Tweet
Just reading:
In particular Debra Arif's post #350, which I partially quote:
18th November London Observer article reports that:
"Though the coroner prevented most of the medical evidence from coming out, it is believed that much of it will be of a curious nature. According to one report published on Friday it seems that the assassin cut the woman's heart out and carried it away, and if he did not carry away the other parts of the body, it was supposed that he was either disturbed or that he forgot them in his hurry to escape. That he cut the heart out from below instead of cutting through the diaphragm does not, as some argue, show that he is an ignorant person..."
The comment about 'no anatomical knowledge shown' is something we know Dr Bond also concluded, similarly Dr Hebbert in his 1903 article
"A woman was killed in a room. After the most frightful mutilation and destruction of her body, she was placed in a bed in such a position as would indicate the overpowering fiendish sensual passion of the brute. There was nothing to suggest any knowledge of anatomy or surgical skill. In fact. he evidently had attempted to remove the heart by cutting the ribs, and, failing to do this. he had dragged it down through the midriff. As I saw the awful sight before any disturbances of the body. or interference with the room, I can.vouch for the truth of the conditions, and shall-never forget my vivid impression of the scene." ('Criminology' Canadian Medical Record,1903; a paper read before the St. James Literary Society, Jan. 15. 1903"
Just wondering how a heart would be removed by a medical student at the time (or twenty years ealier) in a dissecting room.
Any similarity to the approach quoted above?
Appreciate any thoughts.
Martyn
(Please not a heart was missing/not missing thread, thanks!)
In particular Debra Arif's post #350, which I partially quote:
18th November London Observer article reports that:
"Though the coroner prevented most of the medical evidence from coming out, it is believed that much of it will be of a curious nature. According to one report published on Friday it seems that the assassin cut the woman's heart out and carried it away, and if he did not carry away the other parts of the body, it was supposed that he was either disturbed or that he forgot them in his hurry to escape. That he cut the heart out from below instead of cutting through the diaphragm does not, as some argue, show that he is an ignorant person..."
The comment about 'no anatomical knowledge shown' is something we know Dr Bond also concluded, similarly Dr Hebbert in his 1903 article
"A woman was killed in a room. After the most frightful mutilation and destruction of her body, she was placed in a bed in such a position as would indicate the overpowering fiendish sensual passion of the brute. There was nothing to suggest any knowledge of anatomy or surgical skill. In fact. he evidently had attempted to remove the heart by cutting the ribs, and, failing to do this. he had dragged it down through the midriff. As I saw the awful sight before any disturbances of the body. or interference with the room, I can.vouch for the truth of the conditions, and shall-never forget my vivid impression of the scene." ('Criminology' Canadian Medical Record,1903; a paper read before the St. James Literary Society, Jan. 15. 1903"
Just wondering how a heart would be removed by a medical student at the time (or twenty years ealier) in a dissecting room.
Any similarity to the approach quoted above?
Appreciate any thoughts.
Martyn
(Please not a heart was missing/not missing thread, thanks!)
Comment