If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See?

[DJA]

Yet Hutchinson's original statement was changed by an unknown hand.

[Trevor Marriott]

If you sent an inaccurate report to your superior on the flimsy excuse of "well, it was already written so I couldn't change it" - you'd be kicked out on yer ass!

The sad part is, you know this.

I have no idea what you are trying to say in this post

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

For years it has been generally accepted that the heart was taken away by the killer, based solely on the statement of Bond, and the "now" tenuous link to the removal of the organs from Chapman and Eddowes as part of the same series of murders.

Now we have much more at our disposal, to question not only that general acceptance, but also to bring into question the removal of the organs from Eddowes and Chapman by supposedly the same killer.

All you have written above is that you have convinced yourself, using your own theory as evidence.

[Trevor Marriott]

All you have written above is that you have convinced yourself, using your own theory as evidence.

The theory is Supported by facts and evidence, both of which you seem to want to ignore in a desperate attempt to keep alive the old previously accepted theory that the killer took away the heart

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

The evidence of Bond is scant, and ambiguous, the other evidence against is far from ambiguous and certainly not scant.

Bond gives us a detailed description of (a) the organs extracted and (b) where they were found. The heart appears in category (a) but not in category (b).

As to the "other evidence", it's very thin on the ground.

[Trevor Marriott]

Bond gives us a detailed description of (a) the organs extracted and (b) where they were found. The heart appears in category (a) but not in category (b).

As to the "other evidence", it's very thin on the ground.

It far outweighs the tenuous evidence, which you clearly rely on to support the belief that the killer took away the heart.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

It far outweighs the tenuous evidence, which you clearly rely on to support the belief that the killer took away the heart.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What's "tenuous" about a detailed medical report produced by a medic who was present at both the crime scene and the autopsy? And, in response to your second assertion, I don't necessarily "believe" that the heart was taken away from 13 Miller's Court.

[Jon Guy]

And, in response to your second assertion, I don't necessarily "believe" that the heart was taken away from 13 Miller's Court.

What are your thoughts on the absent heart, Gareth ?

[Trevor Marriott]

What's "tenuous" about a detailed medical report produced by a medic who was present at both the crime scene and the autopsy? And, in response to your second assertion, I don't necessarily "believe" that the heart was taken away from 13 Miller's Court.

Gareth

I dont have a problem with the medical report. What I do have a problem with is how the term "absent from the pericardium" is interpreted

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Actually, the report doesn't say "absent from the pericardium" but "the pericardium was open below and the heart absent". That's a subtle, but potentially important, difference.

[DJA]

Implies Jack did not just rip the lot out.

[Michael W Richards]

They most probably were, and the heart was probably in the pail along with other organs and produced at the post mortem. But that doesn't change the terminology used by Bond when listing damage to the body organs during the post mortem, including the pericardium which he states the heart was absent from.

How can an inference be drawn from that ambiguous part of his report suggesting that the heart was missing from the room taken away by the killer, when that is not mentioned, or suggested at all by Bond or any other doctor at the time or in the years that followed? No police officials of any rank, or any other officials suggest the killer took away the heart. In fact we have evidence to suggest that was not the case.

You can argue, hypothesize, or speculate till the cows come home but it is not going to change the facts, the heart was not taken away by the killer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The heart was missing when they opened the room, that's the crux of the findings on Friday afternoon. How that occurred is a matter of logic. If no-one had been in the room after 1:30am aside from the killer, and he left the room with the latch off and therefore the door locked, also the windows, and Mary Kelly had her heart when she entered the room, then ONLY the killer could have taken it.

[Abby Normal]

Actually, the report doesn't say "absent from the pericardium" but "the pericardium was open below and the heart absent". That's a subtle, but potentially important, difference.

Bingo. If they had found the heart in the room it would have been noted.

The killer removed the heart and possibly burned or cooked and ate it there or more than likely took it away when he left.

[Trevor Marriott]

The heart was missing when they opened the room, that's the crux of the findings on Friday afternoon.

You have just made that up !!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Bingo. If they had found the heart in the room it would have been noted.

The killer removed the heart and possibly burned or cooked and ate it there or more than likely took it away when he left.

If the heart was found In the pail or accounted for before or at the time of the post mortem there would be no need to mention it missing. But if after describing it missing from the pericardium I would have then expected it to be stated it was missing from the room taken away by the killer but we don’t see evidence of that or at any time thereafter by anyone.

How anyone can say with their hand on their heart that bonds statement is enough to say the killer took away the heart beggars belief

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk