ends and remove the 'bag' (stomach) as a single organ.

The contents of the stomach (food) need to be analyzed away from contamination. You can't do that if you open the stomach and expose the contents inside while conducting the autopsy.
Chemical analysis of the stomach contents was beyond Brown's capability, so he had to seal the stomach and send it away with Saunders.
Which was probably why Saunders was invited to attend in the first place.

Saunders is more detailed in what he says he received, but remember neither doctor wrote those words themselves.
Browns testimony was written down by the court recorder, not a trained physician. whereas Saunders words were written by a reporter.

So, in each case whether those were their precise words is open to some debate.

Given the facts listed above, as several have pointed out here, there is no cause to take issue with either statement. Both statements are mutually supportive.

However, all that aside, I don't remember you explaining your end game. What precisely is it that you think you see?

You seem to think Brown is the senior party here, I am not so sure. Saunders was highly trained, he was the equal of Brown as a surgeon, but he also was a professional in chemical analysis. I called him a chemist, which was probably demeaning his stature to some degree. Which was not my intent.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-14-2018, 07:40 AM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Ok, and the other issue seems to be the point you raised in the first post.

Brown said.
"I removed the contents of the stomach and placed it in a jar for further examination."

And Saunders said.
"I received the stomach of the deceased from Dr. Gordon Brown, carefully sealed with his own private seal. It had been carefully tied, and the contents had not been interfered with in any way."

But notice Brown is talking about a single organ - the stomach, "placed IT in a jar". The contents of the stomach could only be food in various stages of digestion.
Common sense tells you that a physician conducting an autopsy is not going to slice open the stomach and scoop out the contents when he only needs to tie both ends and remove the 'bag' (stomach) as a single organ.

The contents of the stomach (food) need to be analyzed away from contamination. You can't do that if you open the stomach and expose the contents inside while conducting the autopsy.
Chemical analysis of the stomach contents was beyond Brown's capability, so he had to seal the stomach and send it away with Saunders.
Which was probably why Saunders was invited to attend in the first place.

Saunders is more detailed in what he says he received, but remember neither doctor wrote those words themselves.
Browns testimony was written down by the court recorder, not a trained physician. whereas Saunders words were written by a reporter.

So, in each case whether those were their precise words is open to some debate.

Given the facts listed above, as several have pointed out here, there is no cause to take issue with either statement. Both statements are mutually supportive.

However, all that aside, I don't remember you explaining your end game. What precisely is it that you think you see?

You seem to think Brown is the senior party here, I am not so sure. Saunders was highly trained, he was the equal of Brown as a surgeon, but he also was a professional in chemical analysis. I called him a chemist, which was probably demeaning his stature to some degree. Which was not my intent.
I'm not sure why you're struggling with this Jon

Brown
I removed the content of the stomach and placed it in a jar for further examination. There seemed very little in it in the way of food or fluid, but from the cut end partly digested farinaceous food escaped .

Saunders
"I received the stomach of the deceased from Dr. Gordon Brown, carefully sealed with his own private seal. It had been carefully tied, and the contents had not been interfered with in any way."


It doesn't get clearer and requires no explanation
I can only assume that Dr Saunders is so important to your theory that you are trying to rewrite the language 😊
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-14-2018, 07:45 AM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,049
Default

Could It be that Saunders was one of the two doctors who felt the killer displayed no medical knowledge in mitre square ?
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-14-2018, 04:34 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,808
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packers stem View Post
I'm not sure why you're struggling with this Jon

Brown
I removed the content of the stomach and placed it in a jar for further examination. There seemed very little in it in the way of food or fluid, but from the cut end partly digested farinaceous food escaped .

Saunders
"I received the stomach of the deceased from Dr. Gordon Brown, carefully sealed with his own private seal. It had been carefully tied, and the contents had not been interfered with in any way."


It doesn't get clearer and requires no explanation
But it is clear to me. That is why I am puzzled why you keep hinting at a problem.
I don't see one.

Brown is saying there was little food in the stomach, but some partly digested food escaped as he removed the organ.
This could only be from the lower end (pyloric sphincter), as the upper end (esophagus) is where undigested food enters the stomach.
So, some food escaped?
Why is this an issue?

Saunders says nothing to contradict this.

Quote:
I can only assume that Dr Saunders is so important to your theory that you are trying to rewrite the language 😊
I can't imagine anything I have spoken about that includes Saunders, or his opinions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by packers stem View Post
Could It be that Saunders was one of the two doctors who felt the killer displayed no medical knowledge in mitre square ?
I've heard enough experienced medical opinion here on Casebook over the years to allow me to think the killer did display some expertise.
I don't think the killer was a surgeon, but he did have some limited experience, in my opinion.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-15-2018, 02:21 AM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
But it is clear to me. That is why I am puzzled why you keep hinting at a problem.
I don't see one.

Brown is saying there was little food in the stomach, but some partly digested food escaped as he removed the organ.
This could only be from the lower end (pyloric sphincter), as the upper end (esophagus) is where undigested food enters the stomach.
So, some food escaped?
Why is this an issue?

Saunders says nothing to contradict this.
He doesn't say anything to contradict the fact that some partly digested food escaped .
What he does contradict is the first line from Brown

I removed the content of the stomach ...

If someone found a wallet and removed the credit cards and placed them in a seperate envelope .He then passes the wallet to someone who says the contents of the wallet hadn't been interfered with would you a see a contradiction ?

I'm surprised you can't see the issue
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-15-2018, 02:53 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,178
Default

Surely "interference" would have constituted Brown actively altering the contents of the stomach (e.g. washing it out with saline or infusing it in preserving fluid), not the accidental spillage of some food.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.