Body snatching

[Trevor Marriott]

From Hebberts "A System of Legal Medicine":

In the particular illustrative instance, the woman was murdered in a bedroom. The body was naked when found. The eyebrows, eyelids, ears, nose, lips and chin had been cut off, and the face gashed by numerous knife-cuts.

So, Trevor, had the chin not been cut off since Bond does not mention it? Did Bond list all the details that had been cut, and Hebbert was misinforming when he commented on the parts Bond did not comment on.

Which is the more likely thing:

Hebbert was correct, and there is absolutely nothing that Bond said that prohibited Hebbert from being correct, or

Hebbert was wrong, because if Bond did not mention it specifically, it could never have happened. Hebbert is also well known to lie and/or add details that were never there, or...?

Well of course you are going to pick the account that fits with your theory.

Go figure, master detective. I am not the one who needs reading up.

By the way, I never said that the facial mutilations were the exact same. Nor did I say the flaps were. Or the colon sections. Or you and me.

Well simply showing that they were removed them in the course of dismemberment doesn't prove they were removed by the same person unless you can prove that the bodies were all dismembered in exactly the same way, and that is clearly not the case.

So it is not a proven fact is it, there is an element of doubt, so you cannot say with any reliable certainty that the eye lids were cut away/off.

You need to also look at when this book was published as to the reliability and accuracy of matters contained in it.

He wrote about a lot of things all from memory ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

They are not equally viable - one is from 1888, an official report written as part of his duties, the other is from 1894, written in a completely different context as a textbook on how to apply certain techniques of forensic medicine.

They are not equal at all.


Completely agree

(except to add that Hebbert's is a primary source, too. Just of lesser value).

Letīs look at what Hebbert said:

"In the particular illustrative instance, the woman was murdered in a bedroom. The body was naked when found. The eyebrows, eyelids, ears, nose, lips and chin had been cut off, and the face gashed by numerous knife-cuts.
The breasts had been cut off, and the whole abdominal parietes, together with the external organs of generation had been removed. The skin and much of the muscular tissue, not, however, exposing the bone, had been slashed away from the anterior
aspect of the thighs as far as the knees. The abdominal viscera and pelvic viscera, including bladder, vagina, and uterus with appendages, had been torn from their cavities and in fact there was no sign of sex except the long hair upon the head, and, as is well known, that alone is not positive sign, inasmuch as in some nations the hair is worn long by men. The fact the whole bladder had been removed did away with the help that might have been afforded by the prescence of the prostate gland. In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered around the room, and showed the sex without doubt. But if all the organs and parts had been taken away or the body exposed to the effects of decomposition, a careful preparation of the skeleton would have been imperative to decide that the body was that of a woman.
It might further be stated that in this case, in consequence of the hacking of the fearures, the prescence or absence of a beard could not be stated, and if the hair had been designedly cut off there would have been absolutely no sign by which sex could have been determined.
The hair on the pubes had been removed in this case, and the difference in the growth of the pubic hair tapering up towards the umbilicus in the male, and simply surrounding the organs of generation in the female, could not be availed as an indication of sex."

And letīs look at Bond now:

"Position of body

The body was lying naked in the middle of the bed, the shoulders flat, but the axis of the body inclined to the left side of the bed. The head was turned on the left cheek. The left arm was close to the body with the forearm flexed at a right angle & lying across the abdomen. the right arm was slightly abducted from the body & rested on the mattress, the elbow bent & the forearm supine with the fingers clenched. The legs were wide apart, the left thigh at right angles to the trunk & the right forming an obtuse angle with the pubes.

The whole of the surface of the abdomen & thighs was removed & the abdominal Cavity emptied of its viscera. The breasts were cut off, the arms mutilated by several jagged wounds & the face hacked beyond recognition of the features. The tissues of the neck were severed all round down to the bone.

The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus & Kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the Rt foot, the Liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side & the s pleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.

The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood, & on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about 2 feet square. The wall by the right side of the bed & in a line with the neck was marked by blood which had struck it in a number of spearate splashes.

Postmortem examination

The face was gashed in all directions the nose cheeks, eyebrows and ears being partly removed. The lips were blanched & cut by several incisions running obliquely down to the chin. There were also numerous cuts extending irregularly across all the features.

The neck was cut through the skin & other tissues right down to the vertebrae the 5th & 6th being deeply notched. The skin cuts in the front of the neck showed distinct ecchymosis.

The air passage was cut at the lower part of the larynx through the cricoid cartilage.

Both breasts were removed by more or less circular incisions, the muscles down to the ribs being attached to the breasts. The intercostals between the 4th, 5th & 6th ribs were cut through & the contents of the thorax visible through the openings.

The skin & tissues of the abdomen from the costal arch to the pubes were removed in three large flaps. The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation & part of the right buttock. The left thigh was stripped of skin, fascia & muscles as far as the knee.

The left calf showed a long gash through skin & tissues to the deep muscles & reaching from the knee to 5 ins above the ankle.

Both arms & forearms had extensive & jagged wounds.

The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 in long, with extravasation of blood in the skin & there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition.

On opening the thorax it was found that the right lung was minimally adherent by old firm adhesions. The lower part of the lung was broken & torn away.

The left lung was intact: it was adherent at the apex & there were a few adhesions over the side. In the substaces of the lung were several nodules of consolidation.

The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent.

In the abdominal cavity was some partially digested food of fish & potatoes & similar food was found in the remains of the stomach attached to the intestines."

Now, to point to just one example: If we want to know what happened to the bladder, which medico tells us that? Correct: Hebbert does.

If it had not been for him, we would not know as much as we do about it. Bond of course says the abdominal cavity was "emptied" but Hebbert tells us how the parts were torn out by the killer.

The exact same goes for the eyelids, but more extensively so. Bond leave them uncommented on. Hebbert tells us what happened to them.

As you say, these are both first-hand sources, and I much as Bonds report was written in the course of duty, I donīt think that we can say that one is more improtant than the other. They should be used together to get the fullest possible picture, they were both written by extremely competent men and when one of them adds information that the other one fails to mention, we should be grateful for having them both instead of retrospectively trying to tell which report is the more important one. All information we can find and that is written by men like Hebbert and Bond is equally important and adds to our knowledge in the exact same way.

If anybody wants to use Bond instead of Hebbert where they both mention different details, then that is fine. But trying to establish a lover level of usefulness for material mentioned by Hebbert but not by Bond would be idiotic, if you excuse my French.

Hebbert saw and examined the body. His material will have been placed in the hands of those responsible for the investigation just as Bonds material was. He was not an inferior doctor to Bond, broadly speaking, and can therefore not be dismissed in this debate.

[Debra A]

Yes it was their responsibility, but burials cost money. Wrapping body parts up and dumping them in the thames cost nothing.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, it would be free but that doesn't prove it ever happened. Can you provide examples or stats. from the time that show it ever happened? How many dismembered bodies were dumped in the Thames every year by medical schools to avoid burial costs, Trevor?
I'm with Steve and Miss Marple on this.

[Elamarna]

They are not equally viable - one is from 1888, an official report written as part of his duties, the other is from 1894, written in a completely different context as a textbook on how to apply certain techniques of forensic medicine.

They are not equal at all.


Completely agree

(except to add that Hebbert's is a primary source, too. Just of lesser value).

Hi Kattrup


Yes I should have made that more clear both are indeed primary sources, but i would refer to Bonds as THE primary source given it is the actual post mortem report.

thank you for pointing that out .

steve

Steve

[Kattrup]

Both accounts are reasonably made from notes taken in combination with the autopsy, and at the approximate same time. They are therefore equally viable. Bond does not mention the eyelids, Hebbert does. Do you think he made it up, Steve?

