Body snatching

[Debra A]

But it happened. We can not use statistics if there is none. So we just have to go with the sparse sources. Whether we like it or not. That is typical for history. "Idiographic".

But we have every right to ask for statistics from Trevor who claimed recently that a whopping 500+ cases of 'open verdict' Thames deaths were probably dismembered body parts and that medical school/anatomists/students dumping bodies parts in the Thames was a common event. There must be dozens of examples and statistics that horrified your average Victorian to back it up in that case, surely?

[jerryd]

Interesting stories in this article. Wonder how long the profession of "snatchers to the surgeons" was around?

London St James Gazette An Evening Review And Record Of News
March 7, 1888

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: Fisherman

All the above you have written, just makes your major failing even clearer.

That failing is a complete failure to look at evidence/sources and analyse and criticise them.

The post reads we Should accept Hebbert because he is a great doctor, you refuse to consider, the fact his contribution to a book is written some six years later, it seems it is not important at all, there is an assumption he must be correct, and say:

"I am much more of the meaning that what Hebbert reported was what Hebbert saw, and I would like to hear what anyone disagreeing with that have to offer for their different take."

Well so far 3 persons have done just that.

No, they have not. Nobody has explained why Hebbert would be as likey to be wrong as right, and that is what I am after. Once again, what he states is totally uncontroversial it is in line with what we know happened to Kelly (she was taken apart piece by piece), and not a soul has offered a view that is in conflict with Hebbert.

Therefore, far from saying that it can be wrong and it can be right, we should keep the door ajar for it being wrong, but overall accept that it is most probably correct.

Your view on the damage to the eyes is truly remarkable and shows a complete failure to correctly address the sources involved:

"The eyelids were taken away. We know that from Hebberts account. The eyes were left staring, as per Dew, as per Barnett who ID:d her by them, and by for example the Pall Mall Gazette reporter who wrote that they were the only human vestiges left in an otherwise totally cut and destroyed face."


Lets look at this:

1. You make a definitive statement:
" The eyelids were taken away"

yet this is based on the source we are discussing, it is not definitive by any stretch of the imagination.

2. Your first source to back up a source written 6 years after the event is a book written 50 years after, in which the author says he observed the eyes from the window, that is a backup of extremely limited usefulness and reliability.

3 Your next source is by an unnamed reporter? what was this persons source to say this? Did he actually see Kelly himself?

4.You also quote Barnett, who said he id'd Kelly by her eyes, there is no comment with regards to any damage, although if the damage was great one would expect him to say something!
However that does not eliminate minor damage, nor does it say the face around the eyes was carefully butchered so has not to damage the eyes


THAT Fisherman is how you look at sources?

As I pointed out, it is far more likley to be true than not that the eyelids were taken away. Hebbert assisted Bond, and he knew what he was talking about. As I keep saying, there may have been some little damage to the eyeballs, but they were nevertheless left intact enough for a suggestion to photograph them, mentioned by Dew, and - if I am not mistaken - also commented on by Phillips. The Pall Mall Gazette reporter saw Kelly, and described her - and the description is in line with Dew and Barnett.

There is not very much to go on, but what there is dovetails.Whether you want to get on your high horses and do a Pierre or not as a result of that is something you must decide for yourself.


Yet you finish by writing:

"And once again, you can go on about that for years, and it wonīt change the fact that a renowned medico who worked in tandem with Bond was the only person to describe what happened to Kelly’s eyelids. It is therefore incredibly more likely to be true than false, as I am sure you will agree."

Again the importance and reliability of the sources are not even looked at; just he is a really good \doctor, he worked with Bond, he must be right.

Wrong my dear Fisherman!

Possibly, yes - but probably not. The idea that I say that he MUST be correct is your uncalled for addition. We can play that game with Bond to, who you claim did his work with "no mistakes" - as if you were in a position to judge that!

I certainly do not agree.

