Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

[Harry D]

It has been theorised before that the medicos downplayed the killer's anatomical skill as their profession started to fall under suspicion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I totally agree with you, so that being said how could the killer have removed the organs from Chapman and Eddowes, because the doctors intimate a degree of anatomical skill?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

A big sharp knife and a knowledge of where the kidney was. Three minutes or so. Couple or 3 minutes for the rest. No problem. Theory dumped.

Next!

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are being your usual pedantic self it doesnt matter who wrote Bonds report the fact is that Bond signed it off, and the fact is there is no mention of any missing organs from any of the victims.

Such an important factor in these murders would not have been deliberatley left out. Bond had been specifically asked by Anderson to report on them, and especially as he was directly involved in kellys post mortem and made the pericardium observation you seek to heavily rely on

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

One day I look forward to receiving a response from you that doesn’t involve the words “….you seek to heavily rely on?”

What about the 8 year old memory of Inspector Reid that you seek to rely on?
Or Bonds inquest testimony that you seek to ignore?
Or the experts that doubt that the killer of Eddowes didn’t have enough time that you seek to rely on? (Even though they don’t know how long he had)
Or the experts that have no issue with the killer removing organs that you seek to brush under the carpet.

[Trevor Marriott]

Also, given the mortuary sketch of Eddowes prior to stitching up and the injuries being made neat shows a ragged, hacked incision, I've come to conclusion the killer certainly had no medical knowledge or skill.

I totally agree with you, so that being said how could the killer have removed the organs from Chapman and Eddowes, because the doctors intimate a degree of anatomical skill?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Aethelwulf]

Thanks George, yes I've read something similar previously about how the heart was removed from Mary Kelly using a new at the time technique. I don't see a problem with the killer removing the organs first for his own satisfaction , and whatever interest he might have had for such an act.

Then afterwards the mutilation was a simple act of butchery given the killer had the time an the inclination to do so. , just my opinion tho.

Given that great store was put by Phillips in his medical opinions elsewhere, Bond, who examined Kelly in her room and at the post mortem and saw the injuries in the flesh, disagrees. Those who say Bond was less experienced should also recognise he was there at the time and saw what we cannot. Also, despite his supposed lack of knowledge he put together a simple profile of the killer which is, in many respects, pretty much the same as the type of man the FBI descirbed 100 years later.

"I beg to report that I have read the notes of the 4 Whitechapel Murders viz:1. Buck's Row.2. Hanbury Street.3. Berner's Street.4. Mitre Square.I have also made a Post Mortem Examination of the mutilated remains of a woman found yesterday in a small room in Dorset Street -

1. All five murders were no doubt committed by the same hand. In the first four the throats appear to have been cut from left to right. In the last case owing to the extensive mutilation it is impossible to say in what direction the fatal cut was made, but arterial blood was found on the wall in splashes close to where the woman's head must have been lying.

2. All the circumstances surrounding the murders lead me to form the opinion that the women must have been lying down when murdered and in every case the throat was first cut.

3. In the four murders of which I have seen the notes only, I cannot form a very definite opinion as to the time that had elapsed between the murder and the discovering of the body.In one case, that of Berner's Street, the discovery appears to have been made immediately after the deed - In Buck's Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed. In the Dorset Street case the body was lying on the bed at the time of my visit, 2 o'clock, quite naked and mutilated as in the annexed report -Rigor Mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination. From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death as the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in. The body was comparatively cold at 2 o'clock and the remains of a recently taken meal were found in the stomach and scattered about over the intestines. It is, therefore, pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours and the partly digested food would indicate: that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, so one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder.

4. In all the cases there appears to be no evidence of struggling and the attacks were probably so sudden and made in such a position that the women could neither resist nor cry out. In the Dorset Street case the corner of the sheet to the right of the woman's head was much cut and saturated with blood, indicating that the face may have been covered with the sheet at the time of the attack.

5. In the four first cases the murderer must have attacked from the right side of the victim. In the Dorset Street case, he must have attacked from in front or from the left, as there would be no room for him between the wall and the part of the bed on which the woman was lying. Again, the blood had flowed down on the right side of the woman and spurted on to the wall.

6. The murderer would not necessarily be splashed or deluged with blood, but his hands' and arms must have been covered and parts of his clothing must certainly have been smeared with blood.

7. The mutilations in each case excepting the Berner's Street one were all of the same character and shewed clearly that in all the murders, the object was mutilation.

8. In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals

9. The instrument must have been a strong knife at least six inches long, very sharp, pointed at the top and about an inch in width. It may have been a clasp knife, a butcher's knife or a surgeon's knife. I think it was no doubt a straight knife.

10. The murderer must have been a man of physical strength and of great coolness and daring. There is no evidence that he had an accomplice. He must in my opinion be a man subject to periodical attacks of Homicidal and erotic mania. The character of the mutilations indicate that the man may be in a condition sexually, that may be called satyriasis. It is of course possible that the Homicidal impulse may have developed from a revengeful or brooding condition of the mind, or that Religious Mania may have been the original disease, but I do not think either hypothesis is likely. The murderer in external appearance is quite likely to be a quiet inoffensive looking man probably middleaged and neatly and respectably dressed. I think he must be in the habit of wearing a cloak or overcoat or he could hardly have escaped notice in the streets if the blood on his hands or clothes were visible.

11. Assuming the murderer to be such a person as I have just described he would probably be solitary and eccentric in his habits, also he is most likely to be a man without regular occupation, but with some small income or pension. He is possibly living among respectable persons who have some knowledge of his character and habits and who may have grounds for suspicion that he is not quite right in his mind at times. Such persons would probably be unwilling to communicate suspicions to the Police for fear of trouble or notoriety, whereas if there were a prospect of reward it might overcome their scruples.

Also, given the mortuary sketch of Eddowes prior to stitching up and the injuries being made neat shows a ragged, hacked incision, I've come to conclusion the killer certainly had no medical knowledge or skill.

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

Just for your information and interest, the heart is usually removed by an incision made down the chest over the breast bone, the bone being separated to allow access to the heart. MJK's autopsy stated that "the pericardium was open below and the heart absent". The autopsy also stated that the "intercostals between the fourth, fifth, and sixth ribs were cut through and the contents of the thorax visible through the openings". These openings (cuts to the muscles between the ribs) would not have been of sufficient size to remove the heart. The thorax was opened at the autopsy. There wastaught at the time a very new and rare technique of heart removal which involved removing the heart through the base of the pericardium (the fibrous sack surrounding the heart) via the abdominal cavity, the method used on MJK. The pericardium was still in place so the heart was not removed by just "hacking away".

To me, this indicates someone with an advanced knowledge of human anatomy and practical experience of dissection. The conundrum is that the mutilations did not indicate any such knowledge. Just my opinion FWIW.

Cheers, George

Thanks George, yes I've read something similar previously about how the heart was removed from Mary Kelly using a new at the time technique. I don't see a problem with the killer removing the organs first for his own satisfaction , and whatever interest he might have had for such an act.

Then afterwards the mutilation was a simple act of butchery given the killer had the time an the inclination to do so. , just my opinion tho.

[Trevor Marriott]

You can’t follow on from “It has been suggested…..” with “so we can show….” Trevor.

Unless you can prove that Hebbert wrote it, which you can’t, you can’t use it. And even if you could it would only show that he didn’t mention it not that it didn’t occur.

Bond listed the locations of the organs, he mentions the heart being absent, if it was still in the room why didn’t he mention it’s location? This tells us that it wasn’t in the room.

You are being your usual pedantic self it doesnt matter who wrote Bonds report the fact is that Bond signed it off, and the fact is there is no mention of any missing organs from any of the victims.

Such an important factor in these murders would not have been deliberatley left out. Bond had been specifically asked by Anderson to report on them, and especially as he was directly involved in kellys post mortem and made the pericardium observation you seek to heavily rely on

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes absent from the percardium, but there is nothing to say it wasnt found, all that I have posted confirms that, no mention thereafter by anyone of a missing heart that speaks volumes listen we have been through this hundreds of times I dont intend to keep repeating these most valid points.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Then you should concede that the heart wasn’t in the room.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In Bonds letter to Anderson isnt it a coincidence that he makes no mention of the killer taking away organs despite him being asked to give a full overview of all the murders.?

It is suggested that Dr Hebbert actually wrote Bonds report for him, that being the case it adds even more issues to the missing organs because Hebbert was one of the doctors directly involved with Kellys post mortem so we can show two doctors directly involved with Kelly make no mention of a missing heart following the post mortem

Then we have a senior police officer stating that no organs were taken away

www.trevormarriott

You can’t follow on from “It has been suggested…..” with “so we can show….” Trevor.

