Body snatching

[Elamarna]

We all know that the excerpt is from an 1894 book. We all know that Hebbert was a hugely experienced doctor. We all know that people can forget. We all know that the overall impression of Hebberts book is that he used his old notes to present the cases. We all know that notes do not change over time.

Now we have the royal assumption do we?

"We all know that the overall impression of Hebberts book is that he used his old notes to present the cases. We all know that notes do not change over time. "


No we don't all have that impression, you certainly do, it would be fair to say "many" or even "most" ( but I would expect some details to back that up), but to say we all gives an impression of everyone, which is not the case.

Actually while the facts recorded in notes may not change, how they are interpreted can. They can fade, we may not be able to read them back several years after they are written, it is even possible that the writer may have problems with actually reading his own handwriting.

The only reasonable conclusion is that the source as such is a useful one, and that Hebbert was probably correct. To weigh it in percentages is impossible, but overall, our best guess is that he was correct on almost everything he wrote when it came to caserelated details.

That is were I started out. It is also where I remain.

Unfortunately that is not the ONLY reasonable conclusion.

Thatīs generous of you.

Sarcasm does not become you at all.

These are public boards. They are not peer-reviewed expert panel presentations. That means that there will be the odd provocation.

Of course.

When I write "yes!", I think that both you and me will know that it is not a proven thing. What I am saying is that YES - it is the probable solution to my mind.

[/B]

That is not how it comes across, to me at least and a few others. Of course not all will see it the same as me or you. We do not all see things the same way, for which I for one am very grateful.

Then again, I base that on a number of matters of which you so far know nothing, so your reaction is as justified as it is predictable - but it could be a bit more relaxed...

The old chestnut surfaces, - there is more but I have not told you yet, it proves I am right.

Pierre has been doing the very same for months, he has not convinced many, and neither will the same approach here.

I believe I am relaxed, this forum is not life and death, but suppose I can get a shade intense at times.
You could be a bit more relaxed too, it seems any disagreements are taken personally when they are not meant as such.

regards

steve

[jerryd]

Check your messages, Christer.

[Fisherman]

Hi Abby we certainly have all been busy.

Actually Abby they are describing something that is different, that is the whole debate.

From this point in time, we cannot say one doctor is conclusively right and another wrong.

What we can say is that a report written at the time of the post mortem, is on probability more likely to be accurate than one written for a text book some six years later.

That is the crux of the issue.

best regards

steve

But the reports are not in conflict, Steve - Bond does not say that the eyelids were NOT cut. He never comments on them. And we know that he does not name all the cuts. Moreover, Hebbert was Bonds assistant.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Yes, it is.

A hole in these terms suggests an open wound, something which can be probed without need to manipulate.

The wounds described by Brown do not sound like that, they sound like wounds that are not gaping open and would need manipulation to probe.

Thatīs reassuring. Then a hole is not the reason for the air leaving one of my car tyre...


This is the issue, the cut does not need to pass through into the eye, Brown does not suggest such. A cut across the eyelid, which penetrates both sides, does not need to penetrate the eyeball.

Did I say that it did? I said it would damage the eye.

You seem to be suggesting a stabbing or downward motion to the inflection of wound, are you?

No. Quite the contrary. I am saying that IF the hole in the eyelid was made by applying pressure from the outside, using the eyeball as an underlying support, then the blade would damage the eye once it went through the lid.
But I donīt think there was any damage, and Brown mentioned none.

To suggest the eyelid was held up ,securely enough to cut, obviously in slippery blood covered hands, or are we next to suggest that surgical gloves were worn, and in the low light levels in Mitre Square is utterly ridiculous.

What tells you that these wounds could not have come first? I think you should be ecobnomic with the phrase "utterly ridiculous". It would be nice.


Glad to see you have done this once many years ago.

Are you? WHy?

Why?

Because coincidence becomes less likely the more is added of it.



No I have not, you have misunderstood my reply I think, although the various possibilities on offer do naturally lead to confusion.

Then why did you think that I suggested that the eyes must have been cut?

Your argument is that was no damage to the eyeball, therefore the cuts must have been done carefully is that not so?

Either the eyelid was lifted, or the cut through the lid did no damage whatsoever to the eyeball - or Brown forgot to mention that damage.

My argument is there was no damage because there was no need for any, which Brown supports.

Exactly how? Where does he say "I support that the eyelids can be cut through with no damage to the eyeball"? I fail to find it.


My employers and co workers.

Flatter is a tenuous currency... Nah, Iīm sure it was very well deserved. Congratulations!

yes I have, far more than others on this forum I venture to say.

In addition I have carried out all the cuts you have spoken about on the torso murders not once,many times.

And...?

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal: my, my, my! You all have been busy!!!

Re the two doctors: isn't it more likely that someone errs by leaving something out, rather than erring by adding something when they are both describing basically the same thing in this case?

