Body snatching

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

Carrying out some source analysis and criticism would be a start.

Its about how you view certain people, your line :

"when a man like Hebbert makes a claim"

shows that you are basing your view of his comments entirely on your view of the man, and how you view his character.


Anyway we will not agree on this, that is clear

regards

Steve

And you are of course wrong again - when I wrote "a man like Hebbert", I was referring to his professional experience and his work in the field. I know nothing at all about his character, so it would be kind of odd if I referred to that as my reason for thinking he is a useful source.

But I have been here so many times before, listening to people who rave on about the superiority of a historians approach, going on about how historians are the ones who correctly assess the sources and all of that jibber-jabber.

I do not object to historians as such, I am sure they have contributed to something, somewhere. But when a man like Pierre (yes, that my chosen wording, and you are free to think of it what you wish) takes it upon himself to somehow try to establish that a journalist is in any way inferior to a historian when it comes to taking in the Ripper story and making sense of it, the time has come to ask which profession has solved the larger amount of murder riddles, freed the larger amount of wrongfully convicted people and so on; historians or journalists.

You are free to proclaim the historians the salt of the earth and to go on criticizing others for their efforts on the Ripper/Torso case (yes!), but take care not to scare all but the historians away from these boards. Because when that happens, I cannot for the life of me see anything but an endless discussion between a number of slowly growing, grey beards about the technical aspects of the discussion, while the real world passes by outside.

I will make sure I am on the right side of the window when that day comes.

[Fisherman]

But she now accepts in that post that Jacksons death could have been not as a result of murder.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Could you direct us to the place where she supposedly said anything else, Trevor? Could you guide us to the spot where she did not accept that Jackson could have died on account on anything but murder? Because if you canīt, then you just posted an implication that is very wrong, and you need to correct that.

[Debra A]

Didn't you just say she moved away from murder? Now you say she clearly leans towards a serial killer? I am thoroughly confused, Trevor. Last time I checked a serial killer commits a crime called, murder.

P.S- IIRC Debs has never had a completely closed mind to an alternative other than murder in the Jackson case. On the other hand, she has stated in the past and recently in these threads that a back-street abortion didn't make sense due to the victim wearing clothing and the way the body was cut up. It was NOT consistent with an obstetric procedure. Correct me if I'm wrong, Debs.

That's right, Jerry. It's not Trevor's fault; he doesn't have the time for silly games like reading and trying to comprehend what's being said. He latches on to a couple of words in a post and then goes into automatic knee jerk mode.

[Fisherman]

This is what was said about the damage done to Eddowes:

"There was a cut about a quarter of an inch through the lower left eyelid, dividing the structures completely through. The upper eyelid on that side, there was a scratch through the skin on the left upper eyelid, near to the angle of the nose. The right eyelid was cut through to about half an inch."

This material is taken from the transcription in the coroners inquest papers, and the author is Dr Brown, so I think we may dub this the kind of first hand report that we are supposed to prioritize over other sources.

What is interesting here, is that it is mentioned that the killer cut through the eyelids on both sides of Eddowes face.

There is, however, no mentioning at all about any damage done to the eyes in this process.

Returning to the Bond report on Kelly, Dr Bond does not mention that the eyelids were cut away, as Hebbert did. A historian like Kattrup therefore makes the point that the omission to mention the eyelids on Bonds behalf makes it clear that the probable thing to expect is that the eyelids were not cut away. As in "If Bond did not mention it, it never happened".

What happens when we apply that to Brownīs very detailed report on Eddowes? Well, we can see that Brown never mentions any damage done to the eyes. In keeping with what I am taught by Kattrup et al, the logical conclusion must therefore be that the eyes were not damaged on Eddowes - otherwise Brown would have mentioned it, right?

So there we are - we have the Ripper cutting holes through the eyelids of Eddowes, but not damaging the eyes. Given that skin is very much tougher than the eye, we may conclude that the holes through the eyelids were not inflicted by a motion with the blade into the lids, where they eyeball represented an underlying support for the cut.

