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:
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Batman 2 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper? - by Fisherman 13 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by MrBarnett 14 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper? - by Abby Normal 18 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - by Trevor Marriott 20 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by MrBarnett 21 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - (57 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (14 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - (13 posts)
Non-Fiction: Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper? - (13 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Jack the Ripper learned don't eviscerate before you exsanguinate - (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
  #61  
Old 10-16-2018, 05:33 AM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Our source for the Bright's Disease reference is Major Henry "Reliable Memoirs" Smith, isn't it?
Not at all
"Right kidney pale , bloodless , with slight congestion of the base of the pyramids .
To quote the A-Z
"There is no dispute ,however , that N P Warren is correct in saying that this report does show clear signs of Brights Disease in the right kidney "

Quote:
See my post immediately above. If that's the press record you're referring to, Brown said nothing about examining the contents of the stomach, but that said contents had been preserved for analysis.
What is your interpretation of the words "as to that" following the line "I have not examined the stomach" ?
Altering the context of a sentence by omitting words doesn't help anybody
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 10-16-2018, 05:36 AM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debra A View Post
Nick, could it be because Eddowes was the only murder to be dealt with by the City Police and their divisional surgeon and various professionals? I have mentioned before the previous City analyst, Meymott Tidy, who was the author of Medical Jurisprudence texts and wrote chapters on how a crime scene should be dealt with in terms of taking sketches and describing the clothing of the victims and any corresponding wound and clothing weapon marks. They seemed to be pretty organised and efficient.

Or maybe Coroner MacDonald sparked something off when he wrote to the Star(?) on 4th October asking if Eddowes stomach had been analysed for poison?
Either are possible Debs
All sorts of possibilities with this really
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 10-16-2018, 06:07 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packers stem View Post
Why would you think he would mean the stomach minus its contents as by this point he had already confirmed that he had removed the content from the stomach ?
I don't know. Perhaps it's possible to tell whether some poisons have been administered by the outward appearance of the stomach?

That aside, my observation about what that particular source said was accurate. He did not say "I have not examined the contents", but "I have not examined the stomach".
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 10-16-2018, 08:10 AM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post

That aside, my observation about what that particular source said was accurate. He did not say "I have not examined the contents", but "I have not examined the stomach".
Not really Gareth as you keep leaving off the words "as to that" which are vital to the context of the sentence .
He hadn't examined the content in relation to narcotics .
At no point did he say he hadn't examined the content , quite the opposite , he confirmed that he had removed the content which seemed little in the way of food or fluid .
And personally I think the jurors' question caught him and the inquest off guard .
Sending the stomach and contents to Saunders the conclusion of an after thought
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 10-16-2018, 04:49 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packers stem View Post
You know that that section was kept back from the public
He did however mention the contents of the stomach in response to the jury...
Ah, but just a second. We havn't finished with the last point you raised.
You said:
"So you're completely ignoring that he said he removed the content of the stomach ?"

When I replied, you then said:
"Unfortunately ,that falls down unless the press said abdomen .
They didn't"


But that reply was not true, was it.
The press do not even cover that portion of testimony.
So you have no examples to contest what I suggested.

Moving on...
Quote:
Juror: Was there any evidence of a drug having been used? - I have not examined the stomach as to that. The contents of the stomach have been preserved for analysis.
One of the points I endeavour to impress on posters is to not pick one press version that just happens to suit their theory. All the press versions need to be looked at because quite often the reporter will paraphrase testimony. So we can't be sure what a witness actually said.
A collective analysis of various press versions is more likely to provide a clearer picture of what the witness meant.

You have chosen the previous quote from the Daily Telegraph, and it suggests to you that Brown examined the stomach.

What does the Times say?
"By a juryman. - He did not think any drug was administered to the woman, judging from the breath; but he had not yet examined the contents of the stomach."

What does the Daily News say?
"By the Jury - I am going to examine the stomach on a future occasion to see if any drug had been administered."

So when we look at other press versions we get a better picture of what Dr Brown meant.
That he had not examined the stomach. Which is what we are saying he meant in the court version.

Now, you have your answer.
Any blame for the misunderstanding should be placed with the Daily Telegraph reporter, not Dr Brown.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.

Last edited by Wickerman : 10-16-2018 at 04:57 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 10-17-2018, 07:55 AM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,754
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packers stem View Post
We know from Brown's report that Saunders was wrong about the remaining kidney so its quite possible he was also wrong about the liver .
He was a chemist , as Jon pointed out earlier in the post .It wasn't his field of expertise .
Maybe he shouldn't have been commenting on them
You're right inasmuch as a witness can only give evidence of opinion in an area in which he is deemed to be an expert.
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 10-17-2018, 08:10 AM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,754
Default

Brown says,

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

He doesn't say what he removed the contents of the stomach from. The best way of doing this, I would have thought, would be leaving the contents in their existing container - i.e. the stomach itself.

We seem to be in danger of making a major issue of what is in all probability a minor semantic discrepancy. In all probability Brown meant that he removed the stomach and its contents from the abdomen. That would fit with the Saunders account.
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 10-18-2018, 01:18 AM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Ah, but just a second. We havn't finished with the last point you raised.
You said:
"So you're completely ignoring that he said he removed the content of the stomach ?"

When I replied, you then said:
"Unfortunately ,that falls down unless the press said abdomen .
They didn't"


But that reply was not true, was it.
The press do not even cover that portion of testimony.
So you have no examples to contest what I suggested.

Moving on...


One of the points I endeavour to impress on posters is to not pick one press version that just happens to suit their theory. All the press versions need to be looked at because quite often the reporter will paraphrase testimony. So we can't be sure what a witness actually said.
A collective analysis of various press versions is more likely to provide a clearer picture of what the witness meant.

You have chosen the previous quote from the Daily Telegraph, and it suggests to you that Brown examined the stomach.

What does the Times say?
"By a juryman. - He did not think any drug was administered to the woman, judging from the breath; but he had not yet examined the contents of the stomach."

What does the Daily News say?
"By the Jury - I am going to examine the stomach on a future occasion to see if any drug had been administered."

So when we look at other press versions we get a better picture of what Dr Brown meant.
That he had not examined the stomach. Which is what we are saying he meant in the court version.

Now, you have your answer.
Any blame for the misunderstanding should be placed with the Daily Telegraph reporter, not Dr Brown.
Jon , you endeavour to impress on posters ... ?
The telegraph is regarded by most serious researchers as the primary press source ....
And that includes having a book written covering its accounts , sourcebook and casebook .
There is very good reason for this .
Telegraph accounts are written word for word to the best of the ability of the writer .
.
The questions from the coroner, the questions from the jury ..... these are included unlike other accounts which in most cases are written in summary fashion where the journalist has transposed into his own words
You should be wary of trawling every newspaper account in the search for something to back up your point .
It can lead you up the wrong path like with Sarah (four stories) Lewis where you don't fancy the court records or the primary newspaper sources so go for some regional newspaper account that suits .

You have said that you believe the official records to be incorrect because you have no press account to back it up .
I will not accept that .
That means the dismissal of the entire section of Brown's report concerning the injuries that wasn't released .... we have to trust the court record in this instance and there is absolutely no reason to disregard it .
Only when there are press reports , from a primary press source , that contradict should we question it .There aren't any .

You will believe what you choose to believe
Doesn't make it correct
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 10-18-2018, 01:29 AM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridewell View Post
Brown says,

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

He doesn't say what he removed the contents of the stomach from. The best way of doing this, I would have thought, would be leaving the contents in their existing container - i.e. the stomach itself.

We seem to be in danger of making a major issue of what is in all probability a minor semantic discrepancy. In all probability Brown meant that he removed the stomach and its contents from the abdomen. That would fit with the Saunders account.
No , quite clearly
The content of the stomach is what it says on the tin.
Had he meant he removed the stomach from the abdomen he would have said as much .

The problem of semantics is only being raised because it seems some refuse to accept what Brown said .
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 10-18-2018, 04:12 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packers stem View Post
Jon , you endeavour to impress on posters ... ?
Yes, I know what it sounds like. In other words, I've been kicking that can down the road for years.
Some posters will choose one press version that they can manipulate to support their theory, all the while ignoring other reports which show their theory is wrong.

Quote:
The telegraph is regarded by most serious researchers as the primary press source ....
And that includes having a book written covering its accounts , sourcebook and casebook.
No, I've explained what "serious" researchers do.
Collate all the sources, not cherry-pick one favorite.

You seem to make reference to The News From Whitechapel?, which used the Daily Telegraph - is that what you mean?
I knew all the collaborators to that volume, and they used the D.T. because that is the only source they had. Dave Yost had a number of copies of that newspaper, thats why they use it. It was readily available.
Not sure what you mean by "sourcebook", are you referring to Evans & Skinner? They used the Times.

Quote:
There is very good reason for this .
Telegraph accounts are written word for word to the best of the ability of the writer .
I just gave you the reason why they used the D.T.
But, you can't judge the accuracy of one sentence by some general belief that the paper is "the primary press source".
Each sentence needs to be judged on its own merit.
Some paragraphs & sentences in the D.T. are different to the same sections in the court record.

There are other newspapers which provide testimony in quotes, and often it is different to other so-called quoted sections of testimony.
They can't all be right.

When the court record, which only provides witness responses (ie; no questions), differs from the quoted testimony in the Telegraph, who do you believe?

Like I keep saying, don't choose one source. Collate all the sources. Only then can you present a credible opinion on what the witness meant.


Quote:
It can lead you up the wrong path like with Sarah (four stories) Lewis where you don't fancy the court records or the primary newspaper sources so go for some regional newspaper account that suits .
You seem to have the wrong end of the stick, if you are referring to a genuine discussion.
There were no regional newspapers in that debate, just national.
Also, I compared the court testimony with nearly 20 press versions, line by line. Which is why I know the deficiencies of the court record in the Kelly case. I did the work, I wasn't guessing or trying to promote a theory.

Quote:
You have said that you believe the official records to be incorrect because you have no press account to back it up .
I will not accept that .
I don't mind you contesting what I say, but it seems you have not understood my point.
The court record is not a verbatim account of the inquest, it couldn't be because it was written in long-hand. No-one has the time to capture everything said when writing in long-hand. So the court record only provides select testimony, and some paraphrasing. Specifically, no questions, and no summary by the coroner.

However, the press used short-hand, so their coverage is more complete. The press versions include details that the court record did not capture. Where this is not the case it is often because some medical details are not fit to print in the newspaper, so certain lurid or shocking details may be omitted by the press.

So overall we often find the press give a broader outline of what was said, but, they also include some paraphrasing & direct quotes. It's a mixture.
There is no verbatim account of any inquest testimony in these murders, sadly we only have Eddowes & Kelly with which to judge.

Quote:
That means the dismissal of the entire section of Brown's report concerning the injuries that wasn't released .... we have to trust the court record in this instance and there is absolutely no reason to disregard it .
Yes, like in cases of shocking details we have little choice but to accept the court version.

Yet, getting back to the sentence in question, if you collate the press versions (as I said in the last post), you will better understand Dr Brown's meaning - that he did not examine the contents of the stomach.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
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 11:08 AM.


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