Body snatching

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Yes, I see your hypothesis. Letīs call it Hypothesis A = Death a direct result of her pregnancy and the pregnant body not dissected but dismembered.

Another hypothesis here: Letīs call it Hypothesis B = Death a direct result of her pregnancy and the pregnant body dissected for the purpose of scientific knowledge about pregnancy.

Wich historical facts do you know that supports A and which historical facts do you think do not support B?

Kind regards, Pierre

Pierre

There are no specific historical facts, and we can only work with the ones we do know, and some of them are from newspaper articles which have to be treated with caution.

A is the more plausible as Debra tells us that she was last seen the day before the first part of her remains were discovered. So again Debra highlights the fact that for her body to have been dissected for scientific purposes those using the body would have to have worked pretty dam quick.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

Christer
You have come up with some explanations but this takes the biscuit.

So now you are an expert ophthalmologist as well as an expert in forensic medicine and crime scene investigations. Is there no end to your talents

Do you really expect anyone to believe that the killer of Eddowes had the time or the light available to him to perform intricate eye surgery. He never had enough time to do all that he is supposed to have done.

So this current statement of yours is farcical, but then again it is in line with some of your others.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And the methods for cutting eyelids do not matter, since there is no data for intent or motive.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;382862]

Fisherman

You are doing it again, you are basing your view of how useful his evidence is, not on when it was written? or who for?, or if he used notes; but on the fact that he was an experienced Doctor.

Yes that is an important point, and you address the issue of if he used notes but saying we should assume he did in your earlier posts, however the reality is we cannot know, we may assume he used some aid memoir but it is guess work.

You do not address the issue of the gap in time, which can and does affect memory or the issue he is writing a different form of report and for a different audience than Dr Bond.

Referring to "The Experts" is the method of Fisherman. The doctor, or the barrister, or the police investigator. Legitimating sources - some from the past, some from the present. Hoping these sources will add authority to the theory. Enhancers of the idea of Lechmere being a serial killer. None of them thinking that Lechmere was a serial killer. Not then, not now.


I could not agree with you more.

If you have read any of the exchanges between myself and Pierre over the months ( I fully understand if you have not) you will have seen I argue non stop that it is not for historians to tell us who can work on this case.

Anyone is able to argue a case, and that argument is equally valid be they historian, road sweeper or indeed journalist.

I will however say that does not mean we should not follow the basic principles of historical research such as source analysis and source criticism.

Such methods are used because they work, indeed even journalist follow the same basic principles do they not? A report/story is normally checked (researched) before it is published I assume.

These methods do not legitimate and enhance the theory!

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;382858]

This is what was said about the damage done to Eddowes:

"There was a cut about a quarter of an inch through the lower left eyelid, dividing the structures completely through. The upper eyelid on that side, there was a scratch through the skin on the left upper eyelid, near to the angle of the nose. The right eyelid was cut through to about half an inch."

This material is taken from the transcription in the coroners inquest papers, and the author is Dr Brown, so I think we may dub this the kind of first hand report that we are supposed to prioritize over other sources.

What is interesting here, is that it is mentioned that the killer cut through the eyelids on both sides of Eddowes face.

There is, however, no mentioning at all about any damage done to the eyes in this process.

OK. So intentionality is your perspective and the killerīs intention is your hypothesis. It is an idiographic explanation and closely connected to the motive explanation. The perspective is that of an autonomous person performing acts he 1) intends to perform, acts for 2) which he has a motive.

It is specific, since it is idiographic. It can not be explained through structures but by singularities. This perspective is very strong in your discussion about the sources. You interpret the sources from that perspective, you hypothesize from it and draw conclusions from it, which you use for constructing a theory with coherence.

But the problem is that your theory is not coherent, since you have no:

A) Knowledge about the intention of the killer
B) Knowledge about the motive(s) of the killer
C) Knowledge about how you establish historical facts

Returning to the Bond report on Kelly, Dr Bond does not mention that the eyelids were cut away, as Hebbert did. A historian like Kattrup therefore makes the point that the omission to mention the eyelids on Bonds behalf makes it clear that the probable thing to expect is that the eyelids were not cut away. As in "If Bond did not mention it, it never happened".

The sources do not contain any data for the intent or the motive of the killer. How can you connect the data in these sources to an hypothesis about intent? Why do you apply the theory of intentionality to it? Why do you draw conclusions from that when there is nothing about it in the source? Do you have external sources connecting a killer to the data in these sources?

What happens when we apply that to Brownīs very detailed report on Eddowes? Well, we can see that Brown never mentions any damage done to the eyes. In keeping with what I am taught by Kattrup et al, the logical conclusion must therefore be that the eyes were not damaged on Eddowes - otherwise Brown would have mentioned it, right?

It doesnīt matter if he painted the victims green and put flowers in their hair if you do not have data for intent and/or a motive. An specific signature can not be explained without data for a motive. Do you have that data? It is OK to say you have it, you do not have to describe it here. But if you do not have it, be honest and say so.

So there we are - we have the Ripper cutting holes through the eyelids of Eddowes, but not damaging the eyes. Given that skin is very much tougher than the eye, we may conclude that the holes through the eyelids were not inflicted by a motion with the blade into the lids, where they eyeball represented an underlying support for the cut.

Instead, the killer must have lifted the eyelids away from the eyeballs, and then he cut through the lids, afterwards allowing the eyelids to once again make contact with the eyeballs.

Do you agree with me when I say that the killer had a motive for that? If you do, do you have a source for it? Or do you guess, Fisherman? If you guess, you have an hypothesis based on what?

That is an extremely precise and careful operation, and it involves exactly what I am talking about - a conscious decision on the killers behalf to leave the eyeballs unharmed.

GREAT! This is the base for the typical motive explanation but without a motive. The king decided to X, because...The king wanted to X, because...Yes. If you are a king, what you decide often happens and afterwards we often have the whole motive explanation. And the motive explanation is very important for unexplained historical events.

But you only have half the motive explanation: He consciously decided to X, because ?

And since we do not have a motive, the hypothesis about intent is not valid.

I will be interested to see whether the historians on this thread will confirm that I am correct here, or if the will have another card up their sleeve that somehow allows Brown to be sloppy but not Bond...

Nothing much surprises me anymore, but we will see!

Yes, the historian here says that you do not have data for a motive explanation. You have an hypothesis about intent, also without data. You do not enter into the mind of a killer after 128 years and know what the conscious decision of a serial killer was without data. Before you try to establish an historical fact, you must have data.

We only have data for cutting eyelids. But not for intent of doing no damage to the eyes. He had an intent to cut the eyelids, since he cut them. The motive is not known in your hypothesis.

He had no intent to avoid damaging the eyeballs, since there is no data for him not damaging the eyeballs.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

I know historians who are complete idiots.

Hi Fisherman,

Post 86: What are your answers to that?

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

I knew what you were commenting on, Steve. The 'good cop bad cop' reference was a comment on how you and Pierre come over. You agree with people and Pierre generally doesn't...apart from with you.

Debra

That's only when it suits him, if it me against him, he never agrees, well maybe 1 in 100 goes.

Steve

[Pierre]

But she now accepts in that post that Jacksons death could have been not as a result of murder.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Suggestion: If one does not know what a person thinks, ask her!

Regards, Pierre

[Debra A]

lost me there must be getting tired

i was talking about your comment that pierre would think that because of his suspect

steve

I knew what you were commenting on, Steve. The 'good cop bad cop' reference was a comment on how you and Pierre come over. You agree with people and Pierre generally doesn't...apart from with you.

[Pierre]

Honestly have to say I don't see how anyone can construe Debra's comments in post #92 as moving away from murder.
To me it seems entirely consistent with what she has said before.

regards

steve

Hi Steve / everyone,

And also, if Debra has her hypotheses and her theory - why try and hold a simple post on a forum against her? That is silly.

As if the theories would change just because of a post in a forum.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

lost me there must be getting tired

i was talking about your comment that pierre would think that because of his suspect

steve

At least I understood it, Steve. And I agree with you. I also knew before writing that post that I was thinking from that perspective. It is a special kind of bias now. And you recognize it quickly.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

As I have said before the case of Jackson should not be looked upon in the light of her body being used specifically for medical purposes.

In my opinion her death was as a result of something that was as a direct result of her pregnancy, or related to something either being given to her, or some procedure connected to her pregnancy carried out on her, which resulted in her death.

With the obvious need for her body to be dismembered thereafter and disposed of to hide her identity.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Yes, I see your hypothesis. Letīs call it Hypothesis A = Death a direct result of her pregnancy and the pregnant body not dissected but dismembered.

