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:
Scene of the Crimes: Blood oozing - by kjab3112 1 minute ago.
Letters and Communications: An experiment - by David Orsam 3 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Blood oozing - by David Orsam 9 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Blood oozing - by Pierre 16 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Blood oozing - by kjab3112 23 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Blood oozing - by Elamarna 46 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - (14 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Blood oozing - (13 posts)
General Discussion: New claims Jack the Ripper was noted poet who studied as a priest in the North East - (8 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre Sq, The demise is almost complete - (5 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Dorset Street Photo - (3 posts)
Letters and Communications: An experiment - (2 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
  #101  
Old 06-02-2016, 10:48 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 14,270
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MsWeatherwax View Post
I can't tell if you're joking or not.
It strikes me now that our main problem is that not even Trevor himself can tell when he is joking or not...
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 06-02-2016, 02:30 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,453
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debra A View Post
Fisherman is using the exact same observation made by Hebbert in the source information that Mr W Egan is using. Fisherman is looking for similarities to the JTR crimes as described by Hebbert, Mr W Egan is making his own conclusions based on Hebbert's observations. If you want to make a big thing that Fisherman and Mr W Egan's conclusions based on Hebbert's observations being different and suggesting that Mr W Egan is correct and Fisherman is wrong, perhaps you should also note that Mr W Egan calls all the torso cases 'murders' throughout and believes them to be linked as a series and possibly linked to JTR and at no time does he mention that these cases are the result of failed abortions or discarded anatomical specimens.
Debra
With your posts its always someone else that gets it wrong never you.

Dr Hebbert would seem to have been a remarkable man who could write notes, at the same time as conducting a post mortem or piecing body parts together. Or write notes when he wasnt even present !

Last edited by Trevor Marriott : 06-02-2016 at 02:51 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 06-02-2016, 03:10 PM
Debra A Debra A is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorkshire England
Posts: 2,799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Debra
With your posts its always someone else that gets it wrong never you.

Dr Hebbert would seem to have been a remarkable man who could write notes, at the same time as conducting a post mortem or piecing body parts together. Or write notes when he wasnt even present !
Trevor, on the other thread you have just confirmed that Dr Biggs agreed that the cut described by Hebbert was ribs to pubes, just as I said-despite you continually saying that I don't know what I'm talking about. So what am I wrong about here?

You continually project all your own faults on to others.
Goodbye.
__________________
,,`,, Debs ,,`,,
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 06-03-2016, 12:17 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,453
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debra A View Post
Trevor, on the other thread you have just confirmed that Dr Biggs agreed that the cut described by Hebbert was ribs to pubes, just as I said-despite you continually saying that I don't know what I'm talking about. So what am I wrong about here?

You continually project all your own faults on to others.
Goodbye.
I am going to say one final thing and refer to what Dr Biggs says and this is spot on and this applies to many on here, you included who read, doctors reports which give opinions regarding the state of bodies, and body parts found. Time and time again we see researchers forming their own conclusions on what they think is the correct interpretations from these reports etc.

This is what he says and this applies to all the torsos and the WM

"I dont think you can really determine intent with any degree of confidence by looking at the injury let alone reading someone elses description of it"

This is from a forensic pathologist who has to make examinations on dead bodies to determine causes of death in suspicious deaths.

I hope you and others will bear this in mind

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 06-03-2016, 09:25 AM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
On another point Hebbert as we know was Bonds assistant who was scribing for him in the case of Mary Kelly. It was from these notes that Bond prepared his report.

The question is what happened to the notes thereafter? If Bond retained them which is the more likely, for what need would there be to give them back as Hebbert was not going to be called at the inquest.

So the answer might be that what Hebbert said in the book was from memory.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
That's well-argued.
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 06-03-2016, 10:19 AM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
I am going to say one final thing and refer to what Dr Biggs says and this is spot on and this applies to many on here, you included who read, doctors reports which give opinions regarding the state of bodies, and body parts found. Time and time again we see researchers forming their own conclusions on what they think is the correct interpretations from these reports etc.

This is what he says and this applies to all the torsos and the WM

"I dont think you can really determine intent with any degree of confidence by looking at the injury let alone reading someone elses description of it"

This is from a forensic pathologist who has to make examinations on dead bodies to determine causes of death in suspicious deaths.

I hope you and others will bear this in mind

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
And are you, therefore, confident that, in all your various published works, you have never drawn such conclusions yourself?
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 06-04-2016, 01:01 AM
Debra A Debra A is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorkshire England
Posts: 2,799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridewell View Post
And are you, therefore, confident that, in all your various published works, you have never drawn such conclusions yourself?
He would be lying if he answered yes here, Colin.
Right here on the boards a couple of days ago, he wrote this in answer to a query about the source for him saying that the Rainham victim having an incision made into her 'vaginal wall's cartilage' in one of his posts:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...2&postcount=46

For those who can never be bothered to click on links-this is how it went [the bolding is my emphasis]:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debra A
And you are certain it isn't the 'incision from ensiform cartiledge to pubes' you were noting originally? You do mention cartiledge in the note.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott
I wish I could find it because when I found it I thought it was important enough and that action of someone may have given us a clue as to the death. I will continue to look.

*"A vaginal incision is a surgical cut through the vulva and vaginal region, generally for performing a hysterectomy, episiotomy or a corrective operation to restore prolapse of the uterus, bladder or vaginal canal. During surgeries involving a vaginal incision, tissue between the anus and vagina are spliced open while the patient is under anesthesia. At that point, the doctor is able to access the inner pelvic region for the purpose of adjusting or removing a baby, fibroids, a diseased uterus or a bladder"
The last paragraph * is something Trevor googled on the internet while looking for what a 'vaginal incision' might indicate and chose this quote from WiseGEEK.com

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott as a warning to us all
I am going to say one final thing and refer to what Dr Biggs says and this is spot on and this applies to many on here, you included who read, doctors reports which give opinions regarding the state of bodies, and body parts found. Time and time again we see researchers forming their own conclusions on what they think is the correct interpretations from these reports etc.

This is what he says and this applies to all the torsos and the WM

"I don’t think you can really determine intent with any degree of confidence by looking at the injury… let alone reading someone else’s description of it"

This is from a forensic pathologist who has to make examinations on dead bodies to determine causes of death in suspicious deaths.

I hope you and others will bear this in mind

Practice what you preach, Trevor.
__________________
,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

Last edited by Debra A : 06-04-2016 at 01:05 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 06-04-2016, 02:53 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,453
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debra A View Post
He would be lying if he answered yes here, Colin.
Right here on the boards a couple of days ago, he wrote this in answer to a query about the source for him saying that the Rainham victim having an incision made into her 'vaginal wall's cartilage' in one of his posts:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...2&postcount=46

For those who can never be bothered to click on links-this is how it went [the bolding is my emphasis]:





The last paragraph * is something Trevor googled on the internet while looking for what a 'vaginal incision' might indicate and chose this quote from WiseGEEK.com



Practice what you preach, Trevor.
I do !!!!!!!!!! and its not me that is on trial here

If there is a trial it is to determine if the conclusions drawn by you and others with regards to murders or not murders as fas as the thames torsos are concerned are correct based on your research, and that of others.

As to those conclusions you and others plump for murder based on what you have read from the inquest reports and other doctors reports. Much of which in any event may have been guesswork as you have previously been told.

Then having reached those definite conclusions you and others make every attempt imaginable to negate anything anyone else says or writes, which goes against those conclusions.

Plausible explanations are what I have put forward, thats a long way from what you and others do, and that is to come to what can only be described as definite conclusions based on what you read, and your own interpretation of that, which in many instances has proved to be wrong.

You and others have to accept it, you cannot prove any of the 4 torsos between 1887-89 were the subject of murder, equally we cant prove they were not, but again the balance of probabilities and that evidence tells us that they may not have been murdered.

This specific misguided belief you and others have about murder based on what you have read has been blown away with that one sentence made by Dr Biggs.

This is what he says and this applies to all the torsos and the WM

"I dont think you can really determine intent with any degree of confidence by looking at the injury let alone reading someone elses description of it"

This is from a forensic pathologist who has to make examinations on dead bodies to determine causes of death in suspicious deaths.


And to add more corroboration just received from my consultant gynaecologist who concurs with what Dr Biggs says in relation to this statement and also what Dr Biggs said previously which was posted earlier this week.

Now I am not going to discuss topic this any more as far as I am concerned I accept what the experts say. I am happy to continue to refer to the torsos as The Thames Torso Mysteries which given what is known is the correct title, and in fact at one point when we were conversing some months ago you agreed with me on this point, now the worm has turned it seems.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 06-04-2016, 04:25 AM
Debra A Debra A is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorkshire England
Posts: 2,799
Default

Spectacularly missing the point, as usual.
__________________
,,`,, Debs ,,`,,
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 06-04-2016, 04:33 AM
Debra A Debra A is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorkshire England
Posts: 2,799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Now I am not going to discuss topic this any more as far as I am concerned I accept what the experts say. I am happy to continue to refer to the torsos as The Thames Torso Mysteries which given what is known is the correct title, and in fact at one point when we were conversing some months ago you agreed with me on this point, now the worm has turned it seems.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
I said that the use of the word mysteries is fine by me, although I prefer to call them cases, because the Whitechapel cases were also sometimes referred to as mysteries, but we know they were murders. I also said it isn't your right to dictate what anyone calls them as none of us are your subordinates.
__________________
,,`,, Debs ,,`,,
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 01:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.