Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What was going on at the Eddowes inquest ?

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

  • What was going on at the Eddowes inquest ?

    Daily News 12th Oct .
    Dr. W.F. Saunders, 13 Queen street, Fellow of the Chemical Society, and public analyst of the City of London deposed: 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. I carefully examined the stomach and its contents more particularly for poisons of the narcotic class, with negative results, there being not the faintest trace of those or any other poison.

    The reality from Brown .....

    Taken from the A-Z page 72

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


    These statements can not possibly be reconciled .
    This can not be human error .
    Why did Saunders say what he said ?
    You can lead a horse to water....

  • #2
    Brown placed the stomach contents in a jar and sent it to Saunders for analysis. What is your concern?

    It is standard practice in an autopsy to analyze the stomach, it will have been done with all the victims. It is also standard practice to investigate the brain of the victim, that was done with all the victims also.
    Regards, Jon S.
    "
    The theory that the murderer is a lunatic is dispelled by the opinion given to the police by an expert in the treatment of lunacy patients......."If he's insane
    " observed the medical authority, "he's a good deal sharper than those who are not".
    Reynolds Newspaper, 4 Nov. 1888.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
      Brown placed the stomach contents in a jar and sent it to Saunders for analysis. What is your concern?

      It is standard practice in an autopsy to analyze the stomach, it will have been done with all the victims. It is also standard practice to investigate the brain of the victim, that was done with all the victims also.
      Saunders said he received the stomach, not just its contents - according to a press report.

      What is the source of the A-Z statement?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
        Saunders said he received the stomach, not just its contents - according to a press report.

        What is the source of the A-Z statement?
        Hi Gary
        I'm not sure , it's just in the middle of the Brown testimony as shown in the A-Z

        Further
        Evening news of the fifth


        "Examination showed that there was very little in the stomach in the way of food or fluid."

        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."

        Clear from reports that as of the 5th he had examined the stomach for fluid and food but not for drugs .
        The question raised by the member of the jury may explain why the contents were then forwarded to Saunders and the long adjournement before Saunders being called ..
        You can lead a horse to water....

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
          Saunders said he received the stomach, not just its contents - according to a press report.

          What is the source of the A-Z statement?

          I was using Dr Brown's own words from the official inquest record.
          "I removed the contents of the stomach"....etc. etc.


          With all due respect to Paul B., it is always preferable to use the original record when questioning a statement by a witness.


          I don't see what it is that Packers is taking issue with.
          Regards, Jon S.
          "
          The theory that the murderer is a lunatic is dispelled by the opinion given to the police by an expert in the treatment of lunacy patients......."If he's insane
          " observed the medical authority, "he's a good deal sharper than those who are not".
          Reynolds Newspaper, 4 Nov. 1888.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
            I was using Dr Brown's own words from the official inquest record.
            "I removed the contents of the stomach"....etc. etc.


            With all due respect to Paul B., it is always preferable to use the original record when questioning a statement by a witness.


            I don't see what it is that Packers is taking issue with.
            The wording of the Daily News item gives the impression that the stomach contents were still within the stomach when Saunders received them. I think that's the point he is making.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
              The wording of the Daily News item gives the impression that the stomach contents were still within the stomach when Saunders received them. I think that's the point he is making.
              In the court record we read Dr Brown saying:
              "I removed the contents of the stomach and placed IT in a jar for further examination"

              "IT" seems to refer to a single organ.
              If he removed the contents of the stomach, the "IT" should be "THEM" - "placed them in a jar".

              So he is talking about removing one single organ, and Saunders said he received one single organ, with the ends carefully tied up.

              Perhaps, "stomach" should have read "abdomen" in Dr Brown's testimony?

              I'd hate to think we're getting embroiled in semantics, it's pretty clear what both doctors were talking about.
              Regards, Jon S.
              "
              The theory that the murderer is a lunatic is dispelled by the opinion given to the police by an expert in the treatment of lunacy patients......."If he's insane
              " observed the medical authority, "he's a good deal sharper than those who are not".
              Reynolds Newspaper, 4 Nov. 1888.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
                In the court record we read Dr Brown saying:
                "I removed the contents of the stomach and placed IT in a jar for further examination"

                "IT" seems to refer to a single organ.
                If he removed the contents of the stomach, the "IT" should be "THEM" - "placed them in a jar".

                So he is talking about removing one single organ, and Saunders said he received one single organ, with the ends carefully tied up.

                Perhaps, "stomach" should have read "abdomen" in Dr Brown's testimony?

                I'd hate to think we're getting embroiled in semantics, it's pretty clear what both doctors were talking about.
                Hardly semantics when Brown said he had removed the contents of the stomach and Saunders said the contents had not been interfered with in any way .
                Its about the truth .... there are two different versions , nothing to do with semantics
                You can lead a horse to water....

                Comment


                • #9
                  Further Jon
                  Although you suggest that 'it' refers to the organ isn't it more likely that the contents would be required for further examination than the organ if they planned to test for narcotics ?
                  You can lead a horse to water....

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Interesting. Obviously, Saunders was either being disingenuous or was confused in his testimony ( providing that this account as recorded by the reporter is accurate.)

                    By standard procedure, at the initial PM the stomach and it's contents would have been checked for food content, progress of digestion and consumption of alcohol. Something would have been disturbed.

                    I would suspect that Saunders said what he said to give the impression of no likely hood of post contamination. Good thing he wasn't cross-examined by OJ Simpson's attorneys, huh?
                    Best Wishes,
                    Cris Malone
                    ______________________________________________
                    "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      "providing that this account as recorded by the reporter is accurate."

                      ...and thereby arose many an apparent ripperesque mystery
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen"
                      (F. Nietzsche)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
                        I was using Dr Brown's own words from the official inquest record.
                        "I removed the contents of the stomach"....etc. etc.

                        With all due respect to Paul B., it is always preferable to use the original record when questioning a statement by a witness.

                        I don't see what it is that Packers is taking issue with.
                        I'm a little confused. The Inquest papers state: 'William Sedgwick Saunders 13 Queen Street, Cheapside, Dr. of Medicine, Fellow of the Institute of Chemistry, Fellow of the Chemical Society, and Public Analyst for the City of London — “I received the stomach from Dr. Gordon Brown carefully sealed with his own private seal. The ends of the stomach had been carefully tied but its contents not been interfered with in any way. I carefully examined the stomach and its contents more particularly for poisons of the narcotic class with negative results, there not being the faintest trace of these or any other poison.”
                        By Mr. Crawford — “I was present at the post mortem. I agree with Dr. Brown and Dr. Sequeira that the wounds were not inflicted by anyone possessing great anatomical skill and I agree that the perpetrator of the deed had no particular design on any particular organ.” WmSedgwickSaunders.'

                        Isn't that what the A to Z states.

                        I would almost always prefer the official report to a newspaper report.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Paul View Post
                          I'm a little confused. The Inquest papers state: 'William Sedgwick Saunders 13 Queen Street, Cheapside, Dr. of Medicine, Fellow of the Institute of Chemistry, Fellow of the Chemical Society, and Public Analyst for the City of London — “I received the stomach from Dr. Gordon Brown carefully sealed with his own private seal. The ends of the stomach had been carefully tied but its contents not been interfered with in any way. I carefully examined the stomach and its contents more particularly for poisons of the narcotic class with negative results, there not being the faintest trace of these or any other poison.”
                          By Mr. Crawford — “I was present at the post mortem. I agree with Dr. Brown and Dr. Sequeira that the wounds were not inflicted by anyone possessing great anatomical skill and I agree that the perpetrator of the deed had no particular design on any particular organ.” WmSedgwickSaunders.'

                          Isn't that what the A to Z states.

                          I would almost always prefer the official report to a newspaper report.
                          It's the words of Brown that Jon believes to be incorrect Paul, as Saunders' testimony is in contradiction.


                          "I removed the content of the stomach and placed it in a jar for further examination"
                          You can lead a horse to water....

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            It's as interesting as the fact that both Blackwell and Phillips claimed to have removed the cachous from Stride's hand and passed them to the other .
                            Ho hum ..... 😀
                            You can lead a horse to water....

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X