Body snatching

[Elamarna]

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

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

Hi Abby we certainly have all been busy.

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

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

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

That is the crux of the issue.

best regards

steve

[Fisherman]

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

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

How do you know? You are no expert.

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

No, I donīt think the killer touched the eyes.

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

Trevor is smart. Thatīs another whopper.

[Fisherman]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Yes, it is.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Are you? WHy?

Why?

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



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

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

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

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

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

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


My employers and co workers.

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

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

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

And...?

[Fisherman]

Hi Abby we certainly have all been busy.

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

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

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

That is the crux of the issue.

best regards

steve

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

[jerryd]

Check your messages, Christer.

[Elamarna]

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

Now we have the royal assumption do we?

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


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

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

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

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

Unfortunately that is not the ONLY reasonable conclusion.

Thatīs generous of you.

Sarcasm does not become you at all.

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

Of course.

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

[/B]

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

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

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

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

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

regards

steve

[Elamarna]

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

Fisherman

that depends on how you define conflict,

I see them as being in conflict, you do not.

fair enough.

steve

[Trevor Marriott]

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

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

How do you know? You are no expert.

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

No, I donīt think the killer touched the eyes.

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

Trevor is smart. Thatīs another whopper.

There you go name calling again in an attempt to deflect waay from the main issue. You always do this when you are put on the spot. Another favourite trait you use is to answer a question with a question.

Let me remind you what you posted in relation to Eddowes and her eyes

"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"

Now that sounds like a delicate operation in anyone's books with a long bladed knife in almost total darkness. How ever did he manage to see? Of course silly me he had the extra pair of eyes of Eddowes

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

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

Air just needs the container (tyre) to no longer be air tight to allow it to escape.

It is not similar at all.

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

Yes I understand that and am disagreeing that it need make any damage to the eye, in which case your argument fails. However the truth is neither of us can prove it either way. common sense cannot be used as we ( you and i) do not know the level of skill of the killer, nor the exact lighting levels in Mitre Square.
On the surface we appear to both be saying thing- the eyes were not damaged. however we are coming at it from directly opposed positions, you that the eyelids were manipulated to avoid damage, and i that no damage occurred because the cuts did not go deep enough to damage the eyeball, of course they must have come very close.

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

So these cuts could have come directly after the throat cutting?
Given the possibility of being disturbed, and limited time, these cuts were more important than any others then I assume?

Can I ask what are you basing that possibility on?

Ok happily change the words to "highly improbable" or "somewhat unrealistic"

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

No i was answering was Brown sloppy, such a question implies he had missed the injuries does it not? hence my comment that to suggest he missed them......

.

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

Fisherman that is not what I meant, maybe I could have been clearer. Brown supports there was no damage to the eyeball, which supports my view that none need be, the cuts need not mark the eyes.

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


[/B]

It certainly is, favourite one day, bottom the next.
thank you

steve

[Elamarna]

Fisherman

I am always good to my word, and upon reading my post to you #112,

it appears I did indeed get confused at one point with what I was replying to and gave an answer to something you were not suggesting, when I replied:

"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."


As I did say it is easy for this to happen at times, I think I stopped reply for 20 mins then came back and the rest is history as they say.

However that is no excuse !

If the system allowed I would amend the last lines to read,

No Brown is not sloppy, there is nothing to suggest the eyes were significantly damaged, nor do I see anything to suggest that he lifted the eyelids to cut them.


yours respectfully

Steve

[Pierre]

As I have said before the case of Jackson should not be looked upon in the light of her body being used specifically for medical purposes.

In my opinion her death was as a result of something that was as a direct result of her pregnancy, or related to something either being given to her, or some procedure connected to her pregnancy carried out on her, which resulted in her death.

With the obvious need for her body to be dismembered thereafter and disposed of to hide her identity.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Yes, I see your hypothesis. Letīs call it Hypothesis A = Death a direct result of her pregnancy and the pregnant body not dissected but dismembered.

Another hypothesis here: Letīs call it Hypothesis B = Death a direct result of her pregnancy and the pregnant body dissected for the purpose of scientific knowledge about pregnancy.

Wich historical facts do you know that supports A and which historical facts do you think do not support B?

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

lost me there must be getting tired

i was talking about your comment that pierre would think that because of his suspect

steve

At least I understood it, Steve. And I agree with you. I also knew before writing that post that I was thinking from that perspective. It is a special kind of bias now. And you recognize it quickly.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Honestly have to say I don't see how anyone can construe Debra's comments in post #92 as moving away from murder.
To me it seems entirely consistent with what she has said before.

regards

steve

Hi Steve / everyone,

And also, if Debra has her hypotheses and her theory - why try and hold a simple post on a forum against her? That is silly.

As if the theories would change just because of a post in a forum.

Regards, Pierre

[Debra A]

lost me there must be getting tired

i was talking about your comment that pierre would think that because of his suspect

steve

I knew what you were commenting on, Steve. The 'good cop bad cop' reference was a comment on how you and Pierre come over. You agree with people and Pierre generally doesn't...apart from with you.