They are not equally viable - one is from 1888, an official report written as part of his duties, the other is from 1894, written in a completely different context as a textbook on how to apply certain techniques of forensic medicine.

They are not equal at all.

I am sorry they are not the same; how many times does one need to repeat this:

One is The primary source, it is Bonds Post mortem report. that is a fact is it not?

The other is words written in a book some years later, it is not known if Post mortem notes are used in writing it. It is not an official report.

They are not both equally viable, it is a great shame that you seem to think they are, and cannot see the difference.

Completely agree

(except to add that Hebbert's is a primary source, too. Just of lesser value).

[Elamarna]

Dear Fisherman


The why say that Hebbert exaggerates?



Because it is an exaggeration on what Bond says, I am taking Bond as the baseline. what Hebbert says fits with the definition of exaggeration when you work from there.


The sound assumption is that he is using his notes, wouldīt you say? Hbbert is very exact on very many details on all of the murders he comments on in his extensive book. Did he work from memory only?

I think we may safely discard any such suggestion.


You cannot make that assumption. nor discard any such suggestion.
You need evidence of some sort to back that up.



Bond implies nothing of the sort. If it was NOT gone, one would not expect Hebbert to say so.



No It is certainly implied.

Hebbert is writing after the event, for a different audience, this is what you refuse to see.


In fact, the sensible thing to do is to accept that it was cut away to a smaller or lesser degree. Which was in all probability what happened to the nose, they eyebrows etc.


Why is it sensible?

Just because Hebbert says so, is that the answer?




Look at the level of detail in the book. He lists all of the severed body parts from the torso series in detail. If he worked from memory, would you bnot say that it is pretty remarkable how he remembered the exact measures if the body parts in the torso cases? Down to the half inch?



That does not mean it is accurate on the Kelly murder.

The fact that the degree of detail is missing in the Kelly case highlights the difference.


Why on earth would Bond be "more accurate"? That is - as you put it - an assumption on your behalf. Like I said, Hebbert is extremely exact in his description of the torso parts, giving the exact measures of some of them. Are you suggesting that he winged it?



Because his is the PRIMARY SOURCE

Hebberts is not!





I think it is a great shame how you try to make Hebberts very precise report out as a collection of memories only, Steve. It is evident that it is based on the notes he must have taken at the same time as Bond did, and it is therefore equally viable as a source.
Why would we not be thankful for what little we have? Answer: Because it fits badly with what we think...?




Because it is not the primary source, while it is of value the primary source should always be taken as the more accurate.





What? That the chin is made up of tissue and bone?




Please stop trying to Score points Fisherman, you know I do not mean that.
I was referring to the cutting of the chin.




When something is clarified and knowledge is added, it is never pointless.



Or course it is not, but the point is that nothing is being clarified and no knowlegdeg is being added.

Just opinions given, by both of us, neither of which can be proved.


If you have no idea about the death mask, would you at least agree that it goes way beyond what a standard dismemberment case is about?

Not knowing enough about the history of dismemberment cases I cannot say.



With the greatest of respect I will finish by saying I avoid your threads on Lechmere/Cross because of this very closed view you have on things. looks like I may need to do the same here.

regards

Steve

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;382738]Fisherman

This is a very unfortunate wording on your behalf. You claim as a fact that Hebbert exagerrates. But no such fact has been established. As I said before, if the killer cut away 80 per cent of the eyebrows, then it would be perfectly legal for a medico to say that the killer cut away the eyebrows. The intent would be an obvious one.



No I said it is exaggerated when compared to the report of Bond, he claims the injuries are far greater than Bond; not it is an exaggeration.

There is a difference.

Then why say that Hebbert exaggerates?

Bond does not say anything about the eyelids, whereas Hebbert does. So how about instead of saying that Hebbert exaggerates, we say that Bond was less full in his reporting?


