Body snatching

[jerryd]

Where in her post does she support murder?

You might be best served in engaging your brain before writing instead of hastily trying to have a pop at me.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"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?

[Elamarna]

Yes, you would say that, Steve. Good cop bad cop, eh?

lost me there must be getting tired

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

steve

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Where in her post does she support murder?

You might be best served in engaging your brain before writing instead of hastily trying to have a pop at me.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[jerryd]

Well I am glad to see that you have now gone public with plausible explanations other than murder for Jackson. I hope the fans dont leave the club in droves as a result of your move away from murder

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

[Trevor Marriott]

Let's be clear here, Trevor. I said that it may be as a result of her pregnancy (though not an obstetric operation) if not serial killer/JTR related and you said said she probably died as a result of a' botched abortion.' Don't be trying to impress Pierre now.

Well I am glad to see that you have now gone public with plausible explanations other than murder for Jackson. I hope the fans dont leave the club in droves as a result of your move away from murder

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

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

Let's be clear here, Trevor. I said that it may be as a result of her pregnancy (though not an obstetric operation) if not serial killer/JTR related and you said said she probably died as a result of a' botched abortion.' Don't be trying to impress Pierre now.

[Trevor Marriott]

To Pierre and Steve
This case is different to the scenario being proposed that the torso victims were illegally dumped in the Thames after [what must have been illegally obtained in Jackson's case] and undergoing dissection at a medical school. In the Glasgow case of 1891 it was the transporter of the bodies who committed the criminal offence and that was taking paupers bodies destined for the cemetery, from the workhouse and depositing them with an anatomist registered under the 1832 Anatomy Act, using forged paperwork. That anatomist was under the impression he was receiving legitimate specimens and was not accused of not burying or dumping the remains illegally afterwards.

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

Debra,

I was thinking the same about the last point you made.

cheers

Steve

Yes, you would say that, Steve. Good cop bad cop, eh?

[Elamarna]

Debra,

I was thinking the same about the last point you made.

cheers

Steve

[Debra A]

No chance they thought "a simple prostitute" and just skipped the regulations? Silly question. How would you know?

There are enough prostitutes in the workhouse records to know it didn't seem to matter to them.

Yes. Again. Here we sit with some strange data. How can we interpret them?

According to how we want it to relate to a suspect seems to be en vogue lately.

We donīt know anything about that. That is why I think we should be very careful connecting these cases with the murders of Jack the Ripper. Only when there is a small, terrible little scrap of evidence, a sparse source, which gives an hypothesis and which can be used for building a theory with very strong coherence, together with other sources, and after having performed source criticism on each piece, can we say that we think that was a murder of Jack the Ripper. Of course, the same goes for any murderer, like a "torso killer".

Which is why I don't indulge in that type of thing.

When you say that, I think: Why was such a piece of evidence left? Was the one/those who left it not aware of police methods? Was he/they aware of police methods and wanted to leave a clue? No idea.

And I would say you are saying that simply because your suspect is a member of the police force.

[Elamarna]

"Just accept it at face value"...? What will you have me do? Say that Hebbert was probably lying? That he was probably mistaken? That he was trying to spook people? As if they were not already spooked enough?

I am saying that he CAN have been wrong. That should be enough for you, but for some reason it is not enough, is it?

I am also saying that when a man like Hebbert makes a claim about a body he has seen and worked with, he is much more likely to be right than wrong. If you can negate that in a logical way, you are welcome to do so.

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

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Fisherman;382817]They both stand:
Hebbert says the eyelids were cut off, he was Bonds assistand, he had first-hand knowledge, he saw the body. Nobody gainsays him.

For us today to claim that he was wrong would be sheer folly. To say that he MAY have been mistaken is something we can do, but we are required to realize that such a thing is not to be expected. End of.

No, that is not how it works with source criticism. You do not say "End of." Your could say "On the one hand...and on the other hand". Or you say "I THINK that...".

But you do not accuse a dead man for being a serial killer by using sparse data with low reliability and validity.

The eyes were very clearly not destroyed, and if there was any damage at all to them, then that would be minor damage only.

Operationalizations:

"The eyes", "not destroyed", "minor damage only".

No one says there was major destruction of the eyes, even if, paradoxically, cutting away the eyelids, which are important parts of each eye, could be interpreted as "destroyed" and "damage".

YOU mean the eyeballs.

BUT: How can you know that the killer did not view the cutting off of the eyelids as the eyes being "destroyed" and "damaged"?

The validity of your interpretation is low here.

Put that together, and you will see that the killer took care not to cut the eyes.

I put that together and I see that the killer took care to cut the eyes. To destroy them. To damage them by cutting away the eyelids.

He destroyed everything else in the face, turning it to a flesh avalanche, as can be seen on the pictures.

And he destroyed the eyes by cutting away the eyelids!

If you want to believe that the eyes were spared by coincidence only, then be my guest.

But they were not spared.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

1. We want several independent sources here. Fisherman has one. > Low reliability for the statement.

2. And as you say, the source is late and this is a problem. > Low validity for the statement.



Conclusion: Not Balderdash, Fisherman. But very relevant points from Kattrup. Kattrup is an historian trained in source criticism.

You are a journalist, are you not?

Regards, Pierre

I know historians who are complete idiots.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

firstly your last point, you obviously did not understand what I had said, fair enough apology of course accepted.
We will have to agree to disagree about the rest, I see no point in continuing when you fail to carry out any criticism of a source and just accept it a face value.

regards

Steve

"Just accept it at face value"...? What will you have me do? Say that Hebbert was probably lying? That he was probably mistaken? That he was trying to spook people? As if they were not already spooked enough?

I am saying that he CAN have been wrong. That should be enough for you, but for some reason it is not enough, is it?

I am also saying that when a man like Hebbert makes a claim about a body he has seen and worked with, he is much more likely to be right than wrong. If you can negate that in a logical way, you are welcome to do so.

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Kattrup;382794:

I think most would argue the reverse - he is the only one to mention it, and he does it in an informal context six years after the event. It is therefore incredibly more unlikely to be true than false, as I am sure you will agree.

1. We want several independent sources here. Fisherman has one. > Low reliability for the statement.

2. And as you say, the source is late and this is a problem. > Low validity for the statement.

QUOTE=Fisherman;382814:

Balderdash, Kattrup. Absolute, genuine balderdash. Sorry, but it needed saying.

Conclusion: Not Balderdash, Fisherman. But very relevant points from Kattrup. Kattrup is an historian trained in source criticism.

You are a journalist, are you not?

Regards, Pierre