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

[Trevor Marriott]

Not to mention A System of Legal Medicine p.63;
"In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered about the room"

This keeps getting quoted, Hebbert did not go back to the crime scene along with the other doctors I believe he was the doctor scribing for Bond and the one who actually prepared Bonds report to Anderson and makes o mention in that report of any missing organs !

Detective Insp Reid News of the world 1896

"I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete."

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

No I don't have to accept the obvious, because in this case the obvious which you refer to is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The term used is "Absent from the pericardium" which was recorded by another doctor whilst the post mortem was being conducted and from which Bonds report was prepared. At no point in his report, or thereafter, does he mention the heart was missing from the room. To suggest otherwise without foundation is wrong.

What you seek to rely on to prove your facts is not the same material that I seek to rely on to disprove, and I think mine is far more conclusive and far more reliable.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The autopsy was conducted at 7:30 A.M. on Saturday, 10 November by Dr Phillips, his assistant, Dr Bond, Dr Brown, and Dr Dukes and tells us the following: The face was cut in all directions; numerous cuts across all features; the neck was cut down to the vertebrae; the cuts showed distinct ecchymosis; the breasts were removed by quasi-circular incisions; associated muscles attached to the breasts; the thorax was visible through the cuts; the abdomen and costal arch to pubes removed; the front right thigh skinned down to the bone; the left thigh was stripped of skin and muscle as far as the knee; the left calf had a long incision running from the knee to 5" above the ankle; both arms and forearms had extensive jagged wounds; the right thumb had a 1" superficial cut, extravasation of the blood in the skin and several abrasions on the back of the hand; lower part of the right lung was broken and torn away; the left lung was intact; the pericardium was open below and the heart absent; and, partly digested food was found in the abdominal cavity and in the stomach remains.


The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus and kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right foot, the liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side and the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.

[Simon Wood]

Hi DJA,

New York Herald, 10th December 1888

“The Doctor [John Rees Gabe] said that in his experience in dissecting rooms never had he seen such ghastliness . . . Ribs and backbone were exposed and the stomach, entrails, heart and liver had been cut out and carefully placed beside the mutilated trunk.”

That autopsy report really matched the MJK1 photograph.

Regards,

Simon

[DJA]

No offense,but not really.

The organs placed about the corpse had been taken away.

One of the ironies is where the autopsy took place.

Edit. Honestly New York Herald,10th December 1888.

[Trevor Marriott]

The autopsy was conducted at 7:30 A.M. on Saturday, 10 November by Dr Phillips, his assistant, Dr Bond, Dr Brown, and Dr Dukes and tells us the following: The face was cut in all directions; numerous cuts across all features; the neck was cut down to the vertebrae; the cuts showed distinct ecchymosis; the breasts were removed by quasi-circular incisions; associated muscles attached to the breasts; the thorax was visible through the cuts; the abdomen and costal arch to pubes removed; the front right thigh skinned down to the bone; the left thigh was stripped of skin and muscle as far as the knee; the left calf had a long incision running from the knee to 5" above the ankle; both arms and forearms had extensive jagged wounds; the right thumb had a 1" superficial cut, extravasation of the blood in the skin and several abrasions on the back of the hand; lower part of the right lung was broken and torn away; the left lung was intact; the pericardium was open below and the heart absent; and, partly digested food was found in the abdominal cavity and in the stomach remains.

Debs
I am aware of that report, but as you and many others must know it is ambiguous, and therefore in the light of other evidence is unsafe to totally rely on.

Absent from the pericardium means just that, it was not where it should have been in the body. Surely it it were missing from the room, someone would have actually stated that important fact, but no one did, and I have to ask why did no one mention it ? The answer is because it was found not to be missing at some point.

It could easily have been found in the pail which it would seem contained internal organs and body parts which was sent to the home address of Dr Phillips,before the post mortem and why would DI Reid the head of Whitechapel CID and who was directly involved in the investigation later state no organs were missing?

The truth is out there, just hard for some to accept.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Simon Wood]

Hi DJA,

That's brilliant.

Why didn't I think of that?