Another hypothesis here: Letīs call it Hypothesis B = Death a direct result of her pregnancy and the pregnant body dissected for the purpose of scientific knowledge about pregnancy.

Wich historical facts do you know that supports A and which historical facts do you think do not support B?

Kind regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Fisherman

I am always good to my word, and upon reading my post to you #112,

it appears I did indeed get confused at one point with what I was replying to and gave an answer to something you were not suggesting, when I replied:

"What evidence do you have to support that there was damage to Eddowes eyes?
If Brown does not say there is major damage to the eyes to suggest there is some is guess work at best."


As I did say it is easy for this to happen at times, I think I stopped reply for 20 mins then came back and the rest is history as they say.

However that is no excuse !

If the system allowed I would amend the last lines to read,

No Brown is not sloppy, there is nothing to suggest the eyes were significantly damaged, nor do I see anything to suggest that he lifted the eyelids to cut them.


yours respectfully

Steve

[Elamarna]

Thatīs reassuring. Then a hole is not the reason for the air leaving one of my car tyre...

Air just needs the container (tyre) to no longer be air tight to allow it to escape.

It is not similar at all.

No. Quite the contrary. I am saying that IF the hole in the eyelid was made by applying pressure from the outside, using the eyeball as an underlying support, then the blade would damage the eye once it went through the lid.
But I donīt think there was any damage, and Brown mentioned none.

Yes I understand that and am disagreeing that it need make any damage to the eye, in which case your argument fails. However the truth is neither of us can prove it either way. common sense cannot be used as we ( you and i) do not know the level of skill of the killer, nor the exact lighting levels in Mitre Square.
On the surface we appear to both be saying thing- the eyes were not damaged. however we are coming at it from directly opposed positions, you that the eyelids were manipulated to avoid damage, and i that no damage occurred because the cuts did not go deep enough to damage the eyeball, of course they must have come very close.

What tells you that these wounds could not have come first? I think you should be ecobnomic with the phrase "utterly ridiculous". It would be nice.

So these cuts could have come directly after the throat cutting?
Given the possibility of being disturbed, and limited time, these cuts were more important than any others then I assume?

Can I ask what are you basing that possibility on?

Ok happily change the words to "highly improbable" or "somewhat unrealistic"

Then why did you think that I suggested that the eyes must have been cut?

No i was answering was Brown sloppy, such a question implies he had missed the injuries does it not? hence my comment that to suggest he missed them......

.

Exactly how? Where does he say "I support that the eyelids can be cut through with no damage to the eyeball"? I fail to find it.

Fisherman that is not what I meant, maybe I could have been clearer. Brown supports there was no damage to the eyeball, which supports my view that none need be, the cuts need not mark the eyes.

Flatter is a tenuous currency... Nah, Iīm sure it was very well deserved. Congratulations!


[/B]

It certainly is, favourite one day, bottom the next.
thank you

steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: Christer
You have come up with some explanations but this takes the biscuit.

So now you are an expert ophthalmologist as well as an expert in forensic medicine and crime scene investigations. Is there no end to your talents

How do you know? You are no expert.

Do you really expect anyone to believe that the killer of Eddowes had the time or the light available to him to perform intricate eye surgery. He never had enough time to do all that he is supposed to have done.

No, I donīt think the killer touched the eyes.

So this current statement of yours is farcical, but then again it is in line with some of your others.

Trevor is smart. Thatīs another whopper.

There you go name calling again in an attempt to deflect waay from the main issue. You always do this when you are put on the spot. Another favourite trait you use is to answer a question with a question.

Let me remind you what you posted in relation to Eddowes and her eyes

"Instead, the killer must have lifted the eyelids away from the eyeballs, and then he cut through the lids, afterwards allowing the eyelids to once again make contact with the eyeballs"

Now that sounds like a delicate operation in anyone's books with a long bladed knife in almost total darkness. How ever did he manage to see? Of course silly me he had the extra pair of eyes of Eddowes

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

But the reports are not in conflict, Steve - Bond does not say that the eyelids were NOT cut. He never comments on them. And we know that he does not name all the cuts. Moreover, Hebbert was Bonds assistant.

Fisherman

that depends on how you define conflict,

I see them as being in conflict, you do not.

fair enough.

steve