To my mind, infinitely so, yes - but it appears it is nit a historians approach - historian has it the other way around: Bonds omission guarantees us that Hebbert was wrong.


anyway my take on the eye connection between the 1873 case and Kelly/eddowes is interesting but nowhere as strong as the flaps of skin and colon similarities. which I think are very strong-especially the flaps of skin.

Agreed - but it is not so much about the eyes as it is about the meticulous and careful approach (ouch - unhistorical again...)

and fish
re your question, why cut off the face, only to throw it in the river?

That is an extremely bizarre thing to do-one would think if you took the care to cut off the face like that you want it for a mask to keep for some reason.

Yes! Bravo! However, if the mask had already filled itīs role, then it would be discardable.

unless the killer wanted a skull with just the eyes? creepy-shivers...

I think (very unhistorically) that you are close to the mark, Abby!

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: Christer
You have come up with some explanations but this takes the biscuit.

So now you are an expert ophthalmologist as well as an expert in forensic medicine and crime scene investigations. Is there no end to your talents

How do you know? You are no expert.

Do you really expect anyone to believe that the killer of Eddowes had the time or the light available to him to perform intricate eye surgery. He never had enough time to do all that he is supposed to have done.

No, I donīt think the killer touched the eyes.

So this current statement of yours is farcical, but then again it is in line with some of your others.

Trevor is smart. Thatīs another whopper.

[Elamarna]

my, my, my! You all have been busy!!!

Re the two doctors: isn't it more likely that someone errs by leaving something out, rather than erring by adding something when they are both describing basically the same thing in this case?

Hi Abby we certainly have all been busy.

Actually Abby they are describing something that is different, that is the whole debate.

From this point in time, we cannot say one doctor is conclusively right and another wrong.

What we can say is that a report written at the time of the post mortem, is on probability more likely to be accurate than one written for a text book some six years later.

That is the crux of the issue.

best regards

steve

[Elamarna]

So a hole is defined by itīs shape, and not by the fact that it is something that opens up a passage? If he cut through the eyelids, and he did according to Brown, then there are holes in the eyelids.

Yes, it is.

A hole in these terms suggests an open wound, something which can be probed without need to manipulate.

The wounds described by Brown do not sound like that, they sound like wounds that are not gaping open and would need manipulation to probe.

The basis for this statement is?

My own knowledge of having cut into both skin and eyeballs. Personal experience, therefore. (a pigīs eye, in school. Tougher than one may think, but easily enough punctured anyway. Apply a little bit of pressure and it breaks open).


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

I know what to imagine. I have tried. A sharp knife, pressed towards the skin and passing through it would inevitably damage the eye if it was used as an underlying support.

This is the issue, the cut does not need to pass through into the eye, Brown does not suggest such. A cut across the eyelid, which penetrates both sides, does not need to penetrate the eyeball.
You seem to be suggesting a stabbing or downward motion to the inflection of wound, are you?

To suggest the eyelid was held up ,securely enough to cut, obviously in slippery blood covered hands, or are we next to suggest that surgical gloves were worn, and in the low light levels in Mitre Square is utterly ridiculous.


Glad to see you have done this once many years ago.

No, for the reasons given, it is not. Plus for the reason that both eyelids were cut. If it was just the one, your point about collateral damage would have been significantly better.

Why?

Once again, you completely misunderstand me on this point.

No I have not, you have misunderstood my reply I think, although the various possibilities on offer do naturally lead to confusion.

Your argument is that was no damage to the eyeball, therefore the cuts must have been done carefully is that not so?

My argument is there was no damage because there was no need for any, which Brown supports.

Who says it was well earned? A natural scientist by the way - ever cut into an eyeball then?

My employers and co workers.

yes I have, far more than others on this forum I venture to say.

In addition I have carried out all the cuts you have spoken about on the torso murders not once,many times.


regards

Steve

[Abby Normal]

my, my, my! You all have been busy!!!

Re the two doctors: isn't it more likely that someone errs by leaving something out, rather than erring by adding something when they are both describing basically the same thing in this case?



anyway my take on the eye connection between the 1873 case and Kelly/eddowes is interesting but nowhere as strong as the flaps of skin and colon similarities. which I think are very strong-especially the flaps of skin.

and fish
re your question, why cut off the face, only to throw it in the river?

That is an extremely bizarre thing to do-one would think if you took the care to cut off the face like that you want it for a mask to keep for some reason.

unless the killer wanted a skull with just the eyes? creepy-shivers...

[Trevor Marriott]

Instead, the killer must have lifted the eyelids away from the eyeballs, and then he cut through the lids, afterwards allowing the eyelids to once again make contact with the eyeballs.

That is an extremely precise and careful operation, and it involves exactly what I am talking about - a conscious decision on the killers behalf to leave the eyeballs unharmed.

Christer
You have come up with some explanations but this takes the biscuit.

