Body snatching

[Fisherman]

I think most people would disagree with you !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I know most people disagree with you...

[Debra A]

That is correct no direct evidence at this time, but a plausible explanation nevertheless.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The Anatomy Act of 39 and 71 made it clear that legally obtained pauper bodies from the workhouse had to be accompanied by paperwork giving a certified death and anyone taking responsibility for a body was required to produce a certificate of burial within six weeks of obtaining the body. Paupers were required to be 'friendless' or expressed a wish to leave their body for dissection. Efforts had to be made to contact friends or relatives or a deceased person who died in the workhouse and this had to be proven too. The official paper trail was huge! So, when you claim that bodies could be legally taken for dissection, the scenario you propose is not the 'legal' avenue at all. The anatomists would be breaking the law on two separate counts here-obtaining a body illegally and not complying with the requirements of the act requiring burial. It's also on record that a number of Poor law Boards of Guardians also refused to supply university medical schools with bodies on general application for an ongoing agreement, simply over their own moral stance.

[Pierre]

Debra

Have to say I agree with you completely.

Body snatching just no longer occurred in the 1880's.

Even if you did have an illegal body, why dump it when it could be very easily disposed of legally.

It was not unknown for the parts of more than one person to go into a coffin. The coffin may have had a named individuals name on it, but in reality there was no way of proving whom or what was in each coffin.

we seem to have said much the same in our posts.

steve

Hi,

Yes, body snatching did occur in the 1880īs. A reason to this was that in 1860-1870 the number of bodies was approximately equal to the number of students, but after 1870 the supply fell gradually to the number of students (British Medical Journal, 1944, Dec 23; 2(4381): Supply of Bodies for Dissection. Goodman, Neville M., p. 807-811)

The methods of body snatching gradually changed from digging into graves to taking paupers dead bodies directly from the workhouses and selling them to medical schools and doctors for dissection. The practice continued throughout the century. Even in the late 19th century people who were running poor houses sold corpses of their unclaimed inmates after death to teaching hospitals (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...1.01381.x/full)

And here is an example from as late as 1891 from Sunderland Daily Echo and Shipping Gazette Friday 18 September.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi,

Yes, body snatching did occur in the 1880īs. A reason to this was that in 1860-1870 the number of bodies was approximately equal to the number of students, but after 1870 the supply fell gradually to the number of students (British Medical Journal, 1944, Dec 23; 2(4381): Supply of Bodies for Dissection. Goodman, Neville M., p. 807-811)

The methods of body snatching gradually changed from digging into graves to taking paupers dead bodies directly from the workhouses and selling them to medical schools and doctors for dissection. The practice continued throughout the century. Even in the late 19th century people who were running poor houses sold corpses of their unclaimed inmates after death to teaching hospitals (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...1.01381.x/full)

And here is an example from as late as 1891 from Sunderland Daily Echo and Shipping Gazette Friday 18 September.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

Well done in finding a late example,

That is not body snatching in the commonly used sense of the word as you well know.

However your point is made, it appears odd cases still did occur of bodies from other than legal sources did still occur.

I still fail to see any need to illegal dispose of the remains after dissection.

Did you research show if these allegations were true, or just allegations?
And if so, did you find if any legal action was taken in that case?

steve

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: Fisherman

Yes...?

I say this with a great deal of regret, but for someone with 11k+ post you demonstrate a remarkable refusal, indeed almost an obtuse attitude, to accepting how historical sources are used.

I am sorry to cause you so much pain, Steve - I did not know that we were supposed to disbelieve renowned medical experts who expressed an unchallenged view on a matter.

Of course you are trying to prove something, to say you are not is disingenuous.

Eh - I am saying that Charles Hebbert, one of the top medicos of his day, was the only one to comment on Kellys eyelids and what happened to them: they were cut away from her face.
I am of the meaning that Hebbert would be very disinclined to try the adolescent 16-year boy approach and try to make his audience go "Wooowww!" by adding horrific extra details that were never there. Not least since I think that he would have thought it embarrasing if Bond, his co-worker had protested.
I am much more of the meaning that what Hebbert reported was what Hebbert saw, and I would like to hear what anyone disagreeing with that have to offer for their different take.

Your aim is to prove that particular attention was paid to the eyes of Kelly, there also appears to be an attempt, as yet not made completely clear, but I am sure it will come, to link it to 1873.

The eyelids were taken away. We know that from Hebberts account. The eyes were left staring, as per Dew, as per Barnett who ID:d her by them, and by for example the Pall Mall Gazette reporter who wrote that they were the only human vestiges left in an otherwise totally cut and destroyed face.

So I am not aiming to prove something - I am pointing to something already proven. Whether there was any small damage to the eyes or not is not very interesting in this context - they were left intact or almost intact. There is also a parallel in Eddowes, where the eyelids were nicked, but where no medico (not even Bond) said that the eyes suffered damage.

Of course we have a reason to doubt the accounts of the damage to Kelly’s eyelids, the comment by Hebbert are written 6 years at least after the event and are not a report to be used for medical or police purposes but as part of a training manual.

It fits the evidence, as I just pointed out, so no we have no reason at all to doubt Hebbert.

By the way I am not a fan of Bond, in my opinion he makes many conclusions that can be argued against, but on the whole see no mistakes in his actual descriptions of scenes and the damage done.

So you know how it looked and what had happened, is that it? And you therefore also know that Bonds report was precise, correct and without mistakes? You see, Steve, before you can know that, you need to know what he described.

Its not my view of the the two sources that is important. It is how historians, both trained and amateur and history as an academic discipline views the sources.

And once again, you can go on about that for years, and it wonīt change the fact that a renowned medico who worked in tandem with Bond was the only person to describe what happened to Kellys eyelids. It is therefore incredibly more likely to be true than false, as I am sure you will agree.

Fisherman

All the above you have written, just makes your major failing even clearer.

That failing is a complete failure to look at evidence/sources and analyse and criticise them.

The post reads we Should accept Hebbert because he is a great doctor, you refuse to consider, the fact his contribution to a book is written some six years later, it seems it is not important at all, there is an assumption he must be correct, and say:


"I am much more of the meaning that what Hebbert reported was what Hebbert saw, and I would like to hear what anyone disagreeing with that have to offer for their different take."


Well so far 3 persons have done just that.

Your view on the damage to the eyes is truly remarkable and shows a complete failure to correctly address the sources involved:

"The eyelids were taken away. We know that from Hebberts account. The eyes were left staring, as per Dew, as per Barnett who ID:d her by them, and by for example the Pall Mall Gazette reporter who wrote that they were the only human vestiges left in an otherwise totally cut and destroyed face."


Lets look at this:

1. You make a definitive statement:
" The eyelids were taken away"

yet this is based on the source we are discussing, it is not definitive by any stretch of the imagination.

2. Your first source to back up a source written 6 years after the event is a book written 50 years after, in which the author says he observed the eyes from the window, that is a backup of extremely limited usefulness and reliability.

3 Your next source is by an unnamed reporter? what was this persons source to say this? Did he actually see Kelly himself?

4.You also quote Barnett, who said he id'd Kelly by her eyes, there is no comment with regards to any damage, although if the damage was great one would expect him to say something!
However that does not eliminate minor damage, nor does it say the face around the eyes was carefully butchered so has not to damage the eyes


THAT Fisherman is how you look at sources?


Yet you finish by writing:

"And once again, you can go on about that for years, and it wonīt change the fact that a renowned medico who worked in tandem with Bond was the only person to describe what happened to Kelly’s eyelids. It is therefore incredibly more likely to be true than false, as I am sure you will agree."

Again the importance and reliability of the sources are not even looked at; just he is a really good \doctor, he worked with Bond, he must be right.

Wrong my dear Fisherman!

I certainly do not agree.

Regards

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Debra A;382673]There are many problems with the medical specimen scenario-

Did medical students work nights?

Elizabeth Jackson was last seen by a witness who knew her at 9pm on 3rd June 1889.

Hi Debra,

How do we know if we can trust that witness? The witness might have lied.

The first of her remains were recovered from the Thames the following morning, 4th June.

If the witness did not lie and if Elizabeth was seen 3rd June, the medical students must have worked during the night. One hypothesis could be that she died during the delivery of the child at a hospital and they took the chance to use the body for medical practice.

The chance could have been taken if they thought she was an unfortunate and nobody therefore would claim the body. It is just a suggestion.

Elizabeth's remains were wrapped in her own clothing as was the Whitehall torso remains, including the leg still clad in a woollen stocking.

I think the Whitehall case is a murder done by Jack the Ripper. So I will not discuss that in this context.

Bodies could be obtained legally. All it required was that there was no family of the deceased to come forward and object and a time limit required to wait for family or friends to claim the body first.

As an historian one knows that normative texts are normative texts and practice is practice.

Bodies meant for the dissecting table were treated beforehand and there were no signs of treatment and none of the doctors who examined them expressed the view that they might be looking at a medical specimen.

It is unlikely that they would accuse medical practitioners.

For a medical facility to accept illegally gained corpses would be one thing but they were doubly guilty if anyone is suggesting they then went on to dispose of the discarded illegally gotten specimens by also illegally dumping them without burial, which was their responsibility.

Yes, and people who illegally sold bodies could perhaps come and get the remains afterwards and dump them, if they were paid. Or if they did not bring the body at first, they could come and dump it if they were paid.

Since the head was not found, I think it is a good hypothesis that they attempted to hide her ID. Perhaps the head was buried. For body snatching there is pre and post work to be done.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;382772]

Pierre

Well done in finding a late example,

That is not body snatching in the commonly used sense of the word as you well know.

Hi Steve,

Thank you for your statement "commonly used sense". That is exactly why I do not use "common sense". The "common sense" of 1891 is not the "common sense of 1830 or 2016.

And you see, the newspaper from that time call it body snatching.

Therefore I work inductively, pretending I know nothing and forgetting my own "common sense". It gives a better access to the past.

Also, and this is very important, concepts change - a lot! - over time. I could give you many examples. "Christianity", or "classical" or "madness". When we see these concepts, we understand them from our own specific point of view. And that makes us blind to the past.

However your point is made, it appears odd cases still did occur of bodies from other than legal sources did still occur.

I still fail to see any need to illegal dispose of the remains after dissection.

Did you research show if these allegations were true, or just allegations?
And if so, did you find if any legal action was taken in that case?

I understand that you might not like the thought of medical men doing some illegal actions. Even if the purpose was good. But the past is like that. You never know what you find.

The reason for the need to dispose of the remains in an illegal way is that if they were obtained in an illegal way - without asking the relatives and following the paper procedure according to the law - they must be disposed of in the same way.

I have not looked into the consequences of the case.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Fisherman

All the above you have written, just makes your major failing even clearer.

That failing is a complete failure to look at evidence/sources and analyse and criticise them.

The post reads we Should accept Hebbert because he is a great doctor, you refuse to consider, the fact his contribution to a book is written some six years later, it seems it is not important at all, there is an assumption he must be correct, and say:

"I am much more of the meaning that what Hebbert reported was what Hebbert saw, and I would like to hear what anyone disagreeing with that have to offer for their different take."

Well so far 3 persons have done just that.

No, they have not. Nobody has explained why Hebbert would be as likey to be wrong as right, and that is what I am after. Once again, what he states is totally uncontroversial it is in line with what we know happened to Kelly (she was taken apart piece by piece), and not a soul has offered a view that is in conflict with Hebbert.

Therefore, far from saying that it can be wrong and it can be right, we should keep the door ajar for it being wrong, but overall accept that it is most probably correct.

Your view on the damage to the eyes is truly remarkable and shows a complete failure to correctly address the sources involved:

"The eyelids were taken away. We know that from Hebberts account. The eyes were left staring, as per Dew, as per Barnett who ID:d her by them, and by for example the Pall Mall Gazette reporter who wrote that they were the only human vestiges left in an otherwise totally cut and destroyed face."


Lets look at this:

1. You make a definitive statement:
" The eyelids were taken away"

yet this is based on the source we are discussing, it is not definitive by any stretch of the imagination.

2. Your first source to back up a source written 6 years after the event is a book written 50 years after, in which the author says he observed the eyes from the window, that is a backup of extremely limited usefulness and reliability.