What you certainly do and certainly donīt is not very likely to keep me awake at night, Steve. I am more concerned about how you fail to read me correctly and try to claim that Hebbert "exaggerates" whereas Bond made "no mistakes". Spreading such misinformation is more of a danger than anybody clearly declaring why a source should not be lightly dismissed.

fisherman

I was very clear,

"Hebbert greatly exaggerates the injuries when compared to the report of Bond." - it says far more than the primary source.

That can mean: overstatement, overemphasis, enhancement or embellishment on the original source, in this case the post mortem report of Dr Bond.

That is not the same as saying he "exaggerates" which I have not said.

I have never said Bond makes "no mistakes" and in one post said he's arguably often wrong with his conclusions,


In addition I have certainly not said the eyes were not intact, they obviously were or at least intact enough to photo.

I have been talking about the removal or not of the eyelids, and your claim of carefully work by the killer to protect the eyes'



Steve

[Debra A]

[QUOTE=Pierre;382786]

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.



Debra. We know nothing about what the anatomist thought.

Regards, Pierre

We know that the charge against Daniels was of delivering these bodies to the Receiver under the Anatomy Act 1832 under the guise of being legitimate bodies for anatomical use.

[Kattrup]

I am sorry to cause you so much pain, Steve - I did not know that we were supposed to disbelieve renowned medical experts who expressed an unchallenged view on a matter.

You are (generally) supposed to disbelieve a newer source disagreeing with an older source, is all.

Eh - I am saying that Charles Hebbert, one of the top medicos of his day, was the only one to comment on Kellys eyelids and what happened to them: they were cut away from her face.
I am of the meaning that Hebbert would be very disinclined to try the adolescent 16-year boy approach and try to make his audience go "Wooowww!" by adding horrific extra details that were never there. Not least since I think that he would have thought it embarrasing if Bond, his co-worker had protested.
I am much more of the meaning that what Hebbert reported was what Hebbert saw, and I would like to hear what anyone disagreeing with that have to offer for their different take.

The very fact that you mention that he is the only one to comment on her eyelids makes him suspect as a source.

I don't believe anyone is trying to say he must have lied or deliberately invented horrific details. He may have had a slight misremembering, may have confused two cases, may have been writing generally - any number of explanations.

Hebbert did not report anything. He wrote a description of a crime scene and a corpse to a textbook, six years after he saw it. The aim of the description was not to be precise in every detail, but to show the necessity for methods of forensic evidence - in this case, emphasising how to identify the sex of a mutilated corpse.
That he had extensive knowledge of the Kelly case, had assisted Dr. Bond, had taken notes and possibly had access to a copy of Bond's post mortem report does not in any way mean that he is a better source than Bond for determining what wounds were inflicted on Kelly.

Bond's report is from 1888. Hebbert's writings are from 1894.

Bond does not mention eyelids being cut off. Hebbert does. Is it probable that Bond missed it or failed to mention it, while Hebbert got it right? No. It is not.

While hypotheticals are generally not of much use in such arguments, what happens if Hebberts writings were published in 1924? Would they still be "equally viable"? Of course not. Conclusion: distance in time matters - sources closer in time are (generally) preferable. On this principle historical research builds.

It fits the evidence, as I just pointed out, so no we have no reason at all to doubt Hebbert.

It does not fit the evidence, since the main evidence does not mention cut eyelids at all.

Its not my view of the the two sources that is important. It is how historians, both trained and amateur and history as an academic discipline views the sources.

Agreed.

And once again, you can go on about that for years, and it wonīt change the fact that a renowned medico who worked in tandem with Bond was the only person to describe what happened to Kellys eyelids. It is therefore incredibly more likely to be true than false, as I am sure you will agree.

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.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;382788][QUOTE=Pierre;382775]

Pierre

Good point, and as i said a good find.
However that does not prove it to be a common practice does it.

Very illegal things are seldom "common practice", whatever that is.

I have no problem with the behaviour of medical persons in the past, the history of my old medical school is well known, and is very dark in some places, other hospitals were let me assure you worse.

So letīs not mix the time periods!

With regards to the disposal, you did not need to dispose of them illegally, if no one knew you had the bodies you simply added bits to other coffins, believe me it did happen!