So now you are an expert ophthalmologist as well as an expert in forensic medicine and crime scene investigations. Is there no end to your talents

Do you really expect anyone to believe that the killer of Eddowes had the time or the light available to him to perform intricate eye surgery. He never had enough time to do all that he is supposed to have done.

So this current statement of yours is farcical, but then again it is in line with some of your others.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I agree with Steve - excellent post.

Yes, breathtaking - apart from the fact that he completely misunderstood me, and got the main issue backwards, I couldnīt be more impressed.

[Fisherman]

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

Heureka!


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

Yes, it is rather, is it not?


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

No, I am not. I am saying that if we are to accept that Bond would have mentioned the eyelids if they were taken away, then it can equally be argued that Brown should have mentioned any damage to the eyes, if there was such a thing. I am comparing methods, not doctors.

What evidence do you have to support that there was damage to Eddowes eyes?

None - which is what I am saying. I donīt think there was any such damage.

If Brown does not say there is major damage to the eyes to suggest there is some is guess work at best.

Are you reading me backwards, Steve? Or was I drunk when I wrote my former post?


They are not holes, they are slits/cuts!

So a hole is defined by itīs shape, and not by the fact that it is something that opens up a passage? If he cut through the eyelids, and he did according to Brown, then there are holes in the eyelids.

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


The basis for this statement is?

My own knowledge of having cut into both skin and eyeballs. Personal experience, therefore. (a pigīs eye, in school. Tougher than one may think, but easily enough punctured anyway. Apply a little bit of pressure and it breaks open).

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

I know what to imagine. I have tried. A sharp knife, pressed towards the skin and passing through it would inevitably damage the eye if it was used as an underlying support.


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

There you go. Join the club and try yourself!

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

If the eyeball was used as a support for the cutting, it would be damaged when the blade passed through the lid. Ergo it was reasonably not used as a support for the cutting. Ergo he reasonably avoided cutting the eye. If he did it without giving it a second thought, Iīd be truly amazed, since it would arguably have involved lifting the eyelid out before cutting.

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

No, for the reasons given, it is not. Plus for the reason that both eyelids were cut. If it was just the one, your point about collateral damage would have been significantly better.

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

Once again, you completely misunderstand me on this point.

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

Who says it was well earned? A natural scientist by the way - ever cut into an eyeball then?

[Fisherman]

Elamarna:

Fisherman

You are doing it again, you are basing your view of how useful his evidence is, not on when it was written? or who for?, or if he used notes; but on the fact that he was an experienced Doctor.

Yes that is an important point, and you address the issue of if he used notes but saying we should assume he did in your earlier posts, however the reality is we cannot know, we may assume he used some aid memoir but it is guess work.

You do not address the issue of the gap in time, which can and does affect memory or the issue he is writing a different form of report and for a different audience than Dr Bond.

We all know that the excerpt is from an 1894 book. We all know that Hebbert was a hugely experienced doctor. We all know that people can forget. We all know that the overall impression of Hebberts book is that he used his old notes to present the cases. We all know that notes do not change over time.
The only reasonable conclusion is that the source as such is a useful one, and that Hebbert was probably correct. To weigh it in percentages is impossible, but overall, our best guess is that he was correct on almost everything he wrote when it came to caserelated details.

That is were I started out. It is also where I remain.


I could not agree with you more.

If you have read any of the exchanges between myself and Pierre over the months ( I fully understand if you have not) you will have seen I argue non stop that it is not for historians to tell us who can work on this case.

Anyone is able to argue a case, and that argument is equally valid be they historian, road sweeper or indeed journalist.

I will however say that does not mean we should not follow the basic principles of historical research such as source analysis and source criticism.

Such methods are used because they work, indeed even journalist follow the same basic principles do they not? A report/story is normally checked (researched) before it is published I assume.

Thatīs generous of you.


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

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

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

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

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

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

yours respectfully

Steve

These are public boards. They are not peer-reviewed expert panel presentations. That means that there will be the odd provocation.

When I write "yes!", I think that both you and me will know that it is not a proven thing. What I am saying is that YES - it is the probable solution to my mind.

Then again, I base that on a number of matters of which you so far know nothing, so your reaction is as justified as it is predictable - but it could be a bit more relaxed...

[Elamarna]

I agree with Steve - excellent post.

Of course, one suspects that some kind of 'gotcha'-journalism is in the works, what with being baited in this manner....

At any rate, historical methodology ought perhaps to be in its own thread, rather than continually derailing this one, which has an interesting discussion about body snatching as its topic.

I completely agree,

there have been some good comments by Debra and Pierre, on what is a really interesting subject.

Steve

[Kattrup]

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

I agree with Steve - excellent post.

Of course, one suspects that some kind of 'gotcha'-journalism is in the works, what with being baited in this manner....

At any rate, historical methodology ought perhaps to be in its own thread, rather than continually derailing this one, which has an interesting discussion about body snatching as its topic.