Bond, Hebbert and methodology

[Elamarna]

It must also be noted that in the case of Stride, it is highly unlikely that this could be described as a "sexual" murder.

Phil

Hi Phil

While I agree with that statement; guess, and I am certainly playing devils advocate here, it could be argued that if the kill was disturbed, and if it was the same killer as the others, then it could be plausibly argued that the motive was sexual.

Steve

[Debra A]

It must also be noted that in the case of Stride, it is highly unlikely that this could be described as a "sexual" murder.

Phil

Phil,he probably didn't include, Stride. He talks of the 'six' [not nine, that was a slip by me in my last post!] victims in terms of observations of their'mutilations' showing a sexual motive. He was speaking in 1895 in the US, shortly after the details of victims described as 'Whitechapel' victims (which in reality is the four torso cases and the references to MJK and Mylett) in Harris's book were published.
In the 1895 article located by Robert Linford he tells the reporter that he saw six victims, all mutilated but we know he saw only Kelly, the 4 torso cases and McKenzie. He could have seen pictures of Eddowes mutilations when Bond was asked to look at previous cases but we know that is the only case photographed but it's not certain which combination of those 7 cases he believed were linked in that case.

It isn't really relevant who Hebbert thought were linked as victims or the variation with other sources, I used it as an illustration to show that Hebbert was actually in the US around the time of the publication of a SOLM was all.

[Debra A]

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, 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.

[Fisherman]

Right here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFiuf3SXnGw

And what does he say?

He says that the Hebbert book contains some of the missing details from Bond´s report on Kelly. How about that...!

He says that it is obvious that there are parts missing from Bonds report, like for exemple the cause of death, no conclusions, no listing of the weight and condition of the organs. One or more pages is missing, according to Ryan.

As for Hebberts book with it´s contens about Kelly, Mylett and the torso murders, he says that the provenance is beyond dispute, and he adds that the Kelly report was taken down in dictation. And he adds that Hebbert was there in situ in Millers Court 13 and in the autopsy room.

All in all very much points in favur of the eyelid passage being on the money. And claiming that Bond would have mentioned it becomes a bit rich of there is material missing - like perhaps the eyelid bit and a comment on the state of the eyes.

[Fisherman]

Phil,he probably didn't include, Stride. He talks of the 'six' [not nine, that was a slip by me in my last post!] victims in terms of observations of their'mutilations' showing a sexual motive. He was speaking in 1895 in the US, shortly after the details of victims described as 'Whitechapel' victims (which in reality is the four torso cases and the references to MJK and Mylett) in Harris's book were published.
In the 1895 article located by Robert Linford he tells the reporter that he saw six victims, all mutilated but we know he saw only Kelly, the 4 torso cases and McKenzie. He could have seen pictures of Eddowes mutilations when Bond was asked to look at previous cases but we know that is the only case photographed but it's not certain which combination of those 7 cases he believed were linked in that case.

It isn't really relevant who Hebbert thought were linked as victims or the variation with other sources, I used it as an illustration to show that Hebbert was actually in the US around the time of the publication of a SOLM was all.

You should be more sensitive, Debra - they got really nervous there...

[Debra A]

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.

[Debra A]

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!!

[Elamarna]

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

[Fisherman]

Double posting.

[Fisherman]

I don´t 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 Eddowe´s eyelids with no known damage to the underlying eyes is a third one.
It´s 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.

[Debra A]

I think it is worth you exploring the idea, if that's what you want to do, Fisherman.

[Debra A]

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

[Phil Carter]

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

[Phil Carter]

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

[Debra A]

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.