3 Your next source is by an unnamed reporter? what was this persons source to say this? Did he actually see Kelly himself?

4.You also quote Barnett, who said he id'd Kelly by her eyes, there is no comment with regards to any damage, although if the damage was great one would expect him to say something!
However that does not eliminate minor damage, nor does it say the face around the eyes was carefully butchered so has not to damage the eyes


THAT Fisherman is how you look at sources?

As I pointed out, it is far more likley to be true than not that the eyelids were taken away. Hebbert assisted Bond, and he knew what he was talking about. As I keep saying, there may have been some little damage to the eyeballs, but they were nevertheless left intact enough for a suggestion to photograph them, mentioned by Dew, and - if I am not mistaken - also commented on by Phillips. The Pall Mall Gazette reporter saw Kelly, and described her - and the description is in line with Dew and Barnett.

There is not very much to go on, but what there is dovetails.Whether you want to get on your high horses and do a Pierre or not as a result of that is something you must decide for yourself.


Yet you finish by writing:

"And once again, you can go on about that for years, and it wonīt change the fact that a renowned medico who worked in tandem with Bond was the only person to describe what happened to Kelly’s eyelids. It is therefore incredibly more likely to be true than false, as I am sure you will agree."

Again the importance and reliability of the sources are not even looked at; just he is a really good \doctor, he worked with Bond, he must be right.

Wrong my dear Fisherman!

Possibly, yes - but probably not. The idea that I say that he MUST be correct is your uncalled for addition. We can play that game with Bond to, who you claim did his work with "no mistakes" - as if you were in a position to judge that!

I certainly do not agree.

What you certainly do and certainly donīt is not very likely to keep me awake at night, Steve. I am more concerned about how you fail to read me correctly and try to claim that Hebbert "exaggerates" whereas Bond made "no mistakes". Spreading such misinformation is more of a danger than anybody clearly declaring why a source should not be lightly dismissed.

[Elamarna]

Hi,

Yes, body snatching did occur in the 1880īs. A reason to this was that in 1860-1870 the number of bodies was approximately equal to the number of students, but after 1870 the supply fell gradually to the number of students (British Medical Journal, 1944, Dec 23; 2(4381): Supply of Bodies for Dissection. Goodman, Neville M., p. 807-811)

The methods of body snatching gradually changed from digging into graves to taking paupers dead bodies directly from the workhouses and selling them to medical schools and doctors for dissection. The practice continued throughout the century. Even in the late 19th century people who were running poor houses sold corpses of their unclaimed inmates after death to teaching hospitals (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...1.01381.x/full)

And here is an example from as late as 1891 from Sunderland Daily Echo and Shipping Gazette Friday 18 September.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

I have just read the article you linked to.

it is not describing illegal body snatching in the late 19th century, rather it talks from the section beginning:

"Following the Anatomy Act of 1832 (Anonymous, 1832), body snatching from graves became unnecessary,"

to the end of the section

"teaching hospitals to recoup the expenses of poor relief in their parish "

about how bodies are legally supplied from workhouses and hospitals.

I think you are missing something here.

By the way this is a very interesting thread, when we stick to the topic.

all the best steve

[Debra A]

Pierre

Well done in finding a late example,

That is not body snatching in the commonly used sense of the word as you well know.

However your point is made, it appears odd cases still did occur of bodies from other than legal sources did still occur.

I still fail to see any need to illegal dispose of the remains after dissection.

Did you research show if these allegations were true, or just allegations?
And if so, did you find if any legal action was taken in that case?

steve

To Pierre and Steve
This case is different to the scenario being proposed that the torso victims were illegally dumped in the Thames after [what must have been illegally obtained in Jackson's case] and undergoing dissection at a medical school. In the Glasgow case of 1891 it was the transporter of the bodies who committed the criminal offence and that was taking paupers bodies destined for the cemetery, from the workhouse and depositing them with an anatomist registered under the 1832 Anatomy Act, using forged paperwork. That anatomist was under the impression he was receiving legitimate specimens and was not accused of not burying or dumping the remains illegally afterwards.