Is it not an illegal practice per definition to dispose of things you have no right disposing of?

It is a pity that we do not know if the allegations in the article were proved true, it could be they were not.

Why? Many cases do not lead to convictions. And s**t still happens.

It would be interesting to check this, I may go and do some digging to see if I can find an answer.

Brilliant idea.

Also has I have just posted, the article you provided the link too was very good, however it did not back up the claim of illegal obtained bodies being used in the later part of the 19th century, rather it explained the legal methods.

I was discussing the change in the dead bodies business, from digging in cemeteries (illegal) to selling dead bodies (legal and illegal). Also, I did make a comment on this in my earlier post.

It did not provide any evidence of widespread breaking of the law.

But it happened. We can not use statistics if there is none. So we just have to go with the sparse sources. Whether we like it or not. That is typical for history. "Idiographic".

Am I missing something? or have you?

This thread, when we keep off the issue of the torsos themselves i find very interesting.

Yes, we do not need the old Whitechapel killer lurking around in this thread.

Regards, Pierre

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

How do we know if we can trust that witness? The witness might have lied.

A witness who lies usually has something to gain from that lie-either to cover up their own involvement in the crime or to gain attention. The witness was accompanied by two others who witnessed the same sighting of Elizabeth with a man described as looking like a navvy.

If the witness did not lie and if Elizabeth was seen 3rd June, the medical students must have worked during the night. One hypothesis could be that she died during the delivery of the child at a hospital and they took the chance to use the body for medical practice.

Babies born to destitute women were normally born in workhouse infirmaries. If Elizabeth had died during childbirth (the child was not delivered) then there would have been a name in the admissions register, a death registered in the deaths, a post mortem with notes recorded in the post mortem register. Unless there was a conspiracy on a massive scale involving the Parish authorities then someone would likely have come forward after recognising the plump, sandy-haired young woman who sadly died during labour at the workhouse. What are the cahances that no one at all remembered her or the incident?

The chance could have been taken if they thought she was an unfortunate and nobody therefore would claim the body. It is just a suggestion.

Even unfortunates have friends and families!

I think the Whitehall case is a murder done by Jack the Ripper. So I will not discuss that in this context.

Your refusal to discuss it doesn't change the fact that body also was dumped with clothing that may have identified that person. It didn't in the Whitehall case but in Elizabeth's case several of the witnesses were there solely to prove identity by standing up and saying they recognised her clothing, so it definitely worked in that case.

As an historian one knows that normative texts are normative texts and practice is practice.

Are you bragging or complaining, Pierre?

It is unlikely that they would accuse medical practitioners.

That's your opinion.

Yes, and people who illegally sold bodies could perhaps come and get the remains afterwards and dump them, if they were paid. Or if they did not bring the body at first, they could come and dump it if they were paid.

That would make the anatomist party to illegal tactics too. How do you know the person obtaining the bodies and dumping them afterwards in your sceanrio wasn't paid the whole hog to go out and murder to order in that case?

Since the head was not found, I think it is a good hypothesis that they attempted to hide her ID. Perhaps the head was buried. For body snatching there is pre and post work to be done.

Yet kept them in their own clothing which in Elizabeth's case helped bring people forward for an ID.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

No, my point is that, as I wrote, "the methods of body snatching gradually changed from digging into graves to taking paupers dead bodies directly from the workhouses and selling them to medical schools and doctors for dissection.". This was both a legal and an illegal practice. I certainly could have made that clearer. Thanks Steve.

Regards, Pierre

Thank you for clearing that,

I think several post may have crossed on that.

I will amend my original statement that body snatching was over by 1888 to "all but over" in light of the article you found.
if I do find it was unproven I will of course revert back, that what i call flexible thinking.

The last recorded example I can find of an actually grave robbery was on wikipedia,(not great I admit, but was the latest could find ) in 1862.


regards

Steve

[Pierre]

Didnīt you say that there was a copycat element involved, Steve? And would you not regard that a link?

On a separate note: was the reason for your suggesting a copycat element not that you thought it too odd for the colon business, the abdominal flap business and the eyelid business not to have something at all in common? That these elements were too unique not to be related in any way at all?

Were "flaps" typical for operation? Were "flaps" typical for Jack the Ripper?

Do zebras have four legs? Do elephants have four legs?

Are zebras elephants?

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;382775]

Hi Steve,

Thank you for your statement "commonly used sense". That is exactly why I do not use "common sense". The "common sense" of 1891 is not the "common sense of 1830 or 2016.

And you see, the newspaper from that time call it body snatching.

Therefore I work inductively, pretending I know nothing and forgetting my own "common sense". It gives a better access to the past.

Also, and this is very important, concepts change - a lot! - over time. I could give you many examples. "Christianity", or "classical" or "madness". When we see these concepts, we understand them from our own specific point of view. And that makes us blind to the past.





I understand that you might not like the thought of medical men doing some illegal actions. Even if the purpose was good. But the past is like that. You never know what you find.

The reason for the need to dispose of the remains in an illegal way is that if they were obtained in an illegal way - without asking the relatives and following the paper procedure according to the law - they must be disposed of in the same way.

I have not looked into the consequences of the case.

Kind regards, Pierre

Pierre

Good point, and as i said a good find.
However that does not prove it to be a common practice does it.

I have no problem with the behaviour of medical persons in the past, the history of my old medical school is well known, and is very dark in some places, other hospitals were let me assure you worse.


With regards to the disposal, you did not need to dispose of them illegally, if no one knew you had the bodies you simply added bits to other coffins, believe me it did happen!

It is a pity that we do not know if the allegations in the article were proved true, it could be they were not.

It would be interesting to check this, I may go and do some digging to see if I can find an answer.

Also has I have just posted, the article you provided the link too was very good, however it did not back up the claim of illegal obtained bodies being used in the later part of the 19th century, rather it explained the legal methods.

It did not provide any evidence of widespread breaking of the law.

Am I missing something? or have you?

This thread, when we keep off the issue of the torsos themselves i find very interesting.

regards

steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Debra A;382783]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.

Debra. We know nothing about what the anatomist thought.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Pierre

I have just read the article you linked to.

it is not describing illegal body snatching in the late 19th century, rather it talks from the section beginning:

"Following the Anatomy Act of 1832 (Anonymous, 1832), body snatching from graves became unnecessary,"

to the end of the section

"teaching hospitals to recoup the expenses of poor relief in their parish "

about how bodies are legally supplied from workhouses and hospitals.

I think you are missing something here.

By the way this is a very interesting thread, when we stick to the topic.

all the best steve

Hi Steve,

No, my point is that, as I wrote, "the methods of body snatching gradually changed from digging into graves to taking paupers dead bodies directly from the workhouses and selling them to medical schools and doctors for dissection.". This was both a legal and an illegal practice. I certainly could have made that clearer. Thanks Steve.

Regards, Pierre

[Debra A]

Pierre

Well done in finding a late example,

That is not body snatching in the commonly used sense of the word as you well know.

However your point is made, it appears odd cases still did occur of bodies from other than legal sources did still occur.

I still fail to see any need to illegal dispose of the remains after dissection.

Did you research show if these allegations were true, or just allegations?
And if so, did you find if any legal action was taken in that case?

steve

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.

[Elamarna]

Hi,

Yes, body snatching did occur in the 1880īs. A reason to this was that in 1860-1870 the number of bodies was approximately equal to the number of students, but after 1870 the supply fell gradually to the number of students (British Medical Journal, 1944, Dec 23; 2(4381): Supply of Bodies for Dissection. Goodman, Neville M., p. 807-811)

The methods of body snatching gradually changed from digging into graves to taking paupers dead bodies directly from the workhouses and selling them to medical schools and doctors for dissection. The practice continued throughout the century. Even in the late 19th century people who were running poor houses sold corpses of their unclaimed inmates after death to teaching hospitals (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...1.01381.x/full)

And here is an example from as late as 1891 from Sunderland Daily Echo and Shipping Gazette Friday 18 September.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

I have just read the article you linked to.

it is not describing illegal body snatching in the late 19th century, rather it talks from the section beginning:

"Following the Anatomy Act of 1832 (Anonymous, 1832), body snatching from graves became unnecessary,"

to the end of the section

"teaching hospitals to recoup the expenses of poor relief in their parish "

about how bodies are legally supplied from workhouses and hospitals.

I think you are missing something here.

By the way this is a very interesting thread, when we stick to the topic.

all the best steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Fisherman

All the above you have written, just makes your major failing even clearer.

That failing is a complete failure to look at evidence/sources and analyse and criticise them.

The post reads we Should accept Hebbert because he is a great doctor, you refuse to consider, the fact his contribution to a book is written some six years later, it seems it is not important at all, there is an assumption he must be correct, and say:

"I am much more of the meaning that what Hebbert reported was what Hebbert saw, and I would like to hear what anyone disagreeing with that have to offer for their different take."

Well so far 3 persons have done just that.

No, they have not. Nobody has explained why Hebbert would be as likey to be wrong as right, and that is what I am after. Once again, what he states is totally uncontroversial it is in line with what we know happened to Kelly (she was taken apart piece by piece), and not a soul has offered a view that is in conflict with Hebbert.

Therefore, far from saying that it can be wrong and it can be right, we should keep the door ajar for it being wrong, but overall accept that it is most probably correct.

Your view on the damage to the eyes is truly remarkable and shows a complete failure to correctly address the sources involved:

"The eyelids were taken away. We know that from Hebberts account. The eyes were left staring, as per Dew, as per Barnett who ID:d her by them, and by for example the Pall Mall Gazette reporter who wrote that they were the only human vestiges left in an otherwise totally cut and destroyed face."


Lets look at this:

1. You make a definitive statement:
" The eyelids were taken away"

yet this is based on the source we are discussing, it is not definitive by any stretch of the imagination.

2. Your first source to back up a source written 6 years after the event is a book written 50 years after, in which the author says he observed the eyes from the window, that is a backup of extremely limited usefulness and reliability.

3 Your next source is by an unnamed reporter? what was this persons source to say this? Did he actually see Kelly himself?

4.You also quote Barnett, who said he id'd Kelly by her eyes, there is no comment with regards to any damage, although if the damage was great one would expect him to say something!
However that does not eliminate minor damage, nor does it say the face around the eyes was carefully butchered so has not to damage the eyes


THAT Fisherman is how you look at sources?

As I pointed out, it is far more likley to be true than not that the eyelids were taken away. Hebbert assisted Bond, and he knew what he was talking about. As I keep saying, there may have been some little damage to the eyeballs, but they were nevertheless left intact enough for a suggestion to photograph them, mentioned by Dew, and - if I am not mistaken - also commented on by Phillips. The Pall Mall Gazette reporter saw Kelly, and described her - and the description is in line with Dew and Barnett.

There is not very much to go on, but what there is dovetails.Whether you want to get on your high horses and do a Pierre or not as a result of that is something you must decide for yourself.


Yet you finish by writing:

"And once again, you can go on about that for years, and it wonīt change the fact that a renowned medico who worked in tandem with Bond was the only person to describe what happened to Kelly’s eyelids. It is therefore incredibly more likely to be true than false, as I am sure you will agree."

Again the importance and reliability of the sources are not even looked at; just he is a really good \doctor, he worked with Bond, he must be right.

Wrong my dear Fisherman!

Possibly, yes - but probably not. The idea that I say that he MUST be correct is your uncalled for addition. We can play that game with Bond to, who you claim did his work with "no mistakes" - as if you were in a position to judge that!

I certainly do not agree.

What you certainly do and certainly donīt is not very likely to keep me awake at night, Steve. I am more concerned about how you fail to read me correctly and try to claim that Hebbert "exaggerates" whereas Bond made "no mistakes". Spreading such misinformation is more of a danger than anybody clearly declaring why a source should not be lightly dismissed.