Body snatching

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

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

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

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

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

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

Even unfortunates have friends and families!

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

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

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

Are you bragging or complaining, Pierre?

It is unlikely that they would accuse medical practitioners.

That's your opinion.

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

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

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

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

[Pierre]

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

Pierre

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

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

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

So letīs not mix the time periods!

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

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

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

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

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

Brilliant idea.

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

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

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

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

Am I missing something? or have you?

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

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

Regards, Pierre

[Kattrup]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed.

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

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

[Debra A]

[QUOTE=Pierre;382786]

To Pierre and Steve
This case is different to the scenario being proposed that the torso victims were illegally dumped in the Thames after [what must have been illegally obtained in Jackson's case] and undergoing dissection at a medical school. In the Glasgow case of 1891 it was the transporter of the bodies who committed the criminal offence and that was taking paupers bodies destined for the cemetery, from the workhouse and depositing them with an anatomist registered under the 1832 Anatomy Act, using forged paperwork.



Debra. We know nothing about what the anatomist thought.

Regards, Pierre

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

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: Fisherman

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

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

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

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

Well so far 3 persons have done just that.

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

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

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

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


Lets look at this:

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

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

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

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

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


THAT Fisherman is how you look at sources?

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

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


Yet you finish by writing:

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

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

Wrong my dear Fisherman!

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

I certainly do not agree.

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

fisherman

I was very clear,

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

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

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

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


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

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



Steve

[jerryd]

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

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

[Debra A]

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

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

[jerryd]

London Mid Surrey Times November 8, 1884

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;382763]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.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;382764]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

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;382766]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.

Hi Fisherman,

Pierre here in green. The point being made was that the source is not close enough in time. What is your comment on that? Is must not always and per definition be a problem. But it may be.

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.


Now we have a new concept I think: "the staring eyes", and an hypothesis connected to Lechmere, whatever it is.

Oh, but wait here! The staring eyes concept. That concept can be connected to another hypothesis: He did it to show the police there was a witness. This is really getting very idiographic now. To idiographic for me, even. I prefer to think he didnīt bother about the eyes.

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.

I see some external source criticism. Not bad. But it does not mean Lechmere was Jack the Ripper.

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 wonīt change the fact that a renowned medico who worked in tandem with Bond was the only person to describe what happened to Kellys eyelids. It is therefore incredibly more likely to be true than false, as I am sure you will agree.


Ah! Wrong there! The more independent sources you have talking about X in the same way, the better. But you have only one.

Regards, Pierre

[jerryd]

If we're going to pin these bodies on a "snatcher", might as well be Le Caron!

[Elamarna]

Pierre

Not sure if the comment you made was a genuine not understanding or just you being you.
so just in case

when I said :


"However that does not prove it to be a common practice does it."

and you replied

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

I meant that just because it happened once in that late period we do not know it happened often.

steve

[Pierre]

Thank you for clearing that,

I think several post may have crossed on that.

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

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

regards

Steve

Flexibility is always good. And this type of history is interesting.

Regards, Pierre

[Debra A]

Pierre, if you are going to quote individual lines within your post you first need to take out the opening [QUOTE=Joe Bloggs] tag. This stops people being mis-quoted and lets us all know who actually said what.