No you cannot really say that, because you do not know Hebbert is correct. his report is written years after the event, you do not know what he is using to provide the data for his statement.

The sound assumption is that he is using his notes, wouldīt you say? Hebbert is very exact on very many details on all of the murders he comments on in his extensive book. Did he work from memory only?

I think we may safely discard any such suggestion.

How we word ourselves will always colour what we say. Letīs keep that in mind. Hebbert also said the chin was cut away, Bond says nothing about that (if I remember correctly). Should that lead us to say that Hebbert made it up?


Bond implies the chin is still in place. he mentions it in relation to facial cuts, if it were gone itself one would expect that to be mentioned.

Bond implies nothing of the sort. If it was NOT gone, one would not expect Hebbert to say so.

In fact, the sensible thing to do is to accept that it was cut away to a smaller or lesser degree. Which was in all probability what happened to the nose, they eyebrows etc.


It was undoubtedly grounded on his notes, Steve. And they were exactly as contemporary. I see no reason to chose one over the other in this respect. I would instead piint to how Hebbert seems to have been more detailed than Bond in a number of respects.


Once again, we are dealing with notes and not memory, in all probability.

This is an assumption on your part, you do not know if he is working from notes or memory.In addition he is contributing to a book, not writing a Post Mortem Report.

Look at the level of detail in the book. He lists all of the severed body parts from the torso series in detail. If he worked from memory, would you bnot say that it is pretty remarkable how he remembered the exact measures if the body parts in the torso cases? Down to the half inch?


Yes, of course you must assume that I am skewed - it always helps. Ans why would I say that you preer Bond since HE fits YOUR argument better? It would be outright stupid, would it not?


My argument is purely that Bond is more accurate, his Post Mortem Report being an established primary source, than Hebberts report, a statement in a later book.

Why on earth would Bond be "more accurate"? That is - as you put it - an assumption on your behalf. Like I said, Hebbert is extremely exact in his description of the torso parts, giving the exact measures of some of them. Are you suggesting that he winged it?

Both accounts are reasonably made from notes taken in combination with the autopsy, and at the approximate same time. They are therefore equally viable. Bond does not mention the eyelids, Hebbert does. Do you think he made it up, Steve?


I am sorry they are not the same; how many times does one need to repeat this:

One is The primary source, it is Bonds Post mortem report. that is a fact is it not?

The other is words written in a book some years later, it is not known if Post mortem notes are used in writing it. It is not an official report.

They are not both equally viable, it is a great shame that you seem to think they are, and cannot see the difference.

I think it is a great shame how you try to make Hebberts very precise report out as a collection of memories only, Steve. It is evident that it is based on the notes he must have taken at the same time as Bond did, and it is therefore equally viable as a source.
Why would we not be thankful for what little we have? Answer: Because it fits badly with what we think...? And keep in mind that far from opposing or gainsaying Bond, Hebbert is ADDING information about something Bond never even commented on.

That does not mean that he anywhere says anything about any cut to the chin. The cuts extended as far as to the chin, that is all Bond says. And "across all the features" is non-specific.



Not really, no. The chin is made up by both tissue and bone, so it could well have been cut off. You can point to the chin on Yoricks skull, Steve.



That is Your Opinion, not one I share.

What? That the chin is made up of tissue and bone?



Now, before we go on bickering about this, hereīs a question for you.

Why did the 1873 killer cut away the face and scalp in one piece from the skull of his victim. What possible reasons can you see?


I have no idea

As you say no point in bickering, you have such a closed perspective on this, it is pointless.

When something is clarified and knowledge is added, it is never pointless.

If you have no idea about the death mask, would you at least agree that it goes way beyond what a standard dismemberment case is about?

[Elamarna]

I see that we have allowed this thread to move away from the topic of could bodies have been snatched, to one of discussing the torso's themselves again.


sorry i am partially to blame.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Yes it was their responsibility, but burials cost money. Wrapping body parts up and dumping them in the thames cost nothing.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor

do you have anything which would support this happening in the late 1800's

Regards

Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna

Fisherman

I am so sorry, you have not taken on board the comments i made last week.

