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 Darryl Kenyon 29 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Fisherman 1 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Fisherman 3 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Harry D 5 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Lawrence - by etenguy 6 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - (19 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - (6 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Lawrence - (2 posts)
General Discussion: Ripper was several people... - (1 posts)
Letters and Communications: I'm not a butcher, I'm not a Yid...... - (1 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: The Nihilist Club ie. Berner 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
  #41  
Old 10-15-2018, 03:31 AM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
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.
When Brown stated the he removed the content ...... it is what it says on the tin
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....

Last edited by packers stem : 10-15-2018 at 03:36 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-15-2018, 03:45 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packers stem View Post
When Brown stated the he removed the contents ...... it is what it says on the tin
If something had been removed, one wouldn't describe it as having been "interfered with", unless one were being extremely euphemistic (cf. "Annie Chapman's uterus was interfered with"... no, it was removed).

I can't help feeling that something has gone missing in translation here. How would Brown be able to "remove" the contents of the stomach whilst leaving it otherwise intact, unless he used a pump or several scoops with a long spoon?

Furthermore, why would he even want to remove the contents, if he intended to send the stomach for further analysis?
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-15-2018, 03:54 AM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
If something had been removed, one wouldn't describe it as having been "interfered with", unless one were being extremely euphemistic (cf. "Annie Chapman's uterus was interfered with"... no, it was removed).

I can't help feeling that something has gone missing in translation here. How would Brown be able to "remove" the contents of the stomach whilst leaving it otherwise intact, unless he used a pump or several scoops with a long spoon?

Furthermore, why would he even want to remove the contents, if he intended to send the stomach for further analysis?
The answer is in the telegraph of the 5th

Telegraph of the 5th ....

"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."

Seems obvious that the idea that the stomach contents should be sent to Saunders was prompted by the question from the juror .
The testimony shows that at that point Brown had examined the stomach content but not tested for narcotics .
Saunders was just in his own world it seems
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-15-2018, 03:59 AM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,049
Default

This likely explains the long adjournement before Saunders being called
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-15-2018, 12:35 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,808
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packers stem View Post
The answer is in the telegraph of the 5th

Telegraph of the 5th ....

"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."

Seems obvious that the idea that the stomach contents should be sent to Saunders was prompted by the question from the juror .
The testimony shows that at that point Brown had examined the stomach content but not tested for narcotics .
Saunders was just in his own world it seems
No, I don't think so.
Brown did not examine the contents of the stomach for the presence of a drug, or anything else. He preserved the whole stomach for analysis.
Thats what he says.
He doesn't say why, that's all. The 'why' is the reason Saunders was at the autopsy, Brown was giving the stomach to Saunders.

Saunders will have been at the autopsy at the request of Dr. Brown. This is the custom.

The coroner is the one who decides if an autopsy is necessary, and he assigns one surgeon to lead the autopsy - Dr. Brown.
Any other professionals in attendance need the permission of Dr Brown to be there.
So, Saunders was there at the request of Dr Brown.
Given Saunder's expertise in chemical analysis, there must have been some question as to what Eddowes might have in her stomach.

There's nothing here. It's just a formal procedure that can be found at any autopsy.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 10-15-2018, 02:19 PM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
No, I don't think so.
Brown did not examine the contents of the stomach for the presence of a drug
That's correct , he confirmed that much
Quote:

or anything else.
That's not correct
He confirmed perfectly clearly that the content ( that he had confirmed that he had removed from the stomach) seemed very little in the way of food or fluid .

Note content .....so in that same sentence the it could equally refer to the content .

I find it highly unlikely that the stomach ,minus the already removed content (the removal of which can't be in question without disregarding the rest of Brown's testimony ) , would be of any use to Saunders , therefore unless Brown put the content back in , he sent the content in a jar .
Either way , it was not uninterfered with .
Saunders could not possibly have received the stomach ,containing content , as he stated .
Why he said he did is what should be important here
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-15-2018, 04:53 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,808
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packers stem View Post

He confirmed perfectly clearly that the content ( that he had confirmed that he had removed from the stomach) seemed very little in the way of food or fluid .
Saunders did say the stomach had not been interfered with, so it had not been opened.
You seem to be forgetting Brown was an experienced surgeon. How many hundreds of stomachs do you think he has lifted out of an abdomen in his years of practice?
Don't you think he could tell by the weight alone that there was little "food or fluid" in this stomach?

He was quoted as saying:
"There seemed very little in it in the way of food or fluid,.."

If he had opened the stomach he would know for sure, he wouldn't say "seemed".
His words "seemed very little" indicate he had not opened it, he was guessing. Which in turn suggests he was judging by the weight - the stomach was light, not heavy as it would be if it contained substantial food or fluid.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-15-2018, 05:06 PM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Saunders did say the stomach had not been interfered with, so it had not been opened.
You seem to be forgetting Brown was an experienced surgeon. How many hundreds of stomachs do you think he has lifted out of an abdomen in his years of practice?
Don't you think he could tell by the weight alone that there was little "food or fluid" in this stomach?

He was quoted as saying:
"There seemed very little in it in the way of food or fluid,.."

If he had opened the stomach he would know for sure, he wouldn't say "seemed".
His words "seemed very little" indicate he had not opened it, he was guessing. Which in turn suggests he was judging by the weight - the stomach was light, not heavy as it would be if it contained substantial food or fluid.
So you're completely ignoring that he said he removed the content of the stomach ?
Any particular reason why you brush past this rather clear statement ?
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-15-2018, 05:35 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,808
Default

Yes, I put that error down to the court recorder who wrote 'stomach' for abdomen.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10-15-2018, 05:44 PM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Yes, I put that error down to the court recorder who wrote 'stomach' for abdomen.
Unfortunately ,that falls down unless the press said abdomen .
They didn't
They repeated stomach
So there was no error .

We can run around this forever and a day
One of them was wrong
I'm sticking with Brown giving us the correct version of events .
You can go with Saunders if you wish but both can't be correct .
It is that simple
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
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 11:33 AM.


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