Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bond, Hebbert and methodology

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    The suggestion that the vagina cartilage wall was cut. Are you not paying attention ?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    But there is no such thing as a cartilage wall in the vagina, Trevor. Has that not dawned on you yet? There is no cartilage at all in the vagina.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      The suggestion that the vagina cartilage wall was cut. Are you not paying attention ?

      How do you know what he is using, a ridiculous statement to make

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      I can't tell if you're joking or not.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by MsWeatherwax View Post
        I can't tell if you're joking or not.
        I wish I could - but Ive given up on the prospect...

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
          The suggestion that the vagina cartilage wall was cut. Are you not paying attention ?

          How do you know what he is using, a ridiculous statement to make

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          I think you did one too many headers in your past life, Trevor.

          The source for Mr W Egan's description is Hebbert's lectures on forensics using the four torso cases,
          A simple textual comparison between Mr W Egan's book and Hebbert's lecture, at the relevant bit describing the appearance of the Rainham torso shows the same observation introduced in the same order:
          Small ovaries, rugae of the vagina, black hairs on the pubic area. There is then a difference where Hebbert describes the torso being opened by an incision from ensiform cartilage to pubes but Mr W Egan saying that an incision was made in to the vaginal wall's cartilage. Both then continue with the absence of echymosis around the incisions.

          Further evidence is that Mr W Egan fails to mention that there was an incision from ribs to pubes and Hebbert doesn't mention an incision in the vagina.
          ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

          I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            But there is no such thing as a cartilage wall in the vagina, Trevor. Has that not dawned on you yet? There is no cartilage at all in the vagina.
            I think you wild find there is such a thing known as vaginal wall cartilage

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Debra A View Post

              Why would anyone do a post mortem and then dismember a body and dump it in the Regent's Canal and Thames?
              To Debra A

              Absolutely. They wouldn't and didn't.

              Cheers John

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Debra A View Post
                I think you did one too many headers in your past life, Trevor.

                The source for Mr W Egan's description is Hebbert's lectures on forensics using the four torso cases,
                A simple textual comparison between Mr W Egan's book and Hebbert's lecture, at the relevant bit describing the appearance of the Rainham torso shows the same observation introduced in the same order:
                Small ovaries, rugae of the vagina, black hairs on the pubic area. There is then a difference where Hebbert describes the torso being opened by an incision from ensiform cartilage to pubes but Mr W Egan saying that an incision was made in to the vaginal wall's cartilage. Both then continue with the absence of echymosis around the incisions.

                Further evidence is that Mr W Egan fails to mention that there was an incision from ribs to pubes and Hebbert doesn't mention an incision in the vagina.
                Well the fact is it is there for consideration, and its an unusual comment to make. and note the absence of colons and flaps of skin being highlighted.

                I guess it will be the same with this issue as it has been with many other of the contentious issues in Ripperology, Anything that goes against and threatens a persons theory will be rejected outright, despite other plausible explanations being available

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                  Well the fact is it is there for consideration, and its an unusual comment to make. and note the absence of colons and flaps of skin being highlighted.

                  I guess it will be the same with this issue as it has been with many other of the contentious issues in Ripperology, Anything that goes against and threatens a persons theory will be rejected outright, despite other plausible explanations being available

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  He does mention the flaps that were removed, just as Hebbert did. In fact he mentions everything that Hebbert did apart from this one difference. I wonder why that is? The conclusion can only be that he misinterpreted the medical evidence about the mid line opening. Why do you think Mr W Egan omitted the very important observation that the body was opened up ribs to pubes as Hebbert says and that was the only thing he omitted? Why did Hebbert not observe this' incision into the vaginal wall's cartilage?'


                  Seriously Trevor, you are trying to wind us all up here, surely?
                  ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

                  I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                    Well the fact is it is there for consideration, and its an unusual comment to make. and note the absence of colons and flaps of skin being highlighted.
                    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.
                    ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

                    I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                      I think you wild find there is such a thing known as vaginal wall cartilage

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      I am too much of a gentleman to go looking for it, Trevor - and even if it was there, Debra just explained to you how Whittington-Egan got it wrong when quoting Hebbert.

                      You should ask your friend Biggs about that cartilage wall. It would make a nice change from the brick wall you represent.

                      Comment


                      • 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...

                        Comment


                        • 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, 02:51 PM.

                          Comment


                          • 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 ,,`,,

                            I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                            Comment


                            • 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

                              Comment


                              • 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.
                                "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X