The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But whatever you say its not going to change that 2 senior police officers and a doctor all state the killer did not take away the heart, and that my friend is what this whole issue is based on you and Herlock can huff and puff as much as you like but that fact is not going to change, and just to mention the fact that it was the responsibilty of the police to prepare a file for the coroner so would they lie, and I dont see in the inquest testimony little as it is that the killer took away the heart.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So for you, evidence that something is a piece of journalistic embellishment doesn’t make it unsafe to rely on? This appears to be what you’re saying?

I look forward to the next time you call Macnaghten unsafe to rely on. Or anyone for that matter.

But I am sorry to have to keep labouring the point but 2 senior police officers and a doctor who all attended the Kelly crime scene state that the heart was found and not taken away by the killer. To me, that's overwhelming evidence to show the killer did not take away the heart.

Dr Bond - “The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent.” ( not ‘removed and placed on the table,’ not ‘removed and found on the bed,’ but ABSENT…definition - not present in a place, at an occasion, or as part of something.

Dr Hebbert (Bond’s assistant) - "In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered around the room..."

Dr Gabe, also present in the room - ““… a certain organ was missing".

Three Doctors, all present in the room and specifically looking at mutilations (unlike Reid who was probably throwing up somewhere) These trump by absolute miles Reid (whose article has so many errors it’s close to fiction) And Arnold who incorrectly claimed that the heart was on the table. So he was obviously just lumping the heart in with the rest of the organs.


So, to recap. I have 3 Doctors who were all there. You have 1. A retired Police Officer in an interview containing more things that are untrue than The Lord Of The Rings. 2. One Police Officer who mistakenly places the heart on a table with the rest of the organs; implying that Dr Bond forgot to mention it. 3. A clearly embellished newspaper report for American.

Mmmmm close

[Herlock Sholmes]

At the moment, I am only looking at the report in the NY Herald, and I think you are taking liberties.
The words you attribute to Dr Gabe are actually paraphrase by the journalist.
The only quote provided by Gabe is about ten lines into the article . .

"It must have been the work of a full half hour," said the Doctor.

There is a reason that line is enclosed in quotation marks, it is actually what the doctor said, whereas the rest of the article bears no quotation marks.
Was there an oil stove in Kelly's room? - no, so that is embellishment by the journalist.
In roughly the third line, we read "And the Doctor said that . . .", which is how the reader identifies paraphrase. In the next line the journalist writes "as he saw it", which, as you know is third-person, meaning the paraphrase continues.
At no point does the narrative begin or include first person recollections, until the line I mentioned above that is enclosed in quotation marks.
Clearly, the journalist knew the difference between paraphrase and quotation, I think you also know, but you either overlook the fact or prefer to ignore the significance of it.
The journalist is padding the quotes with background details he has sourced from newspaper stories.

Another detail is, "the throat was cut from left to right" (my quotes), but Dr Bond tells us the throat was so badly slashed it was not possible to determine which way the throat had been cut, so that detail is also wrong. The journalist continues with his general narrative by providing details sourced elsewhere, not attributable to Dr Gabe. We then read quotations from the witness John McCarthy, so again, there is a difference between paraphrase and quotes.
The article ends with contributions by Dr Forbes Winslow, which indicates the journalist is aiming for sensationalism as opposed to factual content.

You've been had Trevor, by another enterprising journalist.

An excellent analysis of this article Wick. Trevor is doing what he’s very enthusiastic to accuse everyone else of - he’s relying on clearly unsafe material. This is a clear example of journalistic embellishment but I’ll make a prediction Wick. Trevor won’t challenge you on the substance of your analysis (because he can’t). He’s already replied with a kind of “whatever” answer so he will now try his damnedest to ignore this point or move the subject on. If history repeats itself though (and it will) if this discussion comes up in 6 months or a years time he’ll be quoting the same article again.

[Trevor Marriott]

At the moment, I am only looking at the report in the NY Herald, and I think you are taking liberties.
The words you attribute to Dr Gabe are actually paraphrase by the journalist.
The only quote provided by Gabe is about ten lines into the article . .

"It must have been the work of a full half hour," said the Doctor.

