Body snatching

[Pierre]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Suggestion: If one does not know what a person thinks, ask her!

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

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.

Debra

That's only when it suits him, if it me against him, he never agrees, well maybe 1 in 100 goes.

Steve

[Pierre]

I know historians who are complete idiots.

Hi Fisherman,

Post 86: What are your answers to that?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;382858]

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.

OK. So intentionality is your perspective and the killer´s intention is your hypothesis. It is an idiographic explanation and closely connected to the motive explanation. The perspective is that of an autonomous person performing acts he 1) intends to perform, acts for 2) which he has a motive.

It is specific, since it is idiographic. It can not be explained through structures but by singularities. This perspective is very strong in your discussion about the sources. You interpret the sources from that perspective, you hypothesize from it and draw conclusions from it, which you use for constructing a theory with coherence.

But the problem is that your theory is not coherent, since you have no:

A) Knowledge about the intention of the killer
B) Knowledge about the motive(s) of the killer
C) Knowledge about how you establish historical facts

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".

The sources do not contain any data for the intent or the motive of the killer. How can you connect the data in these sources to an hypothesis about intent? Why do you apply the theory of intentionality to it? Why do you draw conclusions from that when there is nothing about it in the source? Do you have external sources connecting a killer to the data in these sources?

What happens when we apply that to Brown´s 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?

It doesn´t matter if he painted the victims green and put flowers in their hair if you do not have data for intent and/or a motive. An specific signature can not be explained without data for a motive. Do you have that data? It is OK to say you have it, you do not have to describe it here. But if you do not have it, be honest and say so.

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.

Do you agree with me when I say that the killer had a motive for that? If you do, do you have a source for it? Or do you guess, Fisherman? If you guess, you have an hypothesis based on what?

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.

GREAT! This is the base for the typical motive explanation but without a motive. The king decided to X, because...The king wanted to X, because...Yes. If you are a king, what you decide often happens and afterwards we often have the whole motive explanation. And the motive explanation is very important for unexplained historical events.

But you only have half the motive explanation: He consciously decided to X, because ?

And since we do not have a motive, the hypothesis about intent is not valid.

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!

Yes, the historian here says that you do not have data for a motive explanation. You have an hypothesis about intent, also without data. You do not enter into the mind of a killer after 128 years and know what the conscious decision of a serial killer was without data. Before you try to establish an historical fact, you must have data.

We only have data for cutting eyelids. But not for intent of doing no damage to the eyes. He had an intent to cut the eyelids, since he cut them. The motive is not known in your hypothesis.

He had no intent to avoid damaging the eyeballs, since there is no data for him not damaging the eyeballs.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;382862]

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.

Referring to "The Experts" is the method of Fisherman. The doctor, or the barrister, or the police investigator. Legitimating sources - some from the past, some from the present. Hoping these sources will add authority to the theory. Enhancers of the idea of Lechmere being a serial killer. None of them thinking that Lechmere was a serial killer. Not then, not now.


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.

These methods do not legitimate and enhance the theory!

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

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.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And the methods for cutting eyelids do not matter, since there is no data for intent or motive.

Regards, Pierre

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

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

Another hypothesis here: Let´s 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

There are no specific historical facts, and we can only work with the ones we do know, and some of them are from newspaper articles which have to be treated with caution.

A is the more plausible as Debra tells us that she was last seen the day before the first part of her remains were discovered. So again Debra highlights the fact that for her body to have been dissected for scientific purposes those using the body would have to have worked pretty dam quick.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Steve/Ellerama,
If it isn't relevant,why did ypu ask for details.
It is relevant in this respect,for what Trevor said.Bodies were dumped to avoid cost.In some cases that could occur. The social conditions in London 1888,could be likened to the conditions in Hong Kong 1952.Both were caused by an influx of people in which both places were ill equipped to deal with.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna:

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.

True - but once again, the more LIKELY thing is that this does not come into play, and that Hebbert was perfectly able to use his notes in the correct manner.

Unfortunately that is not the ONLY reasonable conclusion.

And nobody said it was.

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

You are making an odd assumption there, and one that I never made myself. I am fully aware that keeping something back is not the same as being correct. I was merely telling you that there is something I am looking into that seems to be the solution to a large part of the two murder series, seemingly joining them together. I wanted you to know that because it forms part of the ground I am arguing from, and since you are spending your days saying that I may be wrong, I think it is only fair that I add that I am not going by what you have been told only.

What I would not want to happen is that you would go: "Ah, come on, do you want me to believe that you have proof but you are holding it back?"

I would want you to go: "Oh, okay, that sounds interesting, and I would like to hear more about it when you feel ready."

You know, Steve, the answers we give in these kinds of situations say a lot about who we are and what we stand for.

If I was to expand as much as I can as of now, I would say that I think I know the driving force/inspiration behind the deeds, or at least a significant part of it. I can add that I think we are looking at an element that looks like it has ritualistic connotations. It is in no way a proven thing, but I believe that there is so much speaking for it, that it is much more likely to be correct than wrong. It would explain matters that have been regarded as strikingly odd in both murder series if I am on the money.

I have never once, for as long as I have posted out here, been anything but straightforward about my thoughts on the case. I have presented my views throughout, and I have shared the work that has been done on Lechmere in great detail (as did Edward, for as long as he could stomach the company).

If you think that I suddenly have changed into a teasing liar, that´s your prerogative. But bear in mind that it is this exact attitude that has made me disinclined to keep up the generosity.

[Fisherman]

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

That´s no problem, Steve. Thanks for explaining.

[Fisherman]

Pierre, I just wanted you to know that I pondered debating with you for some time. Decided against it ultimately, though.

In a perfect world, you and Trevor could debate this while the rest of us have another discussion.

[Trevor Marriott]

Pierre, I just wanted you to know that I pondered debating with you for some time. Decided against it ultimately, though.

In a perfect world, you and Trevor could debate this while the rest of us have another discussion.

If you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen how appropriate to you !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

If you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen how appropriate to you !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I was thinking that we could use separate kitchens, Trevor. I want one where the kitchen appliances all work, see.

[Elamarna]

Steve/Ellerama,
If it isn't relevant,why did ypu ask for details.
It is relevant in this respect,for what Trevor said.Bodies were dumped to avoid cost.In some cases that could occur. The social conditions in London 1888,could be likened to the conditions in Hong Kong 1952.Both were caused by an influx of people in which both places were ill equipped to deal with.

Harry

I think you misunderstood

I was looking to see if there were any cases in the uk.

thank you for the information which is of interest in its own right

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Harry

I think you misunderstood

I was looking to see if there were any cases in the uk.

thank you for the information which is of interest in its own right

Steve

If there were any instances and I am sure there were many, the likelihood is that they would not be detected unless anyone got caught doing so, and no one is going to dispose of body parts in broad daylight

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk