Body snatching

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;382772]

Pierre

Well done in finding a late example,

That is not body snatching in the commonly used sense of the word as you well know.

Hi Steve,

Thank you for your statement "commonly used sense". That is exactly why I do not use "common sense". The "common sense" of 1891 is not the "common sense of 1830 or 2016.

And you see, the newspaper from that time call it body snatching.

Therefore I work inductively, pretending I know nothing and forgetting my own "common sense". It gives a better access to the past.

Also, and this is very important, concepts change - a lot! - over time. I could give you many examples. "Christianity", or "classical" or "madness". When we see these concepts, we understand them from our own specific point of view. And that makes us blind to the past.

However your point is made, it appears odd cases still did occur of bodies from other than legal sources did still occur.

I still fail to see any need to illegal dispose of the remains after dissection.

Did you research show if these allegations were true, or just allegations?
And if so, did you find if any legal action was taken in that case?

I understand that you might not like the thought of medical men doing some illegal actions. Even if the purpose was good. But the past is like that. You never know what you find.

The reason for the need to dispose of the remains in an illegal way is that if they were obtained in an illegal way - without asking the relatives and following the paper procedure according to the law - they must be disposed of in the same way.

I have not looked into the consequences of the case.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Debra A;382673]There are many problems with the medical specimen scenario-

Did medical students work nights?

Elizabeth Jackson was last seen by a witness who knew her at 9pm on 3rd June 1889.

Hi Debra,

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

The first of her remains were recovered from the Thames the following morning, 4th June.

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.

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.

Elizabeth's remains were wrapped in her own clothing as was the Whitehall torso remains, including the leg still clad in a woollen stocking.

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

Bodies could be obtained legally. All it required was that there was no family of the deceased to come forward and object and a time limit required to wait for family or friends to claim the body first.

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

Bodies meant for the dissecting table were treated beforehand and there were no signs of treatment and none of the doctors who examined them expressed the view that they might be looking at a medical specimen.

It is unlikely that they would accuse medical practitioners.

For a medical facility to accept illegally gained corpses would be one thing but they were doubly guilty if anyone is suggesting they then went on to dispose of the discarded illegally gotten specimens by also illegally dumping them without burial, which was their responsibility.

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.

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.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

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.

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.

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?


Yet you finish by writing:

"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 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!

I certainly do not agree.

Regards

Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi,

Yes, body snatching did occur in the 1880´s. A reason to this was that in 1860-1870 the number of bodies was approximately equal to the number of students, but after 1870 the supply fell gradually to the number of students (British Medical Journal, 1944, Dec 23; 2(4381): Supply of Bodies for Dissection. Goodman, Neville M., p. 807-811)

The methods of body snatching gradually changed from digging into graves to taking paupers dead bodies directly from the workhouses and selling them to medical schools and doctors for dissection. The practice continued throughout the century. Even in the late 19th century people who were running poor houses sold corpses of their unclaimed inmates after death to teaching hospitals (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...1.01381.x/full)

And here is an example from as late as 1891 from Sunderland Daily Echo and Shipping Gazette Friday 18 September.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

Well done in finding a late example,

That is not body snatching in the commonly used sense of the word as you well know.

However your point is made, it appears odd cases still did occur of bodies from other than legal sources did still occur.

I still fail to see any need to illegal dispose of the remains after dissection.

Did you research show if these allegations were true, or just allegations?
And if so, did you find if any legal action was taken in that case?

steve

[Pierre]

Debra

Have to say I agree with you completely.

Body snatching just no longer occurred in the 1880's.

Even if you did have an illegal body, why dump it when it could be very easily disposed of legally.

It was not unknown for the parts of more than one person to go into a coffin. The coffin may have had a named individuals name on it, but in reality there was no way of proving whom or what was in each coffin.

we seem to have said much the same in our posts.

steve

Hi,

Yes, body snatching did occur in the 1880´s. A reason to this was that in 1860-1870 the number of bodies was approximately equal to the number of students, but after 1870 the supply fell gradually to the number of students (British Medical Journal, 1944, Dec 23; 2(4381): Supply of Bodies for Dissection. Goodman, Neville M., p. 807-811)

The methods of body snatching gradually changed from digging into graves to taking paupers dead bodies directly from the workhouses and selling them to medical schools and doctors for dissection. The practice continued throughout the century. Even in the late 19th century people who were running poor houses sold corpses of their unclaimed inmates after death to teaching hospitals (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...1.01381.x/full)

And here is an example from as late as 1891 from Sunderland Daily Echo and Shipping Gazette Friday 18 September.

Regards, Pierre

[Debra A]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The Anatomy Act of 39 and 71 made it clear that legally obtained pauper bodies from the workhouse had to be accompanied by paperwork giving a certified death and anyone taking responsibility for a body was required to produce a certificate of burial within six weeks of obtaining the body. Paupers were required to be 'friendless' or expressed a wish to leave their body for dissection. Efforts had to be made to contact friends or relatives or a deceased person who died in the workhouse and this had to be proven too. The official paper trail was huge! So, when you claim that bodies could be legally taken for dissection, the scenario you propose is not the 'legal' avenue at all. The anatomists would be breaking the law on two separate counts here-obtaining a body illegally and not complying with the requirements of the act requiring burial. It's also on record that a number of Poor law Boards of Guardians also refused to supply university medical schools with bodies on general application for an ongoing agreement, simply over their own moral stance.

[Fisherman]

I think most people would disagree with you !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I know most people disagree with you...

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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