There is a reason that line is enclosed in quotation marks, it is actually what the doctor said, whereas the rest of the article bears no quotation marks.
Was there an oil stove in Kelly's room? - no, so that is embellishment by the journalist.
In roughly the third line, we read "And the Doctor said that . . .", which is how the reader identifies paraphrase. In the next line the journalist writes "as he saw it", which, as you know is third-person, meaning the paraphrase continues.
At no point does the narrative begin or include first person recollections, until the line I mentioned above that is enclosed in quotation marks.
Clearly, the journalist knew the difference between paraphrase and quotation, I think you also know, but you either overlook the fact or prefer to ignore the significance of it.
The journalist is padding the quotes with background details he has sourced from newspaper stories.

Another detail is, "the throat was cut from left to right" (my quotes), but Dr Bond tells us the throat was so badly slashed it was not possible to determine which way the throat had been cut, so that detail is also wrong. The journalist continues with his general narrative by providing details sourced elsewhere, not attributable to Dr Gabe. We then read quotations from the witness John McCarthy, so again, there is a difference between paraphrase and quotes.
The article ends with contributions by Dr Forbes Winslow, which indicates the journalist is aiming for sensationalism as opposed to factual content.

You've been had Trevor, by another enterprising journalist.

But whatever you say its not going to change that 2 senior police officers and a doctor all state the killer did not take away the heart, and that my friend is what this whole issue is based on you and Herlock can huff and puff as much as you like but that fact is not going to change, and just to mention the fact that it was the responsibilty of the police to prepare a file for the coroner so would they lie, and I dont see in the inquest testimony little as it is that the killer took away the heart.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

I can appreciate your interpretation Jon, but the pericardium is an integral part of the heart's anatomy and was still in place, so part of the heart was in place in the body and part was absent from the body. IMO Bond's statement that the heart had been removed from the pericardium is unrelated to its presence or absence from the room. JMO.

George.
Dr Bond wrote that the Pericardium was open below, it is a sack that surrounds the heart.
He is describing how the heart was removed, not playing semantics.
I see you are trying to say the heart was absent from the Pericardium, but not from the room. The doctor is not going to play games with Anderson, the Home Office want to know the condition of the body.
Trust me, if you chose to play such semantics with the head of the Home Office, it would be the last time you did.

[Wickerman]

Jon, as you know I hold Prosector's opinions in high regard. And I agree with you that the average mortician was not up to the task by feel, in the dark, kneeling alongside a body on the ground, removing the uterus without nicking the bladder. IF the organs were removed by the killer, it would come down to muscle memory acquired in the dissection room. Someone who spent a lot of time in the dissection room. Someone like Francis Thompson.

George.
Only the city had a mortuary assistant at their Golden Lane Mortuary. The Met. did not have an official mortuary in the East End, the mortuary was often a shed, assistants were staff and residents from the adjacent workhouses.

[Wickerman]

But I am sorry to have to keep labouring the point but 2 senior police officers and a doctor who all attended the Kelly crime scene state that the heart was found and not taken away by the killer. . .

At the moment, I am only looking at the report in the NY Herald, and I think you are taking liberties.
The words you attribute to Dr Gabe are actually paraphrase by the journalist.
The only quote provided by Gabe is about ten lines into the article . .

"It must have been the work of a full half hour," said the Doctor.

There is a reason that line is enclosed in quotation marks, it is actually what the doctor said, whereas the rest of the article bears no quotation marks.
Was there an oil stove in Kelly's room? - no, so that is embellishment by the journalist.
In roughly the third line, we read "And the Doctor said that . . .", which is how the reader identifies paraphrase. In the next line the journalist writes "as he saw it", which, as you know is third-person, meaning the paraphrase continues.
At no point does the narrative begin or include first person recollections, until the line I mentioned above that is enclosed in quotation marks.
Clearly, the journalist knew the difference between paraphrase and quotation, I think you also know, but you either overlook the fact or prefer to ignore the significance of it.
The journalist is padding the quotes with background details he has sourced from newspaper stories.

Another detail is, "the throat was cut from left to right" (my quotes), but Dr Bond tells us the throat was so badly slashed it was not possible to determine which way the throat had been cut, so that detail is also wrong. The journalist continues with his general narrative by providing details sourced elsewhere, not attributable to Dr Gabe. We then read quotations from the witness John McCarthy, so again, there is a difference between paraphrase and quotes.
The article ends with contributions by Dr Forbes Winslow, which indicates the journalist is aiming for sensationalism as opposed to factual content.

