Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[Wickerman]

This might have been because 47-year-old Doctor Bond had not been introduced to the Virchow method..

I'm intrigued, why do you assume Dr. Bond was not familiar with this new standard?

[Richard Patterson]

I'm intrigued, why do you assume Dr. Bond was not familiar with this new standard?

Only because it looks like he seems to have missed it. Also because it was a new technique, he would have not been familiar with it during his own time at medical school. The Virchow method was still only known to a relatively small number of doctors.

[Trevor Marriott]

Only because it looks like he seems to have missed it. Also because it was a new technique, he would have not been familiar with it during his own time at medical school. The Virchow method was still only known to a relatively small number of doctors.

But again this part of your theory falls down if in fact the heart was not taken away by the killer would you not agree?

And not forgetting that someone like Thompson with the level of skill you suggest is hardly likely to use precision surgery to remove a heart and then treat the rest of the body like a butchers shop with no other medical skill being shown to be present.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Richard Patterson]

But again this part of your theory falls down if in fact the heart was not taken away by the killer would you not agree?

And not forgetting that someone like Thompson with the level of skill you suggest is hardly likely to use precision surgery to remove a heart and then treat the rest of the body like a butchers shop with no other medical skill being shown to be present.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thompson would have treated the rest of the body like a butchers shop if he didn't want to be caught. Why would he want to show he was a doctor? If the heart was not taken away is an if.

[Wickerman]

Only because it looks like he seems to have missed it. Also because it was a new technique, he would have not been familiar with it during his own time at medical school. The Virchow method was still only known to a relatively small number of doctors.

Hi Richard.
Virchow's method of dissecting every organ was not new by 1888. He first criticized the old method of focusing only on specific organs in 1859, and suggested that in an autopsy every organ should be investigated.
Virchow published on this approach in the 1870's.

I notice you make particular reference to accessing the heart via the pericardium, and the removal of the organ by the killer.
Virchow appears to suggest dissecting the heart while still in the body.

Perhaps I missed it, but do you see where Virchow suggests removal of the heart via the Pericardium?

I also do not see the connection you make below:

Things such as the way the killer had cut out Kelly’s heart straight from the pericardium showed to him less skill than a cat meat butcher.

[Batman]

There is no doubt that the complexity of the autopsy was above and beyond what even modern day pathologists would have to deal with, even in war-time situations including genocides. Here we have the pathology of what is sometimes termed a "lust murderer" in psychopathology (what in the pure sciences we call a "soft science"). While this is not a scientific position, it does have some merit as we know these people exist and are a fact of society, although rare.

Irrespective of political influences, Bond got a lot right, but as of today nobody has been able to reproduce a removal of the kidney plus heart under the ribs from its top without some anatomical know-how. My suggestion is that his choice of their right side attack and mutilations are consistent with being on that side during some sort of demonstration (and that would be demonstrationS plural) for it to be an almost subconscious reflex.

That does suggest a medical student.

[Robert]

Hi Batman

A bit puzzled here.

as of today nobody has been able to reproduce a removal of the kidney plus heart under the ribs from its top without some anatomical know-how. My suggestion is that his choice of their right side attack and mutilations are consistent with being on that side during some sort of demonstration (and that would be demonstrationS plural) for it to be an almost subconscious reflex.

But he worked from Kelly's left side.

[Batman]

The partition on the side of the bed prevented him from going there.

I have never heard a coherent explanation for the way he removed the heart from the top going under the rib cage without recourse to anatomical knowledge. Its not something one achieves by chance.

[Robert]

Hi Batman

Is that knowledge, or knowledge plus skill?

[Richard Patterson]

Hi Richard.
Virchow's method of dissecting every organ was not new by 1888. He first criticized the old method of focusing only on specific organs in 1859, and suggested that in an autopsy every organ should be investigated.
Virchow published on this approach in the 1870's.

I notice you make particular reference to accessing the heart via the pericardium, and the removal of the organ by the killer.
Virchow appears to suggest dissecting the heart while still in the body.

Perhaps I missed it, but do you see where Virchow suggests removal of the heart via the Pericardium?

I also do not see the connection you make below:

Thanks for the information. It looks like I was wrong about describing the Virchow method as brand new. If this is true, I am sorry if I mislead anyone.

Dr. Bond finished his medical studied before 1865, so he still could have been unaware of the Virchow method, which was published in 1870’s. My reading of the method does indicate that the pericardium was cut into to reach the heart and then the vessels to that organ were cut so that the heart could be freed, even if not removed.

When I wrote that the cutting into the heart showed less skill than a car meat butcher, I meant that the process of heart removal, as described by Dr Bond, was only not only unfamiliar with his training, but also not a method used by butchers. This indicates that someone from that trade did not mutilate Mary Kelly.

Respectfully,
Richard.

[Wickerman]

The partition on the side of the bed prevented him from going there.

I have never heard a coherent explanation for the way he removed the heart from the top going under the rib cage without recourse to anatomical knowledge. Its not something one achieves by chance.

Maybe I am not understanding the argument.
The heart lies behind the ribcage, if you do not have the means to cut the ribs to remove them then the only way is to go under the ribcage.
What other explanation is required?

[Trevor Marriott]

Thompson would have treated the rest of the body like a butchers shop if he didn't want to be caught. Why would he want to show he was a doctor? If the heart was not taken away is an if.

Without wanting to create another uproar here on the topic of the heart. All I will say is that in my opinion there is more evidence to show that he did not take it away, than there is to show he did.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Richard Patterson]

Without wanting to create another uproar here on the topic of the heart. All I will say is that in my opinion there is more evidence to show that he did not take it away, than there is to show he did.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi. Do you mean taken from the body or the room?

Thanks.

[Harry D]

Off-topic: Trevor, why don't you just put the link to your website in your signature? It would save you having to type/copy n' paste it everytime you post.

[Richard Patterson]

Maybe I am not understanding the argument.
The heart lies behind the ribcage, if you do not have the means to cut the ribs to remove them then the only way is to go under the ribcage.
What other explanation is required?

I mean accessing the heart by cutting directly into the pericardium as part of Virchow's method of an organ-by-organ removal, instead of say leaving the heart in situ or removing it with the pericardium intact. Although standard practice in most pathology departments today, this was a new approach in 1888.