Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Doctor Brown

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

  • Robert Linford
    replied
    How, Brown does seem to have been impressed by the suspect's apparent knowledge of where to find the kidney - whereas S and S seem not to have been, if they thought he had no particular designs on any particular organ. I don't know whether that means they thought the killer found it by chance.

    Dr Wecht must be dead by now - if he performed 10,000 autopsies under his belt.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Doug:

    I don't know if he was,old bean. There are people who actually believe in the idea that "everyone is equal" and yet in most other circumstances,they say intelligent things as a rule.

    What I do know is that I sent him 4 inquest reports and in addition to him suggesting that the killer of N/C/ and E as well as Kelly being a psychotic...he specifically mentioned Brown's statement regarding "knowledge" in the removal of the kidney as ringing true for him. A kidney would not have been easy to remove in the environment ( low degree of ambient or artificial lighting...being pressed for time...and in the act of committing murder,not performing a routine autopsy or dissection) that the killer worked in.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by How Brown View Post
    Thats okay Debbie...I understand that the

    Lets just say anatomical knowledge. Doctors of that time period,Debbie, weren't any less intelligent than they are today...(Cyril Wecht,the 2009 Pittsburgh coroner with 10,000 autopsies under his belt,feels the same way that there was a modicum of skill present in removing the Eddowes kidney)...maybe in the amount of knowledge they have compared to most left inside her...thats my guess.
    Wasnt Dr Cyril Wecht at least a partial believer in the Alien Autopsy issue as well?

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Robert:



    Not sure if, with all due respect to your opinion Bob, that by S & S stating that the killer had no design on a particular organ, that that thought process corrolates so succintly with the "no evidence of knowledge" statement. They could be considered mutually exclusive of each other in a way too. You may also be correct here obviously.

    To remove the organ in such a way that Doc Brown percieved..with a modicum of anatomical knowledge on the part of the extricator...is an act unto itself...to me, whether any of us were there or not.

    For the overall evisceration, S & S & B may well have been spot on...since and because none of us were there...that there was little, if any at all,evidence of the extricator possessing any degree of knowledge of anatomical skill. Only the lone act of the extrication of the kidney impressed Brown it seems, not the overall devastation the killer enacted upon the body.

    Hope that makes sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert Linford
    replied
    Actually, it's interesting because all three doctors saw no evidence of great anatomical skill. Brown saw evidence of anatomical knowledge, at the level of that possessed by animal slaughterers. But Sequeira and Saunders thought that the murderer had no design on any particular organ - which seems to suggest that they (Sequeira and Saunders) saw no evidence of knowledge?

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Thats okay Debbie...I understand that the thread title might sound funny.

    I was originally going to entitle it " Carmine: A Remarkable and Intelligent German Shepherd". That would have made the world laugh.

    Thanks for your reply.

    Robert:

    You're correct,old man. Proficiency was a poorly selected word.

    Lets just say anatomical knowledge. Doctors of that time period,Debbie, weren't any less intelligent than they are today...(Cyril Wecht,the 2009 Pittsburgh coroner with 10,000 autopsies under his belt,feels the same way that there was a modicum of skill present in removing the Eddowes kidney)...maybe in the amount of knowledge they have compared to most modern doctors, but to determine whether a procedure such as the extrication of an organ displayed some "knowledge" may well refer to the fact that the doctor was offering his opinion on how the bit of renal artery was left inside her...thats my guess.

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert Linford
    replied
    How, I'm not sure that "proficiency" is the right word. I understood that Brown had refused to attribute skill to the murderer, and so did Sequeira and Saunders. Brown did however say that the murderer had some anatomical knowledge.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I'm by no means a medical expert but know enough about domestic animal anatomy to have a few questions about this. How could a doc of that time period tell that it was removed with proficiency? Obviously she was disembowled so the cavity would have been open and I can't imagine it would take more than a couple small snips or slits of a knife to remove the kidney? Did the doc give specific reasons for why he thought this?

    (((I'm sorry How. I would have posted sooner but I was too busy laughing at the title of this thread.)))

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    started a topic Doctor Brown

    Doctor Brown

    The medico who opined that there was a degree of proficiency in the extrication of the Eddowes kidney.

    This is a thread in need of development....hint hint...
Working...
X