My book 'Various Matters Forensic: The Thames Torso Murders'

[scriptor]

Hello there, Scott. I stand by what I wrote. The details in the Hebbert Material are certainly, to my mind, suggestive of the pubic hair having been RECENTLY removed from Kelly's pubic region, that is to say 'shortly' before her death, either by her own hand (it is not unknown for certain classes of prostitute even today to depilate their pudenda), or else, in my opinion more likely, by the Ripper himself. Why? Mary Kelly was amongst the lowest class of prostitute and it seems unlikely that she would have bothered to shave or depilate to 'please' the sort of clients which she might regularly get. And that THEY would not care one way or the other. Secondly, there is clear forensic evidence that the Ripper had deliberately and thoroughly defeminised her, by removing, i.e. cutting off or destroying, all female attributes from her body, including, according to Hebbert's own words, her pubic hair, so that the end result was that it was difficult even for forensic experts to be able to positively, or at least readily, assert that the remains were those of a woman. I'd need to check my copies of the Hebbert Material after so long, but I seem to recall that the external genitalia had been cut off, too. If so, then Hebbert was saying that it was for THIS reason that there was no pubic hair in place. However this may be (and I shall refresh my memory),
Hebbert was explicit on this point: there was no pubic hair to be found on her body. So, if Kelly had not de-haired herself very recently indeed, one would like to know if any pubic hair was found in her room, on the floor or the bed for example. If not, did the Ripper not only cut it off but take it away as one of his souvenirs?... I might add that making a collection of pubic hair is a known sexual/deviant fetish...

[MrBarnett]

Hi Scriptor,

Why is it being suggested that pubic hair is solely a 'female attribute' ?

MrB.

[scriptor]

P.S. re my Creative Project on the Pozible crowd-funding platform website, namely my book 'Various Matters Forensic: The Thames Torso Murders', posters may be glad to hear that my good friend the descendant of Dr. Hebbert has kindly just 'come to the aid of the party' by pledging a large sum of money towards the achieving of my goal of having my book reach publication stage...

STEPHEN GOURIET RYAN

[Observer]

I might add that making a collection of pubic hair is a known sexual/deviant fetish...

Reginald Christie being just such a collector.

Observer

[Observer]

Looking at the Mary Kelly crime scene photograph it appears as if the whole area surrounding the genitalia has been removed, including flesh from the thighs, and abdomen.

[scriptor]

Pubic hair obviously is not a purely female attribute. The point is that the 'bush' of hair, if you like, often grows in a different shape (oh yes, it does - see Hebbert's own comments), and that there was nothing about the remains which conclusively pointed to the victim's gender, including pubic hair. The matter is academic, in any case, for the external genitalia had been removed, whether the pubic hair had been or not.
One might well ask: Were the external genitals not just cut off but taken away by the Ripper, hence neither pudenda nor pubic hair for the doctors to go by? I should add that the point that Dr. Hebbert was actually making in the textbook was that, had not some female organs been found in the room, it would have been virtually impossible for such remains to have been 'sexed'. Not that NONE had been found. Certainly, Kelly's breasts were still in the room.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Stephen,

A common reason for prostitutes to shave their pubes was lice and similar vermin. When you felt the itch you grabbed your razor.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra A]

Quiet, Debs. The men are talking.

Regards,

Mark

Sorry, Mark. I thought I was on the 'Did Mary Kelly like fluffy kittens' thread and forgot myself. No wonder I didn't understand all the important things being discussed on here.

[louisa]

$1000 for food for one month?