Body snatching

[Elamarna]

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.

Fisherman yes that is indeed a primary source, it may even be THE primary source, it probably is.

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.

That would depend on your definition of the eye, some will include the eyelid, but the point is well made nevertheless.

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".

What happens when we apply that to Brown´s 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?

No these are separate issues, you are trying to compare different cases with reports by different Doctors

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.

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.

They are not holes, they are slits/cuts!

"Given that skin is very much tougher than the eye"


The basis for this statement is?


The eye is actually fairly robust, the internal fluid pressure giving great resistance. Imagine a football rather than a balloon.

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.

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.

This is pure superposition on you part, unless of course you have some experience of performing this type of cut or have sought medical advice on it.

This is precisely the sort of thing I am talking about in previous post.
There is a jump from saying the eyelids were cut, to saying this is a careful and planed procedure: no evidence of any sort is provided and it is not given as a suggestion but as a fact!

It is just as likely to be quick intentional cuts or even collateral damage to the face!

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!

No Brown is not sloppy, there is nothing to suggest the eyes were significantly damaged other than your own view that they must have been and it was not reported.

I am not an historian in case you wonder, I was a natural scientist for 35 years before taking a well earned early retirement.

Steve

[Elamarna]

And you are of course wrong again - when I wrote "a man like Hebbert", I was referring to his professional experience and his work in the field. I know nothing at all about his character, so it would be kind of odd if I referred to that as my reason for thinking he is a useful source.

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.

I do not object to historians as such, I am sure they have contributed to something, somewhere. But when a man like Pierre (yes, that my chosen wording, and you are free to think of it what you wish) takes it upon himself to somehow try to establish that a journalist is in any way inferior to a historian when it comes to taking in the Ripper story and making sense of it, the time has come to ask which profession has solved the larger amount of murder riddles, freed the larger amount of wrongfully convicted people and so on; historians or journalists.

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.

You are free to proclaim the historians the salt of the earth and to go on criticizing others for their efforts on the Ripper/Torso case (yes!), but take care not to scare all but the historians away from these boards. Because when that happens, I cannot for the life of me see anything but an endless discussion between a number of slowly growing, grey beards about the technical aspects of the discussion, while the real world passes by outside.

I will make sure I am on the right side of the window when that day comes.

Actually I criticise all I consider to be: wrong, unclear, misleading, and that can be intentional or by accident with out favour to any.

Indeed I am harder on proclaimed historians as they should know better.

My view is, present the arguments as fairly as you can, give supporting evidence, don't make definitive statements unless they really are, and let others make their own minds up based on the above.

A good example of what I dislike is in your final paragraphs above, when you say : Ripper/Torso case (yes!).

Now I see nothing wrong in trying to link the two cases, however the (yes!) in my opinion, and others may disagree, suggests that it is not a suggestion but an established fact, which despite your considerable efforts it is not at this time.
That does not mean you cannot continue and take the suggestion of a link from a possible status to one of probably in the future.

You have made a very large contribution to this case and field of research, and your views should not just be ignored, but neither should they be accepted without question.

yours respectfully

Steve

[Elamarna]

Steve/Ellerama,
The sources for body dumping,are myself and the Hong Kong newspapers of 1952/53.I was there at that time.I would recount from memory,as many as 20 a week.It was so common a special detail was set up to recover and dispose of the bodies.Of course no government law allowed it.When I say under British law,that w as the law that prevailed in Hong Kong and what were called the New Territories of the Kowloon peninsula.Body dumping was common in most British possessions?

Harry,

you are talking of the 1950's in Hong Kong how does that have any relevance to to LVP London.

Body dumping was not to my knowledge prevalent in the uk in the 20th Century.
I really fail to see the usefulness of your post on this occasion.




Steve

[Fisherman]

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.

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".

What happens when we apply that to Brown´s 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?

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.

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.

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!

[Debra A]

Didn't you just say she moved away from murder? Now you say she clearly leans towards a serial killer? I am thoroughly confused, Trevor. Last time I checked a serial killer commits a crime called, murder.

P.S- IIRC Debs has never had a completely closed mind to an alternative other than murder in the Jackson case. On the other hand, she has stated in the past and recently in these threads that a back-street abortion didn't make sense due to the victim wearing clothing and the way the body was cut up. It was NOT consistent with an obstetric procedure. Correct me if I'm wrong, Debs.

That's right, Jerry. It's not Trevor's fault; he doesn't have the time for silly games like reading and trying to comprehend what's being said. He latches on to a couple of words in a post and then goes into automatic knee jerk mode.

[Fisherman]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Could you direct us to the place where she supposedly said anything else, Trevor? Could you guide us to the spot where she did not accept that Jackson could have died on account on anything but murder? Because if you can´t, then you just posted an implication that is very wrong, and you need to correct that.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

Carrying out some source analysis and criticism would be a start.

Its about how you view certain people, your line :

"when a man like Hebbert makes a claim"

shows that you are basing your view of his comments entirely on your view of the man, and how you view his character.


Anyway we will not agree on this, that is clear

regards

Steve

And you are of course wrong again - when I wrote "a man like Hebbert", I was referring to his professional experience and his work in the field. I know nothing at all about his character, so it would be kind of odd if I referred to that as my reason for thinking he is a useful source.

But I have been here so many times before, listening to people who rave on about the superiority of a historians approach, going on about how historians are the ones who correctly assess the sources and all of that jibber-jabber.

I do not object to historians as such, I am sure they have contributed to something, somewhere. But when a man like Pierre (yes, that my chosen wording, and you are free to think of it what you wish) takes it upon himself to somehow try to establish that a journalist is in any way inferior to a historian when it comes to taking in the Ripper story and making sense of it, the time has come to ask which profession has solved the larger amount of murder riddles, freed the larger amount of wrongfully convicted people and so on; historians or journalists.

You are free to proclaim the historians the salt of the earth and to go on criticizing others for their efforts on the Ripper/Torso case (yes!), but take care not to scare all but the historians away from these boards. Because when that happens, I cannot for the life of me see anything but an endless discussion between a number of slowly growing, grey beards about the technical aspects of the discussion, while the real world passes by outside.

I will make sure I am on the right side of the window when that day comes.

[harry]

Steve/Ellerama,
The sources for body dumping,are myself and the Hong Kong newspapers of 1952/53.I was there at that time.I would recount from memory,as many as 20 a week.It was so common a special detail was set up to recover and dispose of the bodies.Of course no government law allowed it.When I say under British law,that w as the law that prevailed in Hong Kong and what were called the New Territories of the Kowloon peninsula.Body dumping was common in most British possessions?

[jerryd]

I dont have the time to play silly word games. If you want to do that go do a crossword.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Sorry Trevor. I was just taking your advice and engaging my brain. Try it sometime.

[Trevor Marriott]

Didn't you just say she moved away from murder? Now you say she clearly leans towards a serial killer? I am thoroughly confused, Trevor. Last time I checked a serial killer commits a crime called, murder.

I dont have the time to play silly word games. If you want to do that go do a crossword.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[jerryd]

As I have continued to say each torso must be looked at individually, so the term murder is the correct term to use which Debra didnt think it right to use and clearly still leans towards a serial killer.

Didn't you just say she moved away from murder? Now you say she clearly leans towards a serial killer? I am thoroughly confused, Trevor. Last time I checked a serial killer commits a crime called, murder.

P.S- IIRC Debs has never had a completely closed mind to an alternative other than murder in the Jackson case. On the other hand, she has stated in the past and recently in these threads that a back-street abortion didn't make sense due to the victim wearing clothing and the way the body was cut up. It was NOT consistent with an obstetric procedure. Correct me if I'm wrong, Debs.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

"I said that it may be as a result of her pregnancy (though not an obstetric operation) if not serial killer/JTR related" -Debra-

What is a serial killer, Trevor?

A serial killer is different from a singular killer, which you probably might be aware of. The work of JTR was different to what is suggested happened to the torsos. So there is no link.

As I have continued to say each torso must be looked at individually, so the term murder is the correct term to use which Debra didnt think it right to use and clearly still leans towards a serial killer.

If you want to continue to nit pick go to Boots the chemist and buy an appropriate comb

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

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

[Debra A]

And where in her post does she move away from murder, Trevor? You really do have trouble understanding what people write, don't you!?

Thank goodness for you, Jerry!...your number one fan x