You've been had Trevor, by another enterprising journalist.

[GBinOz]

Just to remind you your dastardly mortician needs to have surgical knowledge sufficient to be able to work blind.
Whoever removed the organs did so by feel, it is not possible to see what you are doing.

Here, Prosector clarified the problem:

"For the benefit of anyone that hasn't had both hands inside a human abdomen before, simply getting at either the kidney or the uterus is incredibly difficult. You might know roughly where they are but the problem is you have a mass of slippery, writhing intestines in the way and as much as you try to push them aside, the more they flop back into the middle and down into the pelvis which is where you need to be if you wish to get at the uterus.

What you have to do is a manoeuvre known to surgeons, anatomists and pathologists as mobilisation of the small bowel. This involves making a slit in the root of the mesentery which lies behind the bowels and this then enables you to lift the small intestines out of the abdomen and gives you a clearer field. Jack did this in the case of Chapman and Eddowes (hence the bowels being draped over the right shoulders). Dividing the root of the mesentery single handed is very difficult since you are operating one handed and blind. Usually an assistant wound be using both hands to retract the guts so that the operator can get a clearer view of it."

Someone, more than your average mortician.
The removal of organs not being among their duties.

The fact the killer worked in near total darkness was no challenge, when the surgical removal is applied by feel alone. It would have been no real benefit if he had removed the organs in daylight - he still couldn't see his own hands at work after sinking them into that abdominal mass.

Jon S.

Jon, as you know I hold Prosector's opinions in high regard. And I agree with you that the average mortician was not up to the task by feel, in the dark, kneeling alongside a body on the ground, removing the uterus without nicking the bladder. IF the organs were removed by the killer, it would come down to muscle memory acquired in the dissection room. Someone who spent a lot of time in the dissection room. Someone like Francis Thompson.

[GBinOz]

But George, the liver, uterus, kidneys & heart were all removed from their usual locations in the body, and yet only the heart was described as absent.

The liver, uterus & kidneys were all found in the room, so clearly 'absent' did not mean just from the body, it meant from the room.

I can appreciate your interpretation Jon, but the pericardium is an integral part of the heart's anatomy and was still in place, so part of the heart was in place in the body and part was absent from the body. IMO Bond's statement that the heart had been removed from the pericardium is unrelated to its presence or absence from the room. JMO.

[Trevor Marriott]

Anderson hired Bond to investigate the knife wounds on the victims, not the abdominal mutilations. If you look back through the official memo's you will see why Anderson wanted Dr. Bond to get involved.
Also, this isn't a case of siding with anyone, there are certain pertinent facts, but lots of secondary opinions. You know my position has never changed with respect to your interpretation of the murders, so you shouldn't be surprised when those who oppose you are singing from the same song sheet.

But I am sorry to have to keep labouring the point but 2 senior police officers and a doctor who all attended the Kelly crime scene state that the heart was found and not taken away by the killer. To me, that's overwhelming evidence to show the killer did not take away the heart.

So, what facts and evidence do you and the others have to negate those facts? I would suggest only Bond's ambiguous statement that the heart was absent for the pericardium; there is no mention of the heart being missing from the room.

There are also several newspaper reports which i am un able to locate which also confirm no organs were taken away by the killer

Dr Bond believed that the killer of all the victims did not show any anatomical knowledge

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Excellent points here. The mutilations and throat cutting tell 2 stories in terms of difficulty. Would a Surgeon need to cut a victims throat when he could have just as easily used a syringe? How would they render unconciousness? Medical students at that time would have the same capability and knowledge as the surgeon to a point. The students were also known to become desensitized and had the ability to remove intestines. They also played at jousting with limbs.

The ability to mutilate is different than just stabbing and entrails leaking out. This was not uncommon with Domestic violence in the East End. Would a medical student be capable of the mutilations? Probably but its not clear that removing other organs is something they did. And not without it under a teaching moment by the Surgeon teacher.

I see no avenue for Morticians getting their hands inside a body. In a class driven society would it even enter their minds? Organs with no market value vs risk of job loss would make little sense.

