Body snatching

[Elamarna]

They both stand:
Hebbert says the eyelids were cut off, he was Bonds assistand, he had first-hand knowledge, he saw the body. Nobody gainsays him.

For us today to claim that he was wrong would be sheer folly. To say that he MAY have been mistaken is something we can do, but we are required to realize that such a thing is not to be expected. End of.

The eyes were very clearly not destroyed, and if there was any damage at all to them, then that would be minor damage only.

Put that together, and you will see that the killer took care not to cut the eyes. He destroyed everything else in the face, turning it to a flesh avalanche, as can be seen on the pictures.

If you want to believe that the eyes were spared by coincidence only, then be my guest.

As for the word exaggerate, you may be correct about the meaning - as a Swede, I will not be as au fait with British as the Brits themselves. If I got it wrong and offended you, I apologize.

Fisherman

firstly your last point, you obviously did not understand what I had said, fair enough apology of course accepted.
We will have to agree to disagree about the rest, I see no point in continuing when you fail to carry out any criticism of a source and just accept it a face value.

regards

Steve

[Fisherman]

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

They both stand:
Hebbert says the eyelids were cut off, he was Bonds assistant, he had first-hand knowledge, he saw the body. Nobody gainsays him.

For us today to claim that he was wrong would be sheer folly. To say that he MAY have been mistaken is something we can do, but we are required to realize that such a thing is not to be expected. End of.

The eyes were very clearly not destroyed, and if there was any damage at all to them, then that would be minor damage only.

Put that together, and you will see that the killer took care not to cut the eyes. He destroyed everything else in the face, turning it to a flesh avalanche, as can be seen on the pictures.

If you want to believe that the eyes were spared by coincidence only, then be my guest.

As for the word exaggerate, you may be correct about the meaning - as a Swede, I will not be as au fait with British as the Brits themselves. If I got it wrong and offended you, I apologize.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Kattrup;382794]You are (generally) supposed to disbelieve a newer source disagreeing with an older source, is all.

But there is no disagreement, that is the very point I am making. Hebbert is the only one commenting on the eyelids, so there can be no disagreement.


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

No, it does not. If that was the case, all the things Bond says with no corroboration would be suspicious too, going by that logic. It could only be suspicious of Hebbert contradicted another source, but he does not.

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.

Yes, he may - anybody can get anything wrong - but the far better guess is that he got it right. Especially since he in all probability used his notes from the occasion.

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.

Even if he was not required to be precise, I think we can be certain that he did not wing things and guess away. He knew that the eyebrows had been cut, he knew that the nose had been cut etc - so when he speaks about the eyelids, it must be viewed against that background.


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.

And has anybody claimed that he is, Kattrup? I have noted no such thing. Have you?
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 means that he was extremely likely to be correct on the eyelids, thatīs all we can say.


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

The book is. But the source material is not. So what are you suggesting: that he added the eyelids for fun or because he was miffed by not finding it in the notes...?

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.

You may be a hundred per cent sure that Bond did not name all the damage done to the body, Kattrup. It is only of Bond had refuted the eyelid matter that there would have been a case. There 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.

All material quoted from the original notes would stay as viable throughout, regardless of the time distance. It is that simple.


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

The main evidence? Hebbert belongs to the evidence, my friend. Qualified medicos commenting on a case they worked on always beling to the evidence.


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.

Balderdash, Kattrup. Absolute, genuine balderdash. Sorry, but it needed saying.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Debra A;382792]

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.

Yes. These sources are tough.

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.

No chance they thought "a simple prostitute" and just skipped the regulations? Silly question. How would you know?

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?

Yes. Again. Here we sit with some strange data. How can we interpret them?

Even unfortunates have friends and families!

There is less social capital in those groups. Much less. That is one reason why they are easier targets. But now I am speaking from 2016, I hear. Stupid of me.

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.

I do not want to change facts if they are historically well established.

Are you bragging or complaining, Pierre?

None. I know far to little about these cases. I merely ask questions.

That's your opinion.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?

We donīt know anything about that. That is why I think we should be very careful connecting these cases with the murders of Jack the Ripper. Only when there is a small, terrible little scrap of evidence, a sparse source, which gives an hypothesis and which can be used for building a theory with very strong coherence, together with other sources, and after having performed source criticism on each piece, can we say that we think that was a murder of Jack the Ripper. Of course, the same goes for any murderer, like a "torso killer".

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

When you say that, I think: Why was such a piece of evidence left? Was the one/those who left it not aware of police methods? Was he/they aware of police methods and wanted to leave a clue? No idea.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Very often when there is a law against something in the past, there is a reason for the law. They never (?) constructed laws to prevent things that happened once.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

Agreed but these laws were written to prevent the work of people like Burke and Hare in the first half of the 19th century, they were not specifically for late 1880's.

Steve

[Debra A]

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

Hi Jerry.
I didn't know that about le Caron. Interesting, thanks for posting it.

[Pierre]

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

Very often when there is a law against something in the past, there is a reason for the law. They never (?) constructed laws to prevent things that happened once.

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.

[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

[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

[jerryd]

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

[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

[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=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

[jerryd]

London Mid Surrey Times November 8, 1884