Taken on board? What do you mean? That I have not understood that you are correct or that I somehow missed it? What if I disagree...?

As I pointed out to compare the injuries you need specific details of the injuries, these we do not have.

I think it is rather specific to say that the eyelids were cut away, Steve. I think it is specific to say that the abdominal wall was taken away in large flaps and that the part of the colon was removed.

It would be good to have it in millimeters and photographed, but overall, the mere fact that these things were recorded tells us that in these cases, a type of damage was inflicted that is very rare. And the compliation of three such rare damages inflicted in both series makes it quite resonable to suggest a link.
If the nasal bones had been dug out and taken away, we really would not need to know the exact measurements of the bone parts to conclude that something extraordinary had taken place.

Cutting a section of the colon away does not prove a link, in once case the cut piece is placed on display, in another it is not and appears to be part of the dismemberment.

Of course it does not PROVE a link - but it neverthelss suggests such a thing. Coupled with the flaps and the eyelids, it still does not amount to absolute proof, but the suggestion of a link becomes more and more cemented with each added such oddity.
As for "appears to be a part of the dismemberment", it can be said about every cut to the torso victims: a part of the dismemberment.
But we KNOW that these were not the typcial dismemberment cases. Would you say that the cut away face and scalp were also "part of the dismemberment"? Because they WERE - but they were not part of any typical dismemberment.

Cutting flaps of skin, does not prove the same hand unless we know the exact shape and angle of cut involved in producing the flap.

Once more: there is no proof, but there is a very good suggestion.

Removing flaps of skin, suggests the killers knew what they were doing, and had some basic training in anatomy be that human or animal. That is all.

No, that is not all. It clearly PROVES that in both series, the perpetrator was intent on cutting the abdominal wall away and did so in a number of cases. It is therefore PROVEN that a common and very rare feature was there. As with the colons. As as seemingly with the eyelids.

The argument that the eyes had been carefully cut around is unproven, it is a theory you have suggested, and should indeed be looked at, so far nothing has been provided which conclusively supports this idea.

Why do you say that? We know that Hebbert said that the killer removed the eyelids, and we know that more than on source implicated that they eyes were left undamaged, more or less. That conclusively supports the idea, Iīm afraid.

So far I see common injuries, which could be produced by people who had similar training, that is all!

Can you examplify with any other two cases of serial killing, occuring in the same geographica area at the same approximate time, where there were three very rare traits involved in both series? Or two?

I know I canīt.

How about the 1873 death mask, Steve? Any thoughts, ideas...? Just part of the dismemberment, or?

[Elamarna]

Fisherman

This is a very unfortunate wording on your behalf. You claim as a fact that Hebbert exagerrates. But no such fact has been established. As I said before, if the killer cut away 80 per cent of the eyebrows, then it would be perfectly legal for a medico to say that the killer cut away the eyebrows. The intent would be an obvious one.



No I said it is exaggerated when compared to the report of Bond, he claims the injuries are far greater than Bond; not it is an exaggeration.

There is a difference.


Bond does not say anything about the eyelids, whereas Hebbert does. So how about instead of saying that Hebbert exaggerates, we say that Bond was less full in his reporting?


No you cannot really say that, because you do not know Hebbert is correct. his report is written years after the event, you do not know what he is using to provide the data for his statement.


How we word ourselves will always colour what we say. Letīs keep that in mind. Hebbert also said the chin was cut away, Bond says nothing about that (if I remember correctly). Should that lead us to say that Hebbert made it up?


Bond implies the chin is still in place. he mentions it in relation to facial cuts, if it were gone itself one would expect that to be mentioned.




It was undoubtedly grounded on his notes, Steve. And they were exactly as contemporary. I see no reason to chose one over the other in this respect. I would instead piint to how Hebbert seems to have been more detailed than Bond in a number of respects.