Chapman was performed in near daylight and with possibly enough time for the killer to get a better understanding of what he was looking at. I think this is an important fact to keep in mind with Eddowes. The killer could have found other organs in near daylight with Chapman and knew where to find the kidney. The repitition between Chapman and Eddowes is apparent. The killer had a better view and the initial feel with Chapman. If they had previous experience with organs then it could possibly explain the speed.

The kidney? It would make sense for a killer who was escalating the horror of the atrocity to remove it. In this case it makes no sense for a mortuary assistant with no formal training to stick his hands in a body.

The last point i would make on difficulty pertains to the knife itself. Whoever the killer was he knew his tools and keeping them sharp was critical. This was learned behavior over time and I believe speaks to habit and training and profession. I can see this with Surgeons, med students and butchers. Im not sure mortuary assistants were responsible for expensive surgical tools.

The bodies tell the story in my opinion. This killer cleary had a profession where his knowledge was transferred to the murders.

The body dealers who were operating in Victorian London at the time of the murders must have had some basic medical training to be able to facilitate the removal of organs from dead bodies as how elese was the trade in bodies and boy parts allowed to flourish?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Patrick Differ]

Just to remind you your dastardly mortician needs to have surgical knowledge sufficient to be able to work blind.
Whoever removed the organs did so by feel, it is not possible to see what you are doing.

Here, Prosector clarified the problem:

"For the benefit of anyone that hasn't had both hands inside a human abdomen before, simply getting at either the kidney or the uterus is incredibly difficult. You might know roughly where they are but the problem is you have a mass of slippery, writhing intestines in the way and as much as you try to push them aside, the more they flop back into the middle and down into the pelvis which is where you need to be if you wish to get at the uterus.

What you have to do is a manoeuvre known to surgeons, anatomists and pathologists as mobilisation of the small bowel. This involves making a slit in the root of the mesentery which lies behind the bowels and this then enables you to lift the small intestines out of the abdomen and gives you a clearer field. Jack did this in the case of Chapman and Eddowes (hence the bowels being draped over the right shoulders). Dividing the root of the mesentery single handed is very difficult since you are operating one handed and blind. Usually an assistant wound be using both hands to retract the guts so that the operator can get a clearer view of it."

Someone, more than your average mortician.
The removal of organs not being among their duties.

The fact the killer worked in near total darkness was no challenge, when the surgical removal is applied by feel alone. It would have been no real benefit if he had removed the organs in daylight - he still couldn't see his own hands at work after sinking them into that abdominal mass.

Jon S.

Excellent points here. The mutilations and throat cutting tell 2 stories in terms of difficulty. Would a Surgeon need to cut a victims throat when he could have just as easily used a syringe? How would they render unconciousness? Medical students at that time would have the same capability and knowledge as the surgeon to a point. The students were also known to become desensitized and had the ability to remove intestines. They also played at jousting with limbs.

The ability to mutilate is different than just stabbing and entrails leaking out. This was not uncommon with Domestic violence in the East End. Would a medical student be capable of the mutilations? Probably but its not clear that removing other organs is something they did. And not without it under a teaching moment by the Surgeon teacher.

I see no avenue for Morticians getting their hands inside a body. In a class driven society would it even enter their minds? Organs with no market value vs risk of job loss would make little sense.

Chapman was performed in near daylight and with possibly enough time for the killer to get a better understanding of what he was looking at. I think this is an important fact to keep in mind with Eddowes. The killer could have found other organs in near daylight with Chapman and knew where to find the kidney. The repitition between Chapman and Eddowes is apparent. The killer had a better view and the initial feel with Chapman. If they had previous experience with organs then it could possibly explain the speed.

The kidney? It would make sense for a killer who was escalating the horror of the atrocity to remove it. In this case it makes no sense for a mortuary assistant with no formal training to stick his hands in a body.

The last point i would make on difficulty pertains to the knife itself. Whoever the killer was he knew his tools and keeping them sharp was critical. This was learned behavior over time and I believe speaks to habit and training and profession. I can see this with Surgeons, med students and butchers. Im not sure mortuary assistants were responsible for expensive surgical tools.

The bodies tell the story in my opinion. This killer cleary had a profession where his knowledge was transferred to the murders.

[Wickerman]

Anderson hired Bond to investigate the knife wounds on the victims, not the abdominal mutilations. If you look back through the official memo's you will see why Anderson wanted Dr. Bond to get involved.
Also, this isn't a case of siding with anyone, there are certain pertinent facts, but lots of secondary opinions. You know my position has never changed with respect to your interpretation of the murders, so you shouldn't be surprised when those who oppose you are singing from the same song sheet.

[Wickerman]

Maybe rational thinking is what you need to do

www.trevormariott.co.uk

Just to remind you your dastardly mortician needs to have surgical knowledge sufficient to be able to work blind.
Whoever removed the organs did so by feel, it is not possible to see what you are doing.

Here, Prosector clarified the problem:

"For the benefit of anyone that hasn't had both hands inside a human abdomen before, simply getting at either the kidney or the uterus is incredibly difficult. You might know roughly where they are but the problem is you have a mass of slippery, writhing intestines in the way and as much as you try to push them aside, the more they flop back into the middle and down into the pelvis which is where you need to be if you wish to get at the uterus.

What you have to do is a manoeuvre known to surgeons, anatomists and pathologists as mobilisation of the small bowel. This involves making a slit in the root of the mesentery which lies behind the bowels and this then enables you to lift the small intestines out of the abdomen and gives you a clearer field. Jack did this in the case of Chapman and Eddowes (hence the bowels being draped over the right shoulders). Dividing the root of the mesentery single handed is very difficult since you are operating one handed and blind. Usually an assistant wound be using both hands to retract the guts so that the operator can get a clearer view of it."

Someone, more than your average mortician.
The removal of organs not being among their duties.

The fact the killer worked in near total darkness was no challenge, when the surgical removal is applied by feel alone. It would have been no real benefit if he had removed the organs in daylight - he still couldn't see his own hands at work after sinking them into that abdominal mass.

Jon S.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I personally think the Police at that time, especially detectives and inspectors had more on their plate then just the Whitechapel murders. Plus they were dealing with a new type of agressive Press. Reid strikes me as possibly just being overwhelmed. One story blends into another over time. Fiction becoming fact. Reid thought all Whitechapel murders were by the same hand. Is that far fetched, would he be in a position to know, was he too close to it, was he biased to Whitechapel day to day living? Were any of the Police reliable with the facts? The fact that they could not catch this killer eventhough they surged, went undercover, and had vigilantes says alot about the ability of the killer. All of these cops could not be that incompetent.

I’m sorry I’m only just responding to this Patrick. You’re right in that I don’t think for a second that we should call someone like Reid incompetent or that we should be too judgmental at a retired officer getting some details wrong. Let’s face it, this was way before our digital age. An officer giving a story to the police years after the event wouldn’t have expected, as they would have today, to have then faced someone consulting the records and tearing his statement to shreds; error by error. We only have to read those very early books and articles on the case and we can see the errors and myths-that-turned-into-facts. Fairy Fay is just one example of course. Reid was being interviewed 8 years after the case. He got some things right and quite a few things wrong. Some of them appear a bit jaw-dropping to us but times were different. I think that Reid perhaps just assumed that his memory was better than it actually was. We all know that the brain can subconsciously fill in gaps in memory. I’m always remembering stuff with confidence until it’s proven that I’m wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

and i noticed you didnt answer the questions I posed

I presume that is because there is no answer other than to accept them as true facts

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, I have to ask, do you have problems seeing? You have my sympathy of course if you do. I thought that my response in post #294 answered your question fully? You asked two questions:

Do you accept that Supt Arnold corroborates Reid, because this is very important?

My answer is no - just because two people say the same or similar things it’s a fallacy to assume that they are both correct. Arnold was wrong as we can see because he claimed that the heart along with the other organs were on the table. An incorrect statement can’t be corroboration of anything (not in the real world anyway)

Do you accept that DR Gabe also lists the location of the heart?

My answer is no - That was accredited to him in a New York Newspaper where it was claimed that the heart was on the bed so that’s the second quote that you a relying on which has a glaring error in it, but in an error-free Manchester newspaper he says “… a certain organ was missing".


I hope that’s clear enough Trevor. I don’t duck questions. Ever. If I miss one you only have to point out my omission and I’ll answer. I regularly ask questions that get ducked though. Very regularly in fact. If I don’t know something (which happens regularly) I’ll say that I don’t know…I won’t just make something up.