Unless you can prove that Hebbert wrote it, which you can’t, you can’t use it. And even if you could it would only show that he didn’t mention it not that it didn’t occur.

Bond listed the locations of the organs, he mentions the heart being absent, if it was still in the room why didn’t he mention it’s location? This tells us that it wasn’t in the room.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor thats not what i asked tho is it ? Just a simple answer will do , most people here on casebook are of the opinion that the killer removed the organs at the crime scene. Do you agree or not ,its not hard .

Again Trevor ,you said youd be enthralled to here some explaination as to why the killer didnt take the organs away from kellys murder scene , i gave you one such reason that i dont think is outside the realms of possiblitiy and you scoff and mock with a reply that is void of any relevence to what you asked me. To quote Abby, Good Lord Trevor ,you dont do yourself any favors on this topic of yours as to try and debate certain issues without it ending up like the Richardson thread.

If you want a simple answer, No, i do not believe the killer took away Kellys heart, or the organs from Edowes and Chapman. I really have nothing more to add having put forward enough evidence to support my belief which reserchers have the choice to accept or reject.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Hi Fishy,

Just for your information and interest, the heart is usually removed by an incision made down the chest over the breast bone, the bone being separated to allow access to the heart. MJK's autopsy stated that "the pericardium was open below and the heart absent". The autopsy also stated that the "intercostals between the fourth, fifth, and sixth ribs were cut through and the contents of the thorax visible through the openings". These openings (cuts to the muscles between the ribs) would not have been of sufficient size to remove the heart. The thorax was opened at the autopsy. There wastaught at the time a very new and rare technique of heart removal which involved removing the heart through the base of the pericardium (the fibrous sack surrounding the heart) via the abdominal cavity, the method used on MJK. The pericardium was still in place so the heart was not removed by just "hacking away".

To me, this indicates someone with an advanced knowledge of human anatomy and practical experience of dissection. The conundrum is that the mutilations did not indicate any such knowledge. Just my opinion FWIW.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Au contraire mon ami

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor thats not what i asked tho is it ? Just a simple answer will do , most people here on casebook are of the opinion that the killer removed the organs at the crime scene. Do you agree or not ,its not hard .

Again Trevor ,you said youd be enthralled to here some explaination as to why the killer didnt take the organs away from kellys murder scene , i gave you one such reason that i dont think is outside the realms of possiblitiy and you scoff and mock with a reply that is void of any relevence to what you asked me. To quote Abby, Good Lord Trevor ,you dont do yourself any favors on this topic of yours as to try and debate certain issues without it ending up like the Richardson thread.

[FISHY1118]

Dr Bond in his report to Anderson

“In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific or anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Where Is the part Dr Bond refers to the ''No Anatomical knowledge'' was used in the removal of the organs ? the mutilation and the removal of the organs are two sepatrate processes otherwise all the organs would have been mutilated as well ,but they werent not .


So Bonds report only refers to her mutilations not organ removal, as far as i can see.

[Varqm]

In Bonds letter to Anderson isnt it a coincidence that he makes no mention of the killer taking away organs despite him being asked to give a full overview of all the murders.?

It is suggested that Dr Hebbert actually wrote Bonds report for him, that being the case it adds even more issues to the missing organs because Hebbert was one of the doctors directly involved with Kellys post mortem so we can show two doctors directly involved with Kelly make no mention of a missing heart following the post mortem

Then we have a senior police officer stating that no organs were taken away

www.trevormarriott

It was the people who did the inventory of Kelly's organs hands-on,the doctors,who were important.And they have to write it down,that was part of their job,they were paid for it.
Bond or Hebbert did not write the heart was found during the inventory because they could not find it.

[Abby Normal]

Yes absent from the percardium, but there is nothing to say it wasnt found, all that I have posted confirms that, no mention thereafter by anyone of a missing heart that speaks volumes listen we have been through this hundreds of times I dont intend to keep repeating these most valid points.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

" but there is nothing to say it wasnt found". ?!? what part of heart absent dont you understand?

plus they listed all the other removed organs as they were found in the room and the heart wasnt one of them.

good lord trevor how do you come up with this stuff?