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

The autopsy was conducted at 7:30 A.M. on Saturday, 10 November by Dr Phillips, his assistant, Dr Bond, Dr Brown, and Dr Dukes and tells us the following: The face was cut in all directions; numerous cuts across all features; the neck was cut down to the vertebrae; the cuts showed distinct ecchymosis; the breasts were removed by quasi-circular incisions; associated muscles attached to the breasts; the thorax was visible through the cuts; the abdomen and costal arch to pubes removed; the front right thigh skinned down to the bone; the left thigh was stripped of skin and muscle as far as the knee; the left calf had a long incision running from the knee to 5" above the ankle; both arms and forearms had extensive jagged wounds; the right thumb had a 1" superficial cut, extravasation of the blood in the skin and several abrasions on the back of the hand; lower part of the right lung was broken and torn away; the left lung was intact; the pericardium was open below and the heart absent; and, partly digested food was found in the abdominal cavity and in the stomach remains.


The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus and kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right foot, the liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side and the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.

Do you believe all you read?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

I am aware of that.

Doubt Reid took a stock take.

Perhaps because I have my own barrow,my preference is Dr Phillips with the pail in his living room

I'm honestly quite open on the whole topic,unless there is real evidence.

[DJA]

Do you believe all you read?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Crikey,in the Jack the Ripper Case there are that many porkies being told it is not funny.

One of my favorites is
In his memoirs Smith wrote that the Ripper "...completely beat me and every Police officer in London." and that "...I have no more idea now where he lived than I had twenty years ago." (From Constable to Commissioner, 1910)

He knew Sutton lived at 9 Finsbury Square and kept another sparsely furnished house at another square.

[Wickerman]

Wrong again !!!!

Lloyds Weekly dated November 11th 1888 which the interviewee would appear to have been Superintendent Arnold who was in overall charge of Whitechapel policing, and visited the crime scene shortly after the discovery of the body. The relevant part of the article reads “The kidneys and heart had also been removed from the body, and placed on the table by the side of the breasts.

Excuse me, is this the same Trevor Marriott who rejects the typically inaccurate press accounts in favor of the reliable official reports?

Dr Bond's report to Anderson at the request of Warren certainly qualifies as an official report, by a physician who was present while the body was still at the crime scene.

This Lloyds account begins by telling the reader that, "Mr. Arnold entered by the window".
Superintendent Arnold climbed in through the window?

The subsequent details are therefore attributed to Supt. Arnold. Yet, it was Arnold who gave the order to break in the door.
Shame he didn't think of slipping the catch from the inside while he was in there - Guffaw!
Perhaps there's just a dash of literary license in this long article?

Anyhow, pressing on.....

The official report by Bond reads:
"....the breasts were cut off.....
...with one breast under the head, the other breast by the Rt foot".

While Lloyds writes:
"The breasts had also been cleanly cut off and placed on a table which was by the side of the bed"


Bonds report continues:
"....the liver between the feet". (we see it in the photograph).

Yet, Lloyds writes:
"The Liver had likewise been removed, and laid on the right thigh". (nothing like this in the photograph)

And this is what you prefer for your theory, as opposed to the official record by a medical professional?

Any excuse for this, ....Trevor, ....Simon?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

The only argument I am making is that in the photograph MJK1 there are no body parts on the bedside table.

Regards,

Simon

[DJA]

Reckon they are flaps as mentioned.

[DJA]

Bonds report continues:
"....the liver between the feet". (we see it in the photograph).

Really don't think that is a liver.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

The only argument I am making is that in the photograph MJK1 there are no body parts on the bedside table.

Regards,

Simon

Yes, You did reply in post #103 that there are no bodily organs on the table in the photograph.
Which is what Bond wrote, but not according to Lloyds or the N Y Herald.
Yet I had the impression you were more taken with the press descriptions as opposed to Dr Bond's report.

[Wickerman]

Bonds report continues:
"....the liver between the feet". (we see it in the photograph).

Really don't think that is a liver.

Who do you think is in a position to know?

I notice putting "My name is Dave" at the bottom of your post doesn't work either, Debs.