Originally Posted by Debra A
I must add that not being trained in correct historical methodolgy it is tempting for me to think that Hebbert actually took his 88 notes with him when he went to work in the US as all the cases he provided details of were 87/88/89. He was in the US before 1895 as we have him commenting in a press interview on the mental state of a man named Gilbert (in his capacity as someone who once worked at Bethlam)accused of murdering and mutilating a young girl. In that interview, Hebbert says that he saw 'nine' of the Whitechapel victims who were mutilated and the mutilations in those case were 'sexual' in nature, which he did not see in the young girls murder. We know Hebbert didn't see all the Whitechapel victims mutilations but it makes sense that he is including the four torsos in those nine cases.
Tempting idea Debra, however you may find that a hard position to maintain ( not that you are, I fully understand it is just a possible suggestion)n unless Hebbert made some clear link himself.
Have to say the idea that he may have tailored his notes for the purpose of the book, which I suggested earlier almost as an after thought does seem very tempting to me.
If there was no Need to be 100% that would xplan the differences,
Indeed Kattrup pointed out:
"The example is specifically stated to be illustrative of the principle mentioned earlier in the text: "Indeed, there may be cases where the whole body has been so badly mutilated that it is by the preparation of the skeleton alone that an idea of the sex may be formed. ""
and my suggestion would fit with that purpose.
Debra, from the information you have supplied it does seem clear that the reports in the text book on the Torso's are a completely different animal from the report on MJK.