Bond, Hebbert and methodology

[Trevor Marriott]

I gave you those names when you didn't believe there was a post mortem at Shoreditch mortuary on Saturday 10th November 1888. I don't think Hebbert was mentioned in the papers come to think of it, apologies for my faulty memory, but I do know where this conversation is going to go now.

It is going no where, other than it shows Hebbert may not be such a reliable source as some believe, and therefore weakens the corroboration of the ambiguous statement of Bond regarding the alleged missing heart.

Corroboration could only have come from the other doctors present who have never ever mentioned it then, or in the ensuing years that followed, also corroborated by the fact that no one else directly connected to the Kelly murder has done so either.

Conclusion-The heart was not taken away !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

It is going no where, other than it shows Hebbert may not be such a reliable source as some believe, and therefore weakens the corroboration of the ambiguous statement of Bond regarding the alleged missing heart.

Corroboration could only have come from the other doctors present who have never ever mentioned it then, or in the ensuing years that followed, also corroborated by the fact that no one else directly connected to the Kelly murder has done so either.

Conclusion-The heart was not taken away !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yet it has gone exactly where I thought it would!

Remembering the recent discussion on JTRforums-You still need to explain how the press who continued to claim after inquest that the heart was missing, as told to them by a doctor present at the autopsy, also knew it removed via the diaphragm and not the sternum if the information didn't come from an involved doctor. How would anyone else know that details? No details of Kelly's injuries were published in the press or any information given at the public inquest. So there are corroborating sources.
I'll leave you to it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yet it has gone exactly where I thought it would!

Remembering the recent discussion on JTRforums-You still need to explain how the press who continued to claim after inquest that the heart was missing, as told to them by a doctor present at the autopsy, also knew it removed via the diaphragm and not the sternum if the information didn't come from an involved doctor. How would anyone else know that details? No details of Kelly's injuries were published in the press or any information given at the public inquest. So there are corroborating sources.
I'll leave you to it.

But there were also the press who claimed it wasn't missing. We get back to the balance of probabilities, based on what we know, and what inferences can be drawn from what we know and what we dont know.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Be a bit charitable, Debra - at least he´s reached the insight that he was wrong on that post mortem. Bit by bit, day by day...

Seeing as you seem to have so much time on your hands you might like to read these detailed accounts relating to the torsos. You will see there is a distinct lack of the mention of colons or flap of skin

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...tilage&f=false

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Seeing as you seem to have so much time on your hands you might like to read these detailed accounts relating to the torsos. You will see there is a distinct lack of the mention of colons or flap of skin

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...tilage&f=false

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Much as expected, you have posted a link that does not work. So I don´t know which book it is you are referring to.
I do know, however, that Hebberts book is the best source there is for the torsos. And I do know that he mentions both the flaps of abdominal skin and the colons.
So wich book is it you think is a better source? Little Red Riding hood?

[MsWeatherwax]

Much as expected, you have posted a link that does not work. So I don´t know which book it is you are referring to.
I do know, however, that Hebberts book is the best source there is for the torsos. And I do know that he mentions both the flaps of abdominal skin and the colons.
So wich book is it you think is a better source? Little Red Riding hood?

The book that Trevor is linking to is called "Mr Atherstone Leaves the stage"
By Richard Whittington-Egan

[Fisherman]

The book that Trevor is linking to is called "Mr Atherstone Leaves the stage"
By Richard Whittington-Egan

A true nestor of the game! But regardless if he mentions the flaps and/or colons, that does not affect how these details were given by Hebbert - who is of course the primary source.

[MsWeatherwax]

A true nestor of the game! But regardless if he mentions the flaps and/or colons, that does not affect how these details were given by Hebbert - who is of course the primary source.

I couldn't possibly comment, Fisherman.

I agree with the latter part of your statement, however.

[Fisherman]

I couldn't possibly comment, Fisherman.

I agree with the latter part of your statement, however.

How about that; here´s me speaking of primary sources,,,!