Once again, we are dealing with notes and not memory, in all probability.

This is an assumption on your part, you do not know if he is working from notes or memory. In addition he is contributing to a book, not writing a Post Mortem Report.


Yes, of course you must assume that I am skewed - it always helps. Ans why would I say that you preer Bond since HE fits YOUR argument better? It would be outright stupid, would it not?



My Argument is purely that Bond is more accurate, his Post Mortem Report being an established primary source, than Hebberts report, a statement in a later book.



Both accounts are reasonably made from notes taken in combination with the autopsy, and at the approximate same time. They are therefore equally viable. Bond does not mention the eyelids, Hebbert does. Do you think he made it up, Steve?



I am sorry they are not the same; how many times does one need to repeat this:

One is The primary source, it is Bonds Post mortem report. that is a fact is it not?

The other is words written in a book some years later, it is not known if Post mortem notes are used in writing it. It is not an official report.

They are not both equally viable, it is a great shame that you seem to think they are, and cannot see the difference.



That does not mean that he anywhere says anything about any cut to the chin. The cuts extended as far as to the chin, that is all Bond says. And "across all the features" is non-specific.



Not really, no. The chin is made up by both tissue and bone, so it could well have been cut off. You can point to the chin on Yoricks skull, Steve.



That is Your Opinion, not one I share.



Now, before we go on bickering about this, hereīs a question for you.

Why did the 1873 killer cut away the face and scalp in one piece from the skull of his victim. What possible reasons can you see?


I have no idea

As you say no point in bickering, you have such a closed perspective on this, it is pointless.

Regards

Steve

[miss marple]

Never heard that before, bodies dumped in the Thames to save cost, murdered bodies perhaps and suicides in the Thames. Rather silly idea, as every poor person person could be buried by the parish in a pauper grave. Also popular were burials clubs were the poor would save up for their funerals and also purchase graves. Death was an important occasion for the working class and a 'good send off' was often achieved by denying other things.

Miss Marple

[Elamarna]

"A full explanation"?

I gave a full explanation as to why these very rare occurences would put it beynd doubt that there is a connection.

I take you point on how you were just suggesting a possible copycat deed. But as you can see, there are three raritites that would have been "copycatted", or they coincidentally occurred in both series:

Both killers cut a section of the colon away.

Both killers cut away the abominal wall in large panes.

Both killers engaged on very careful cutting around the eyes.

The odds that this was all coincidental are ridiculously high, Iīm afraid. At the very least, we have to believe in killers who very carefull kept themselves informed of small details about what the other man did, and who decided to copy it.
Or we take the obvious route and accept they were one and the same.

Fisherman

I am so sorry, you have not taken on board the comments i made last week.

As I pointed out to compare the injuries you need specific details of the injuries, these we do not have.

Cutting a section of the colon away does not prove a link, in once case the cut piece is placed on display, in another it is not and appears to be part of the dismemberment.

Cutting flaps of skin, does not prove the same hand unless we know the exact shape and angle of cut involved in producing the flap.

Removing flaps of skin, suggests the killers knew what they were doing, and had some basic training in anatomy be that human or animal. That is all.

The argument that the eyes had been carefully cut around is unproven, it is a theory you have suggested, and should indeed be looked at, so far nothing has been provided which conclusively supports this idea.

So far I see common injuries, which could be produced by people who had similar training, that is all!


Regards

Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Dear Fisherman,

has I previously posted, the difference in the reports by the two doctors is significant.

Hebbert greatly exaggerates the injuries when compared to the report of Bond.

This is a very unfortunate wording on your behalf. You claim as a fact that Hebbert exagerrates. But no such fact has been established. As I said before, if the killer cut away 80 per cent of the eyebrows, then it would be perfectly legal for a medico to say that the killer cut away the eyebrows. The intent would be an obvious one.