[Pierre]

Pierre

I have just read the article you linked to.

it is not describing illegal body snatching in the late 19th century, rather it talks from the section beginning:

"Following the Anatomy Act of 1832 (Anonymous, 1832), body snatching from graves became unnecessary,"

to the end of the section

"teaching hospitals to recoup the expenses of poor relief in their parish "

about how bodies are legally supplied from workhouses and hospitals.

I think you are missing something here.

By the way this is a very interesting thread, when we stick to the topic.

all the best steve

Hi Steve,

No, my point is that, as I wrote, "the methods of body snatching gradually changed from digging into graves to taking paupers dead bodies directly from the workhouses and selling them to medical schools and doctors for dissection.". This was both a legal and an illegal practice. I certainly could have made that clearer. Thanks Steve.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Debra A;382783]To Pierre and Steve
This case is different to the scenario being proposed that the torso victims were illegally dumped in the Thames after [what must have been illegally obtained in Jackson's case] and undergoing dissection at a medical school. In the Glasgow case of 1891 it was the transporter of the bodies who committed the criminal offence and that was taking paupers bodies destined for the cemetery, from the workhouse and depositing them with an anatomist registered under the 1832 Anatomy Act, using forged paperwork.

That anatomist was under the impression he was receiving legitimate specimens and was not accused of not burying or dumping the remains illegally afterwards.

Debra. We know nothing about what the anatomist thought.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;382775]

Hi Steve,

Thank you for your statement "commonly used sense". That is exactly why I do not use "common sense". The "common sense" of 1891 is not the "common sense of 1830 or 2016.

And you see, the newspaper from that time call it body snatching.

Therefore I work inductively, pretending I know nothing and forgetting my own "common sense". It gives a better access to the past.

Also, and this is very important, concepts change - a lot! - over time. I could give you many examples. "Christianity", or "classical" or "madness". When we see these concepts, we understand them from our own specific point of view. And that makes us blind to the past.





I understand that you might not like the thought of medical men doing some illegal actions. Even if the purpose was good. But the past is like that. You never know what you find.

The reason for the need to dispose of the remains in an illegal way is that if they were obtained in an illegal way - without asking the relatives and following the paper procedure according to the law - they must be disposed of in the same way.

I have not looked into the consequences of the case.

Kind regards, Pierre

Pierre

Good point, and as i said a good find.
However that does not prove it to be a common practice does it.

I have no problem with the behaviour of medical persons in the past, the history of my old medical school is well known, and is very dark in some places, other hospitals were let me assure you worse.


With regards to the disposal, you did not need to dispose of them illegally, if no one knew you had the bodies you simply added bits to other coffins, believe me it did happen!

It is a pity that we do not know if the allegations in the article were proved true, it could be they were not.

It would be interesting to check this, I may go and do some digging to see if I can find an answer.

Also has I have just posted, the article you provided the link too was very good, however it did not back up the claim of illegal obtained bodies being used in the later part of the 19th century, rather it explained the legal methods.

It did not provide any evidence of widespread breaking of the law.

Am I missing something? or have you?

This thread, when we keep off the issue of the torsos themselves i find very interesting.

regards

steve

[Pierre]

Didnīt you say that there was a copycat element involved, Steve? And would you not regard that a link?

On a separate note: was the reason for your suggesting a copycat element not that you thought it too odd for the colon business, the abdominal flap business and the eyelid business not to have something at all in common? That these elements were too unique not to be related in any way at all?

Were "flaps" typical for operation? Were "flaps" typical for Jack the Ripper?

Do zebras have four legs? Do elephants have four legs?

Are zebras elephants?

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

No, my point is that, as I wrote, "the methods of body snatching gradually changed from digging into graves to taking paupers dead bodies directly from the workhouses and selling them to medical schools and doctors for dissection.". This was both a legal and an illegal practice. I certainly could have made that clearer. Thanks Steve.

Regards, Pierre

Thank you for clearing that,

I think several post may have crossed on that.

I will amend my original statement that body snatching was over by 1888 to "all but over" in light of the article you found.
if I do find it was unproven I will of course revert back, that what i call flexible thinking.

The last recorded example I can find of an actually grave robbery was on wikipedia,(not great I admit, but was the latest could find ) in 1862.


regards

Steve