[Debra A]

Seeing as you seem to have so much time on your hands you might like to read these detailed accounts relating to the torsos. You will see there is a distinct lack of the mention of colons or flap of skin

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...tilage&f=false

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The flaps of skin are definitely mentioned in the book you linked to and the same source material has been used. The author also writes that Elizabeth's killer removed her foetus after death, so is interpreting the source material in the exact same way the rest of us seem to be, apart from you.

I wonder if you could ask Dr Biggs what an 'incision from ensiform cartiladge to pubes' describes? That is Hebbert's wording but the author in this book has described it as an incision into the vaginal cartilage. I am no anatomist but I am almost certain that an incision from 'ensiform cartilage to pubes' is describing a cut from the bottom of the sternum, down the abdomen and ending at the external pubic area. I am prepared to be proved wrong on that if you can clarify for certain what that phrase means.

[Fisherman]

The flaps of skin are definitely mentioned in the book you linked to and the same source material has been used. The author also writes that Elizabeth's killer removed her foetus after death, so is interpreting the source material in the exact same we the rest of us seem to be, apart from you.

I wonder if you could ask Dr Biggs what an incision from ensiform cartiladge to pubes describes? That is Hebbert's wording but the author in this book has described it as an incision into the vaginal cartilage. I am no anatomist but I am almost certain that an incision from 'ensiform cartilage to pubes' is describing a cut from the bottom of the sternum, down the abdomen and ending at the external pubic area. I am prepared to be proved wrong on that if you can clarify for certain what that phrase means.

Is there even such a thing as cartilage in the vaginal wall...? I must confess that I have never heard of it, but as Trevor so aptly put it, I am no gynaecologist. Or opthalmologist. Or ...

[Debra A]

Is there even such a thing as cartilage in the vaginal wall...? I must confess that I have never heard of it, but as Trevor so aptly put it, I am no gynaecologist. Or opthalmologist. Or ...

Well, to be honest I've never heard of it either and I'm the owner of one!

You will like this though Fisherman, Mr Whittington Egan's final closing conclusions on the torso cases:

"There was a contemporary tendency to link the later Thames murders with Jack the Ripper. It has been said that there was absolutely no justification for this; it was just another expression of the overwhelming obsession with Saucy Jacky that held the population in its stranglehold. Nevertheless, that the killings and mutilations of '87, '88 and '89 were the work of one pair of hands, a single killer, does seem possible, even extremely likely."

[MsWeatherwax]

I wonder if you could ask Dr Biggs what an 'incision from ensiform cartiladge to pubes' describes? That is Hebbert's wording but the author in this book has described it as an incision into the vaginal cartilage. I am no anatomist but I am almost certain that an incision from 'ensiform cartilage to pubes' is describing a cut from the bottom of the sternum, down the abdomen and ending at the external pubic area. I am prepared to be proved wrong on that if you can clarify for certain what that phrase means.

I'm no medico Debra, but after 15 years of transcribing medical reports I can say that I am 100% certain that your opinion is correct. It's not a commonly used term in my experience, but that is what it means.

[Debra A]

I'm no medico Debra, but after 15 years of transcribing medical reports I can say that I am 100% certain that your opinion is correct. It's not a commonly used term in my experience, but that is what it means.

Thank you for the confirmation Mrs Weatherwax. Your credentials certainly satisfy me you know what you are talking about but I'm not sure others will agree.

[Fisherman]

Well, to be honest I've never heard of it either and I'm the owner of one!

You will like this though Fisherman, Mr Whittington Egan's final closing conclusions on the torso cases:

"There was a contemporary tendency to link the later Thames murders with Jack the Ripper. It has been said that there was absolutely no justification for this; it was just another expression of the overwhelming obsession with Saucy Jacky that held the population in its stranglehold. Nevertheless, that the killings and mutilations of '87, '88 and '89 were the work of one pair of hands, a single killer, does seem possible, even extremely likely."

Yep, you got me there, Debra - I really DO like it! And I would unhesitatingly add the 1873 deed too.