Bond does not say anything about the eyelids, whereas Hebbert does. So how about instead of saying that Hebbert exaggerates, we say that Bond was less full in his reporting?

How we word ourselves will always colour what we say. Letīs keep that in mind. Hebbert also said the chin was cut away, Bond says nothing about that (if I remember correctly). Should that lead us to say that Hebbert made it up?

Bonds report was his post mortem record, written in 1888 at or directly after the procedure.

Hebberts statement was for a book, that is a commercial exercise, and was not written until at least 5-6 years after the event.

It was undoubtedly grounded on his notes, Steve. And they were exactly as contemporary. I see no reason to chose one over the other in this respect. I would instead piint to how Hebbert seems to have been more detailed than Bond in a number of respects.

Personally I always prefer data produced at the time, not recalled from memory a number of years later.

Once again, we are dealing with notes and not memory, in all probability.

It appears you prefer to accept Hebbert, one assumes because it better fits your ideas, such is your right of course.

Yes, of course you must assume that I am skewed - it always helps. Ans why would I say that you preer Bond since HE fits YOUR argument better? It would be outright stupid, would it not?

The truth is that we cannot be sure which of the reports is the more accurate, but the primarily source is usually the more accurate with historical documents.

Both accounts are reasonably made from notes taken in combination with the autopsy, and at the approximate same time. They are therefore equally viable. Bond does not mention the eyelids, Hebbert does. Do you think he made it up, Steve?

Actually Bond does mention the chin, he says :

"The lips were blanched & cut by several incisions running obliquely down to the chin. There were also numerous cuts extending irregularly across all the features. "

That does not mean that he anywhere says anything about any cut to the chin. The cuts extended as far as to the chin, that is all Bond says. And "across all the features" is non-specific.

By mentioning it, but not saying it has been cut off, he implies it is still present.

Not really, no. The chin is made up by both tissue and bone, so it could well have been cut off. You can point to the chin on Yoricks skull, Steve.

Now, before we go on bickering about this, hereīs a question for you.

Why did the 1873 killer cut away the face and scalp in one piece from the skull of his victim. What possible reasons can you see?

[Elamarna]

From Hebberts "A System of Legal Medicine":

In the particular illustrative instance, the woman was murdered in a bedroom. The body was naked when found. The eyebrows, eyelids, ears, nose, lips and chin had been cut off, and the face gashed by numerous knife-cuts.

So, Trevor, had the chin not been cut off since Bond does not mention it? Did Bond list all the details that had been cut, and Hebbert was misinforming when he commented on the parts Bond did not comment on.

Which is the more likely thing:

Hebbert was correct, and there is absolutely nothing that Bond said that prohibited Hebbert from being correct, or

Hebbert was wrong, because if Bond did not mention it specifically, it could never have happened. Hebbert is also well known to lie and/or add details that were never there, or...?

Go figure, master detective. I am not the one who needs reading up.

By the way, I never said that the facial mutilations were the exact same. Nor did I say the flaps were. Or the colon sections. Or you and me.

Dear Fisherman,

has I previously posted, the difference in the reports by the two doctors is significant.

Hebbert greatly exaggerates the injuries when compared to the report of Bond.



Bonds report was his post mortem record, written in 1888 at or directly after the procedure.

Hebberts statement was for a book, that is a commercial exercise, and was not written until at least 5-6 years after the event.


Personally I always prefer data produced at the time, not recalled from memory a number of years later.


It appears you prefer to accept Hebbert, one assumes because it better fits your ideas, such is your right of course.

The truth is that we cannot be sure which of the reports is the more accurate, but the primarily source is usually the more accurate with historical documents.



Actually Bond does mention the chin, he says :


"The lips were blanched & cut by several incisions running obliquely down to the chin. There were also numerous cuts extending irregularly across all the features. "

By mentioning it, but not saying it has been cut off, he implies it is still present.

regards


Steve