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:
Witnesses: Finding Israel Schwartz - by Robert 22 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Joe Barnetts alibi accepted lightly? - by Flower and Dean 23 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - by Flower and Dean 28 minutes ago.
General Discussion: JtR 3D scenes - by GUT 32 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - by Michael W Richards 58 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - by Sam Flynn 1 hour and 4 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
General Discussion: New claims Jack the Ripper was noted poet who studied as a priest in the North East - (14 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - (14 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Joe Barnetts alibi accepted lightly? - (11 posts)
Letters and Communications: An experiment - (11 posts)
General Discussion: Two Years of Articles - (4 posts)
General Discussion: "Red Terror" - (4 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
  #21  
Old 06-01-2016, 05:24 AM
Debra A Debra A is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorkshire England
Posts: 2,803
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Tempting idea Debra, however you may find that a hard position to maintain ( not that you are, I fully understand it is just a possible suggestion)n unless Hebbert made some clear link himself.

Have to say the idea that he may have tailored his notes for the purpose of the book, which I suggested earlier almost as an after thought does seem very tempting to me.
If there was no Need to be 100% that would xplan the differences,

Indeed Kattrup pointed out:

"The example is specifically stated to be illustrative of the principle mentioned earlier in the text: "Indeed, there may be cases where the whole body has been so badly mutilated that it is by the preparation of the skeleton alone that an idea of the sex may be formed. ""


and my suggestion would fit with that purpose.


Debra, from the information you have supplied it does seem clear that the reports in the text book on the Torso's are a completely different animal from the report on MJK.

regards


Steve
Steve, it was also suggested in years past that Harris could have been the one to 'doctor' the notes on MJK to fit into the theme of the chapter they were to be included in. This was also discussed in relation to the pubic hair question which Stephen G Ryan proposed was literally a deliberate act of removing the pubic hair by the killer (remembered by Scott earlier)
It's pretty obvious that the facial mutilations were detailed like this because it was to illustrate the difficulty in using things like facial features to determine sex in a badly mutilated corpse.
__________________
,,`,, Debs ,,`,,
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-01-2016, 05:35 AM
Debra A Debra A is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorkshire England
Posts: 2,803
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
You should be more sensitive, Debra - they got really nervous there...
Well I have to be honest here, Fisherman, your eyelid thing flumoxed me somewhat as personally I've always felt there was some exaggeration in that passage because of what it was written to illustrate, but SG Ryan certainly seems to think it is a more detailed account and he knows the cases very well. But these are all old arguments and the ideas have been discussed many times before. I'm trying to recall what Stewart Evans said on the subject as he did make some very sensible comments somewhere on the boards years ago but they were probably lost in the crash.

The mentioning of heart not being in the room in that same passage has always been contentious too because it is often used in conjunction with Bond's "heart absent" comment in Kelly's PM to support the idea that MJK's heart was taken by her killer. I happen to agree with that idea but not being trained in proper historical analysis I'm doubting my own conclusion now as I'm trying to use Bond's PM with 'Hebbert's' or Harris's notes in a SOLM which is what is being objected to over you and those eyelids!!
__________________
,,`,, Debs ,,`,,
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-01-2016, 05:45 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: north london
Posts: 2,563
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debra A View Post
Steve, I might also suggest that inclusion of the other Whitechapel cases, from memory or notes, may have been used as a 'sweetner' by Hebbert to secure US publication of his work on identification of the dead using the torso cases as illustration. The details of MJK's injuries were something not generally in print anywhere.
Very good point

steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-01-2016, 06:05 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 14,270
Default

Double posting.

Last edited by Fisherman : 06-01-2016 at 06:13 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-01-2016, 06:12 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 14,270
Default

I dont care all that much about the objections raised about proper historical analysis, Debra - I work with what I have and I try to apply common sense instead of a set of rules concocted in a stuffy study somewhere.

"Proper historical analysis" has been applied for a century and more, and to little avail. I am convinced that if the case could be solved using this tool, it would have been made long ago.

My feeling is that what can get us further is to use (shudder, historians!) intuition. If we get a feel for something, we should pursue that feeling and try to - as objectively as possible - look at whether we may be right or wrong. If the idea yields useful results, the material should be whiskered as far away from the historians as possible, and work should be done to get as far as we can.
Then, after that, the historians can have a look, and they can whine about how we have used the wrong paths to reach our goals. Once the goals are reached, I could not care less.

Equally, hard work can do the trick - if somebody wants to follow up on something that seems uninteresting and unimportant, that can also work. The thing to remember is that IF there is an opening, then it will not be obvious. It takes intuition, luck, dogged work, something like that to get the break. Not a will to bow to historians demands.

About the eyelid thing: I think it would be slightly unfortunate if the term eyelid came to govern the debate. What I am after is instead that it seems that both killers performed very delicate work when dealing with the eye area. I think the eyes were something the killer wanted to stay intact, and that he was willing to take great care not to damage them. The overall carnage represented by Kellys face but leaving the eyes fully or reasonably intact is one such matter, the carefully cut death mask from 1873 is another and the holes cut through Eddowes eyelids with no known damage to the underlying eyes is a third one.
Its a tenuous enough link, but to my mind, it is completely legal to point to anyway, not least in combination with the very solid links represented by the abdominal flaps and the colons.

Last edited by Fisherman : 06-01-2016 at 06:37 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-01-2016, 06:17 AM
Debra A Debra A is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorkshire England
Posts: 2,803
Default

I think it is worth you exploring the idea, if that's what you want to do, Fisherman.
__________________
,,`,, Debs ,,`,,
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-01-2016, 06:22 AM
Debra A Debra A is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorkshire England
Posts: 2,803
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Tempting idea Debra, however you may find that a hard position to maintain ( not that you are, I fully understand it is just a possible suggestion)n unless Hebbert made some clear link himself.
Steve and Phil-Here is the link to JTRforums with the mentioned article and discussion about what mutilation cases Hebbert may have been referring to and different interpretations about what he was actually saying when comparing his 'Whitechapel' cases with Gilbert's case.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=23467
__________________
,,`,, Debs ,,`,,
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-01-2016, 07:07 AM
Phil Carter Phil Carter is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debra A View Post
Steve and Phil-Here is the link to JTRforums with the mentioned article and discussion about what mutilation cases Hebbert may have been referring to and different interpretations about what he was actually saying when comparing his 'Whitechapel' cases with Gilbert's case.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=23467
Many thanks Debs. ☺

Yes, as I said earlier..I agree..but again we are basing things on a "logical reasoning" for why H wrote what he did. I have nothing against that per se..but it comes down to individual interpretation. As you saw..Edward thought H may have been bolstering his reasoning for publication purposes. I dont entirely agree with that either. .but I am inclined to agree with Fisherman that historical, analytical interpretation needs to be disregarded at times in favour of the possibility of other channels of thought opening up. Simply believing what we are told from 120 odd years ago has been shown, many times, to have led us into a corner.


Phil
__________________
Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE AND CHAMPIONS AGAIN. 💙


Justice for the 96 = achieved
Accountability? ....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-01-2016, 07:17 AM
Phil Carter Phil Carter is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,072
Default

In addition, it really is presumed speculation if H included Eddowes in the equation or nay..by seeing photographs or not. We simply dont know..but logically, if one does talk of "The Whitechapel Murders".. Eddowes would certainly be included. Does one therefore assume..I hate that word.. that he may, for example, have simply written 6 by mistake, and not 7?

My point is this. Unless we can produce a 2nd example of his writings that also refers to the quantity of 6 "Whitechapel murder" victims only, there is no believable certainty of any quantative accuracy.

Just playing devils advocate. ☺


Phil
__________________
Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE AND CHAMPIONS AGAIN. 💙


Justice for the 96 = achieved
Accountability? ....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-01-2016, 07:25 AM
Debra A Debra A is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorkshire England
Posts: 2,803
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Carter View Post
Many thanks Debs. ☺

Yes, as I said earlier..I agree..but again we are basing things on a "logical reasoning" for why H wrote what he did. I have nothing against that per se..but it comes down to individual interpretation. As you saw..Edward thought H may have been bolstering his reasoning for publication purposes. I dont entirely agree with that either. .but I am inclined to agree with Fisherman that historical, analytical interpretation needs to be disregarded at times in favour of the possibility of other channels of thought opening up. Simply believing what we are told from 120 odd years ago has been shown, many times, to have led us into a corner.


Phil
Phil, in case it isn't obvious...I'm being a little bit sarcastic about the historical analysis stuff myself. Steve was saying I might have a hard time showing that Hebbert thought there was a link between the torsos and the Whitechapel cases but that very thing was reported. I am not saying it is right or wrong what he said, just that he said it.

Of course I still think the notes on the heart not being in the room in a Sytstem of Legal Medicine adds to Bond's Post Mortem note that the heart was absent from the pericardium and had been taken by the killer! So, therefore I must regard it as a reliable source for extra information myself, as many well known and respected authors do too, so, personally I've no reason to be calling Fish out for using the sources in a similar way himself.
__________________
,,`,, 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 01:50 PM.


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