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.

I will be interested to see whether the historians on this thread will confirm that I am correct here, or if the will have another card up their sleeve that somehow allows Brown to be sloppy but not Bond...

Nothing much surprises me anymore, but we will see!

[Elamarna]

Steve/Ellerama,
The sources for body dumping,are myself and the Hong Kong newspapers of 1952/53.I was there at that time.I would recount from memory,as many as 20 a week.It was so common a special detail was set up to recover and dispose of the bodies.Of course no government law allowed it.When I say under British law,that w as the law that prevailed in Hong Kong and what were called the New Territories of the Kowloon peninsula.Body dumping was common in most British possessions?

Harry,

you are talking of the 1950's in Hong Kong how does that have any relevance to to LVP London.

Body dumping was not to my knowledge prevalent in the uk in the 20th Century.
I really fail to see the usefulness of your post on this occasion.




Steve

[Elamarna]

And you are of course wrong again - when I wrote "a man like Hebbert", I was referring to his professional experience and his work in the field. I know nothing at all about his character, so it would be kind of odd if I referred to that as my reason for thinking he is a useful source.

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.

I do not object to historians as such, I am sure they have contributed to something, somewhere. But when a man like Pierre (yes, that my chosen wording, and you are free to think of it what you wish) takes it upon himself to somehow try to establish that a journalist is in any way inferior to a historian when it comes to taking in the Ripper story and making sense of it, the time has come to ask which profession has solved the larger amount of murder riddles, freed the larger amount of wrongfully convicted people and so on; historians or journalists.

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.

You are free to proclaim the historians the salt of the earth and to go on criticizing others for their efforts on the Ripper/Torso case (yes!), but take care not to scare all but the historians away from these boards. Because when that happens, I cannot for the life of me see anything but an endless discussion between a number of slowly growing, grey beards about the technical aspects of the discussion, while the real world passes by outside.

I will make sure I am on the right side of the window when that day comes.

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

[Elamarna]

This is what was said about the damage done to Eddowes:

"There was a cut about a quarter of an inch through the lower left eyelid, dividing the structures completely through. The upper eyelid on that side, there was a scratch through the skin on the left upper eyelid, near to the angle of the nose. The right eyelid was cut through to about half an inch."

This material is taken from the transcription in the coroners inquest papers, and the author is Dr Brown, so I think we may dub this the kind of first hand report that we are supposed to prioritize over other sources.

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

What is interesting here, is that it is mentioned that the killer cut through the eyelids on both sides of Eddowes face.

There is, however, no mentioning at all about any damage done to the eyes in this process.

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

Returning to the Bond report on Kelly, Dr Bond does not mention that the eyelids were cut away, as Hebbert did. A historian like Kattrup therefore makes the point that the omission to mention the eyelids on Bonds behalf makes it clear that the probable thing to expect is that the eyelids were not cut away. As in "If Bond did not mention it, it never happened".

What happens when we apply that to Brownīs very detailed report on Eddowes? Well, we can see that Brown never mentions any damage done to the eyes. In keeping with what I am taught by Kattrup et al, the logical conclusion must therefore be that the eyes were not damaged on Eddowes - otherwise Brown would have mentioned it, right?

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

What evidence do you have to support that there was damage to Eddowes eyes?
If Brown does not say there is major damage to the eyes to suggest there is some is guess work at best.

So there we are - we have the Ripper cutting holes through the eyelids of Eddowes, but not damaging the eyes. Given that skin is very much tougher than the eye, we may conclude that the holes through the eyelids were not inflicted by a motion with the blade into the lids, where they eyeball represented an underlying support for the cut.

They are not holes, they are slits/cuts!

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


The basis for this statement is?


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

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.

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.

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!

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

I will be interested to see whether the historians on this thread will confirm that I am correct here, or if the will have another card up their sleeve that somehow allows Brown to be sloppy but not Bond...

Nothing much surprises me anymore, but we will see!

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

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.

[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

[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...

[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]

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.

[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

[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...

[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