Originally Posted by Elamarna
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.
Steve, I might also suggest that inclusion of the other Whitechapel cases, from memory or notes, may have been used as a 'sweetner' by Hebbert to secure US publication of his work on identification of the dead using the torso cases as illustration. The details of MJK's injuries were something not generally in print anywhere.
,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,
I am not DJA. He's called Dave.