Torso Murders

[jerryd]

[QUOTE=Pierre;382426]

I have. There are no sources for your statement about the eyeballs.

Pierre

Walter Dew might help ya for one, Pierre.

[Elamarna]

Hi

The only sources from a medical point of view relating to this I am aware of are the two quoted before:


Charles Hebbert in "A System of Legal Medicine".

And Dr Bonds Post Mortem report.

If there are others it would be nice to be pointed towards them

Barnett of course claimed he could recognise Kelly by her eyes, but I don't think he commented on any injuries or indeed any lack of such.

regards

steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=jerryd;382428]

Walter Dew might help ya for one, Pierre.

Jerry,

thanks for adding another possible source.

The problem I always have with Dew is the fact that his memories are written so long after the event, and is accuracy has been called into question has it not on some occasions?

However i accept it should at least be looked at.


Steve

[jerryd]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;382430]

Jerry,

thanks for adding another possible source.

The problem I always have with Dew is the fact that his memories are written so long after the event, and is accuracy has been called into question has it not on some occasions?

However i accept it should at least be looked at.


Steve

I agree 100% about memoirs written after the fact, however, Mary Kelly's gruesome sight would be something etched in the mind I would think. If Dew saw her eyes, that would be hard to forget that image.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;382430]

Jerry,

thanks for adding another possible source.

The problem I always have with Dew is the fact that his memories are written so long after the event, and is accuracy has been called into question has it not on some occasions?

However i accept it should at least be looked at.


Steve

Hi Steve,

Dew does not discuss whether or not the eyeballs were damaged. So that source says nothing about that.

Regards, Pierre

[Abby Normal]

Maybe like this? There are other photos earlier and later that have the same "type" of look as this hat.

Thanks Jerry
well if that's it I find that very interesting. You know- peaked cap man the night of the double event and all that.

also-Mrs Long and PC smith both describe their possible suspect as wearing a deer stalker type hat. again a cap with a peak.

[jerryd]

[QUOTE=Pierre;382432]

Hi Steve,

Dew does not discuss whether or not the eyeballs were damaged. So that source says nothing about that.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

Dew said her eyes were photographed in attempt to capture an image of the killer. It says eyes [plural] so both were at least somewhat intact. The eyes were not completely destroyed. Use a little common sense with your research, Pierre. You aren't going to find any passages that say "PC Alfred Long was found with a knife in his hand standing over the dead body in Mitre Square".

[Debra A]

Maybe like this? There are other photos earlier and later that have the same "type" of look as this hat.

Yes, it could be either style I think, Jerry, The Thames Watermen definitely wore straw boaters.
Another interesting thing is the date of the sighting as 3rd June 9pm when the doctors, Bond and Kempster, both said at inquest that the remains were consistent with a time of death 24 hours before they were washed up on Tues 4th June in the a.m.

edit: Looking back, they said within 24 hours, so that fits okay.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=jerryd;382431]

I agree 100% about memoirs written after the fact, however, Mary Kelly's gruesome sight would be something etched in the mind I would think. If Dew saw her eyes, that would be hard to forget that image.

Jerry,

That may well be correct, it would i think leave a lasting impression.

All I can find is the passage:

"All this was horrifying enough, but the mental picture of that sight which remains most vividly with me is the poor woman's eyes. They were wide open, and seemed to be staring straight at me with a look of terror. "


This is a view apparently from the window, and so not a close up view.

However that does not seem to exclude the possibility of some minor damage. Of course any such damage may not have been visible from the window.

Regards

Steve

[Elamarna]

Thanks Jerry
well if that's it I find that very interesting. You know- peaked cap man the night of the double event and all that.

also-Mrs Long and PC smith both describe their possible suspect as wearing a deer stalker type hat. again a cap with a peak.

Abby

That is very much like a traditional English cricket cap. Australia of course have/had the Baggy.


steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=jerryd;382435]

Pierre,

Dew said her eyes were photographed in attempt to capture an image of the killer. It says eyes [plural] so both were at least somewhat intact. The eyes were not completely destroyed. Use a little common sense with your research, Pierre. You aren't going to find any passages that say "PC Alfred Long was found with a knife in his hand standing over the dead body in Mitre Square".

Again Jerry that’s very helpful.

I only found the one passage . to be honest I was rushing to find a relevant quote.
It does not confirm or deny if there was any damage at all, but it implies they were substantially intact I agree.

Such could of course be possible even without special attention to the eyes, that is something people could argue about, and never agree I suspect.


regards

steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=jerryd;382435][QUOTE=Pierre;382432]

Pierre,

Dew said her eyes were photographed in attempt to capture an image of the killer. It says eyes [plural] so both were at least somewhat intact.

The eyes were not completely destroyed.

Steve,

Now we are beginning to get a small range of variation in the talk about Kellyīs eyes.

1. Fisherman said: "We know that the killer managed to do this without inflicting any damage in Kellyīs eyeballs".

2. You said A) "Somewhat intact" and then B) "Not completely destroyed".

So we go from no inflicted damage to somewhat intact to not completely destroyed. This means there is low validity in the interpretations. I could live with that if there was a good source. But there isnīt.

Because the sources do not speak about eyeballs or damage to those eyeballs. So we know nothing about them.

Use a little common sense with your research, Pierre.

No, never. Common sense is very dangerous. Especially when you have insufficient sources and you fill in your lack of knowledge with "common sense". You get garbage in - garbage out immediately.

You get: "No one actually said that the eyeballs of Kelly were not damaged but hey, letīs say they were not completely destroyed AND without any damage AND somewhat intact!

You know this will not do, Steve. I know that you know this and you know that I know that you know this.

You aren't going to find any passages that say "PC Alfred Long was found with a knife in his hand standing over the dead body in Mitre Square".

No. Because it wasnīt Xmas in the past and Santa didnīt bring us the sources we wish for, would anyone wish for such a source. Wishful THINKING leads nowhere. Either we will find a serial killer, or we will not. Hoping for it will not help. Destroying the sources from the past by imposing our common sense on them and then claim that they say X when we do not KNOW this is meaningless. It will NOT help us find the killer.

And you know what, Steve. "Common sense" very often is just a disguise for our own simple social bias. You see what you WANT to see. I know you agree with me on that. And Fisherman has an hypothesis about the killer being careful with the eyes of the victims, because this hypothesis is good for his ideas about Lechmere. But I say that the killer, if he left the eyes, might as well have had no particular interest in them. Or he might have, but we need sources for it. Not "common sense.

Regards, Pierre

[jerryd]

[QUOTE=Pierre;382440][QUOTE=jerryd;382435]

Pierre,

Dew said her eyes were photographed in attempt to capture an image of the killer. It says eyes [plural] so both were at least somewhat intact.

Steve,

Now we are beginning to get a small range of variation in the talk about Kellyīs eyes.

1. Fisherman said: "We know that the killer managed to do this without inflicting any damage in Kellyīs eyeballs".

2. You said A) "Somewhat intact" and then B) "Not completely destroyed".

So we go from no inflicted damage to somewhat intact to not completely destroyed. This means there is low validity in the interpretations. I could live with that if there was a good source. But there isnīt.

Because the sources do not speak about eyeballs or damage to those eyeballs. So we know nothing about them.



No, never. Common sense is very dangerous. Especially when you have insufficient sources and you fill in your lack of knowledge with "common sense". You get garbage in - garbage out immediately.

You get: "No one actually said that the eyeballs of Kelly were not damaged but hey, letīs say they were not completely destroyed AND without any damage AND somewhat intact!

You know this will not do, Steve. I know that you know this and you know that I know that you know this.



No. Because it wasnīt Xmas in the past and Santa didnīt bring us the sources we wish for, would anyone wish for such a source. Wishful THINKING leads nowhere. Either we will find a serial killer, or we will not. Hoping for it will not help. Destroying the sources from the past by imposing our common sense on them and then claim that they say X when we do not KNOW this is meaningless. It will NOT help us find the killer.

And you know what, Steve. "Common sense" very often is just a disguise for our own simple social bias. You see what you WANT to see. I know you agree with me on that. And Fisherman has an hypothesis about the killer being careful with the eyes of the victims, because this hypothesis is good for his ideas about Lechmere. But I say that the killer, if he left the eyes, might as well have had no particular interest in them. Or he might have, but we need sources for it. Not "common sense.

Regards, Pierre

Give Steve a break, you are quoting me Pierre! You've done this on several occasions too. Why do you quote me and then respond to Steve?

And I disagree with you, by the way. Deal with it Pierre.

[Fisherman]

Jerryd:

Why do you quote me and then respond to Steve?

He didnīt check the sources...?

[Elamarna]

Dew said her eyes were photographed in attempt to capture an image of the killer. It says eyes [plural] so both were at least somewhat intact.

Steve,

Now we are beginning to get a small range of variation in the talk about Kellyīs eyes.

1. Fisherman said: "We know that the killer managed to do this without inflicting any damage in Kellyīs eyeballs".

2. You said A) "Somewhat intact" and then B) "Not completely destroyed".

So we go from no inflicted damage to somewhat intact to not completely destroyed. This means there is low validity in the interpretations. I could live with that if there was a good source. But there isnīt.

Because the sources do not speak about eyeballs or damage to those eyeballs. So we know nothing about them.

Pierre I said somewhat intact, Jerry said not completely destroyed

I agree that we have nothing which gives a clear picture of if the eyes were damaged or not. the sources do not contain enough information on that to allow us to make an hypotheses.

No, never. Common sense is very dangerous. Especially when you have insufficient sources and you fill in your lack of knowledge with "common sense". You get garbage in - garbage out immediately.

You get: "No one actually said that the eyeballs of Kelly were not damaged but hey, letīs say they were not completely destroyed AND without any damage.

You know this will not do, Steve. I know that you know this and you know that I know that you know this.

Of course I know that will not do and I am not suggesting it.


You seem to have misunderstood what I have said. Have you misread something as a quote from me when it is from someone else?

The hypotheses from Fisherman was that the eyes were deliberately left undamaged.

I have said:

I don't think one can say they were not damaged!
Even if they were, it cannot be shown this was intentional!

I have not mentioned common sense. that was someone else!

No. Because it wasnīt Xmas in the past and Santa didnīt bring us the sources we wish for, have anyone wished for such a source. Wishful THINKING leads nowhere. Either we will find a serial killer, or we will not. Hoping for it will not help. Destroying the sources from the past by imposing our common sense on them and then claim that they say X when we do not KNOW this is meaningless. It will NOT help us find the killer.

And you know what, Steve. "Common sense" very often is just a disguise for our own simple social bias. You see what you WANT to see. I know you agree with me on that. And Fisherman has an hypothesis about the killer being careful with the eyes of the victims, because this hypothesis is good for his ideas about Lechmere. But I say that the killer, if he left the eyes, might as well have had no particular interest in them. Or he might have had that, but we need sources for it. Not "common sense.

Either I am misunderstanding what you are posting or you are misunderstanding what I am saying.

For once we are in total agreement on something, rare I know.

so please don't have a go at me about something I have not said

Steve