Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bond, Hebbert and methodology

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Debra A View Post
    I gave you those names when you didn't believe there was a post mortem at Shoreditch mortuary on Saturday 10th November 1888. I don't think Hebbert was mentioned in the papers come to think of it, apologies for my faulty memory, but I do know where this conversation is going to go now.
    It is going no where, other than it shows Hebbert may not be such a reliable source as some believe, and therefore weakens the corroboration of the ambiguous statement of Bond regarding the alleged missing heart.

    Corroboration could only have come from the other doctors present who have never ever mentioned it then, or in the ensuing years that followed, also corroborated by the fact that no one else directly connected to the Kelly murder has done so either.

    Conclusion-The heart was not taken away !

    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 06-02-2016, 12:43 AM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      It is going no where, other than it shows Hebbert may not be such a reliable source as some believe, and therefore weakens the corroboration of the ambiguous statement of Bond regarding the alleged missing heart.

      Corroboration could only have come from the other doctors present who have never ever mentioned it then, or in the ensuing years that followed, also corroborated by the fact that no one else directly connected to the Kelly murder has done so either.

      Conclusion-The heart was not taken away !

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      Yet it has gone exactly where I thought it would!

      Remembering the recent discussion on JTRforums-You still need to explain how the press who continued to claim after inquest that the heart was missing, as told to them by a doctor present at the autopsy, also knew it removed via the diaphragm and not the sternum if the information didn't come from an involved doctor. How would anyone else know that details? No details of Kelly's injuries were published in the press or any information given at the public inquest. So there are corroborating sources.
      I'll leave you to it.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Debra A View Post
        Yet it has gone exactly where I thought it would!

        Remembering the recent discussion on JTRforums-You still need to explain how the press who continued to claim after inquest that the heart was missing, as told to them by a doctor present at the autopsy, also knew it removed via the diaphragm and not the sternum if the information didn't come from an involved doctor. How would anyone else know that details? No details of Kelly's injuries were published in the press or any information given at the public inquest. So there are corroborating sources.
        I'll leave you to it.
        But there were also the press who claimed it wasn't missing. We get back to the balance of probabilities, based on what we know, and what inferences can be drawn from what we know and what we dont know.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          Be a bit charitable, Debra - at least he´s reached the insight that he was wrong on that post mortem. Bit by bit, day by day...
          Seeing as you seem to have so much time on your hands you might like to read these detailed accounts relating to the torsos. You will see there is a distinct lack of the mention of colons or flap of skin

          This is the first book to tell the story of the Sherlockian mystery that is the classic London Battersea Flat Murder. On a beautiful July evening in 1910, Thomas Weldon Atherstone, at forty-seven a handsome and popular actor, was found dying on the ground at the foot of an iron staircase running down the back of a mansion block hard by Battersea Park, in south London. He had been shot. Some 104 years later, who shot him and why he was killed remains a total mystery. Earlier on the evening of his death, Atherstone had gone to the Battersea mansions, where Elizabeth Earle occupied a flat on the first floor. The tenant of the top-floor flat was away. The ground-floor flat was vacant, and Atherstone had managed to get into it. There, lurking in the darkness, wearing carpet slippers, his outdoor boots wrapped up in a brown-paper-and-string parcel and stowed away on the mantelpiece, he was crouched, waiting and watching. What for? In all probability for the stealthy advent of his imagined rival, the jealousy constructed, phantasmic, secret lover of Elizabeth Earle. But just what happened next, and how did it come about? Richard Whittington-Egan tells the tale, and explains the theories.


          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
            Seeing as you seem to have so much time on your hands you might like to read these detailed accounts relating to the torsos. You will see there is a distinct lack of the mention of colons or flap of skin

            This is the first book to tell the story of the Sherlockian mystery that is the classic London Battersea Flat Murder. On a beautiful July evening in 1910, Thomas Weldon Atherstone, at forty-seven a handsome and popular actor, was found dying on the ground at the foot of an iron staircase running down the back of a mansion block hard by Battersea Park, in south London. He had been shot. Some 104 years later, who shot him and why he was killed remains a total mystery. Earlier on the evening of his death, Atherstone had gone to the Battersea mansions, where Elizabeth Earle occupied a flat on the first floor. The tenant of the top-floor flat was away. The ground-floor flat was vacant, and Atherstone had managed to get into it. There, lurking in the darkness, wearing carpet slippers, his outdoor boots wrapped up in a brown-paper-and-string parcel and stowed away on the mantelpiece, he was crouched, waiting and watching. What for? In all probability for the stealthy advent of his imagined rival, the jealousy constructed, phantasmic, secret lover of Elizabeth Earle. But just what happened next, and how did it come about? Richard Whittington-Egan tells the tale, and explains the theories.


            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Much as expected, you have posted a link that does not work. So I don´t know which book it is you are referring to.
            I do know, however, that Hebberts book is the best source there is for the torsos. And I do know that he mentions both the flaps of abdominal skin and the colons.
            So wich book is it you think is a better source? Little Red Riding hood?

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              Much as expected, you have posted a link that does not work. So I don´t know which book it is you are referring to.
              I do know, however, that Hebberts book is the best source there is for the torsos. And I do know that he mentions both the flaps of abdominal skin and the colons.
              So wich book is it you think is a better source? Little Red Riding hood?
              The book that Trevor is linking to is called "Mr Atherstone Leaves the stage"
              By Richard Whittington-Egan

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by MsWeatherwax View Post
                The book that Trevor is linking to is called "Mr Atherstone Leaves the stage"
                By Richard Whittington-Egan
                A true nestor of the game! But regardless if he mentions the flaps and/or colons, that does not affect how these details were given by Hebbert - who is of course the primary source.
                Last edited by Fisherman; 06-02-2016, 04:03 AM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  A true nestor of the game! But regardless if he mentions the flaps and/or colons, that does not affect how these details were given by Hebbert - who is of course the primary source.
                  I couldn't possibly comment, Fisherman.

                  I agree with the latter part of your statement, however.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by MsWeatherwax View Post
                    I couldn't possibly comment, Fisherman.

                    I agree with the latter part of your statement, however.
                    How about that; here´s me speaking of primary sources,,,!

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                      Seeing as you seem to have so much time on your hands you might like to read these detailed accounts relating to the torsos. You will see there is a distinct lack of the mention of colons or flap of skin

                      This is the first book to tell the story of the Sherlockian mystery that is the classic London Battersea Flat Murder. On a beautiful July evening in 1910, Thomas Weldon Atherstone, at forty-seven a handsome and popular actor, was found dying on the ground at the foot of an iron staircase running down the back of a mansion block hard by Battersea Park, in south London. He had been shot. Some 104 years later, who shot him and why he was killed remains a total mystery. Earlier on the evening of his death, Atherstone had gone to the Battersea mansions, where Elizabeth Earle occupied a flat on the first floor. The tenant of the top-floor flat was away. The ground-floor flat was vacant, and Atherstone had managed to get into it. There, lurking in the darkness, wearing carpet slippers, his outdoor boots wrapped up in a brown-paper-and-string parcel and stowed away on the mantelpiece, he was crouched, waiting and watching. What for? In all probability for the stealthy advent of his imagined rival, the jealousy constructed, phantasmic, secret lover of Elizabeth Earle. But just what happened next, and how did it come about? Richard Whittington-Egan tells the tale, and explains the theories.


                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      The flaps of skin are definitely mentioned in the book you linked to and the same source material has been used. The author also writes that Elizabeth's killer removed her foetus after death, so is interpreting the source material in the exact same way the rest of us seem to be, apart from you.

                      I wonder if you could ask Dr Biggs what an 'incision from ensiform cartiladge to pubes' describes? That is Hebbert's wording but the author in this book has described it as an incision into the vaginal cartilage. I am no anatomist but I am almost certain that an incision from 'ensiform cartilage to pubes' is describing a cut from the bottom of the sternum, down the abdomen and ending at the external pubic area. I am prepared to be proved wrong on that if you can clarify for certain what that phrase means.
                      Last edited by Debra A; 06-02-2016, 05:08 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Debra A View Post
                        The flaps of skin are definitely mentioned in the book you linked to and the same source material has been used. The author also writes that Elizabeth's killer removed her foetus after death, so is interpreting the source material in the exact same we the rest of us seem to be, apart from you.

                        I wonder if you could ask Dr Biggs what an incision from ensiform cartiladge to pubes describes? That is Hebbert's wording but the author in this book has described it as an incision into the vaginal cartilage. I am no anatomist but I am almost certain that an incision from 'ensiform cartilage to pubes' is describing a cut from the bottom of the sternum, down the abdomen and ending at the external pubic area. I am prepared to be proved wrong on that if you can clarify for certain what that phrase means.
                        Is there even such a thing as cartilage in the vaginal wall...? I must confess that I have never heard of it, but as Trevor so aptly put it, I am no gynaecologist. Or opthalmologist. Or ...

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          Is there even such a thing as cartilage in the vaginal wall...? I must confess that I have never heard of it, but as Trevor so aptly put it, I am no gynaecologist. Or opthalmologist. Or ...
                          Well, to be honest I've never heard of it either and I'm the owner of one!

                          You will like this though Fisherman, Mr Whittington Egan's final closing conclusions on the torso cases:

                          "There was a contemporary tendency to link the later Thames murders with Jack the Ripper. It has been said that there was absolutely no justification for this; it was just another expression of the overwhelming obsession with Saucy Jacky that held the population in its stranglehold. Nevertheless, that the killings and mutilations of '87, '88 and '89 were the work of one pair of hands, a single killer, does seem possible, even extremely likely."

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Debra A View Post

                            I wonder if you could ask Dr Biggs what an 'incision from ensiform cartiladge to pubes' describes? That is Hebbert's wording but the author in this book has described it as an incision into the vaginal cartilage. I am no anatomist but I am almost certain that an incision from 'ensiform cartilage to pubes' is describing a cut from the bottom of the sternum, down the abdomen and ending at the external pubic area. I am prepared to be proved wrong on that if you can clarify for certain what that phrase means.
                            I'm no medico Debra, but after 15 years of transcribing medical reports I can say that I am 100% certain that your opinion is correct. It's not a commonly used term in my experience, but that is what it means.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by MsWeatherwax View Post
                              I'm no medico Debra, but after 15 years of transcribing medical reports I can say that I am 100% certain that your opinion is correct. It's not a commonly used term in my experience, but that is what it means.
                              Thank you for the confirmation Mrs Weatherwax. Your credentials certainly satisfy me you know what you are talking about but I'm not sure others will agree.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Debra A View Post
                                Well, to be honest I've never heard of it either and I'm the owner of one!

                                You will like this though Fisherman, Mr Whittington Egan's final closing conclusions on the torso cases:

                                "There was a contemporary tendency to link the later Thames murders with Jack the Ripper. It has been said that there was absolutely no justification for this; it was just another expression of the overwhelming obsession with Saucy Jacky that held the population in its stranglehold. Nevertheless, that the killings and mutilations of '87, '88 and '89 were the work of one pair of hands, a single killer, does seem possible, even extremely likely."
                                Yep, you got me there, Debra - I really DO like it! And I would unhesitatingly add the 1873 deed too.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X