Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bond, Hebbert and methodology

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

  • 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.

    Comment


    • 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]:

      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.
      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

      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.
      Last edited by Debra A; 06-04-2016, 01:05 AM.
      ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

      I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

      Comment


      • 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

        Comment


        • Spectacularly missing the point, as usual.
          ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

          I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

          Comment


          • 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 ,,`,,

            I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

            Comment

            Working...
            X