Body snatching

[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, would´t 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. Let´s 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, here´s 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]

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, would´t 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

[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]

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

[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.

[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).

Let´s 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 let´s 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 don´t 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.

[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

[Elamarna]

Let´s 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 let´s 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 don´t 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.

My Dear Fisherman

Quoting all of the above proves nothing, other than to highlight the differences.

It does not matter what you think; from an historical point of view, from a source point of view, from a research point of view, Hebberts document is not considered the same as Bond's.

No one is attempting to place Hebbert at a lower level, the fact is his work is at a lower level, although it is still of value.

regards

Steve

[Fisherman]

My Dear Fisherman

Quoting all of the above proves nothing, other than to highlight the differences.

It does not matter what you think; from an historical point of view, from a source point of view, from a research point of view, Hebberts document is not considered the same as Bond's.

No one is attempting to place Hebbert at a lower level, the fact is his work is at a lower level, although it is still of value.

regards

Steve

My dear Steve!

I thought you had understood by now that I am not claiming to prove anything. I am pointing to the differences, howeer, to show that we have not one, but TWO renowned medicos to take advantage of.

It is not of much interest whether we think Bonds document is superior to Hebberts - you are free to believe so - since the matter at hand is a detail that was never mentioned by Bond. And no matter how superior you are, of you fail to comment on a matter, it does not mean that your view is the better one - it means that you did not express a view at all.

Therefore Hebbert is the one to rely on in the eyelids issue, since he DID comment on it.

That is the one and only thing of interest here. We have a picture of what happened to Kelly´s eyelids, and we have no reason at all to doubt it, since it was established by a class act medico, and since not a living soul gainsaid him.

After that, you are welcome to sing Bond´s praise in any key you wish.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

You know that I cant give figures, because I dont know, nor does anyone else. It is something that has to be considered when looking at these torsos in unbiased fashion.

But even if it was only one and that one was one of the torsos subject to this thread then the point has been made.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

My dear Steve!

I thought you had understood by now that I am not claiming to prove anything. I am pointing to the differences, howeer, to show that we have not one, but TWO renowned medicos to take advantage of.

It is not of much interest whether we think Bonds document is superior to Hebberts - you are free to believe so - since the matter at hand is a detail that was never mentioned by Bond. And no matter how superior you are, of you fail to comment on a matter, it does not mean that your view is the better one - it means that you did not express a view at all.

Therefore Hebbert is the one to rely on in the eyelids issue, since he DID comment on it.

That is the one and only thing of interest here. We have a picture of what happened to Kelly´s eyelids, and we have no reason at all to doubt it, since it was established by a class act medico, and since not a living soul gainsaid him.

After that, you are welcome to sing Bond´s praise in any key you wish.

Fisherman

I say this with a great deal of regret, but for someone with 11k+ post you demonstrate a remarkable refusal, indeed almost an obtuse attitude, to accepting how historical sources are used.


Of course you are trying to prove something, to say you are not is disingenuous.
Your aim is to prove that particular attention was paid to the eyes of Kelly, there also appears to be an attempt, as yet not made completely clear, but I am sure it will come, to link it to 1873.

Of course we have a reason to doubt the accounts of the damage to Kelly’s eyelids, the comment by Hebbert are written 6 years at least after the event and are not a report to be used for medical or police purposes but as part of a training manual.

By the way I am not a fan of Bond, in my opinion he makes many conclusions that can be argued against, but on the whole see no mistakes in his actual descriptions of scenes and the damage done.

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.

steve

[Elamarna]

You know that I cant give figures, because I dont know, nor does anyone else. It is something that has to be considered when looking at these torsos in unbiased fashion.

But even if it was only one and that one was one of the torsos subject to this thread then the point has been made.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

can i clarify please?

You have no evidence that such happened, you have just offered the suggestion as a hypothetical solution. is that correct?

regards

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

can i clarify please?

You have no evidence that such happened, you have just offered the suggestion as a hypothetical solution. is that correct?

regards

Steve

That is correct no direct evidence at this time, but a plausible explanation nevertheless.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Fisherman

Yes...?

I say this with a great deal of regret, but for someone with 11k+ post you demonstrate a remarkable refusal, indeed almost an obtuse attitude, to accepting how historical sources are used.

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.

Of course you are trying to prove something, to say you are not is disingenuous.

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.

Your aim is to prove that particular attention was paid to the eyes of Kelly, there also appears to be an attempt, as yet not made completely clear, but I am sure it will come, to link it to 1873.

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.

So I am not aiming to prove something - I am pointing to something already proven. Whether there was any small damage to the eyes or not is not very interesting in this context - they were left intact or almost intact. There is also a parallel in Eddowes, where the eyelids were nicked, but where no medico (not even Bond) said that the eyes suffered damage.

Of course we have a reason to doubt the accounts of the damage to Kelly’s eyelids, the comment by Hebbert are written 6 years at least after the event and are not a report to be used for medical or police purposes but as part of a training manual.

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

By the way I am not a fan of Bond, in my opinion he makes many conclusions that can be argued against, but on the whole see no mistakes in his actual descriptions of scenes and the damage done.

So you know how it looked and what had happened, is that it? And you therefore also know that Bonds report was precise, correct and without mistakes? You see, Steve, before you can know that, you need to know what he described.

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.

And once again, you can go on about that for years, and it won´t 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.

[Trevor Marriott]

Elamarna: Fisherman

Yes...?

I say this with a great deal of regret, but for someone with 11k+ post you demonstrate a remarkable refusal, indeed almost an obtuse attitude, to accepting how historical sources are used.

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.

Of course you are trying to prove something, to say you are not is disingenuous.

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.

Your aim is to prove that particular attention was paid to the eyes of Kelly, there also appears to be an attempt, as yet not made completely clear, but I am sure it will come, to link it to 1873.

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.

So I am not aiming to prove something - I am pointing to something already proven. Whether there was any small damage to the eyes or not is not very interesting in this context - they were left intact or almost intact. There is also a parallel in Eddowes, where the eyelids were nicked, but where no medico (not even Bond) said that the eyes suffered damage.

Of course we have a reason to doubt the accounts of the damage to Kelly’s eyelids, the comment by Hebbert are written 6 years at least after the event and are not a report to be used for medical or police purposes but as part of a training manual.

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

By the way I am not a fan of Bond, in my opinion he makes many conclusions that can be argued against, but on the whole see no mistakes in his actual descriptions of scenes and the damage done.

So you know how it looked and what had happend, is that it? And you therefore also know that Bonds report was precise and correct? You see, Steve, before you can know that, you need to know what he described.

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.

And once again, you can go on about that for years, and it won´t 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 people would disagree with you !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk