Heartless?

[Debra A]

Once again, the Echo articles from 10th and 12th are contradicted by the same paper on 13th;

"PORTION OF BODY IS MISSING.
The medical testimony adduced at the inquest was limited to that which was absolutely required to enable the Jury to find respecting the cause of death. A morning contemporary is, however, enabled to state, on what it declares to be good authority, that, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, a portion of the body organs was missing. The police, and with them the divisional surgeon, have arrived at the conclusion that it is the interest of justice not to disclose the details of the professional inquiry."

Excellent.
I noticed that either here or in another thread you also drew Trevor's attention to the fact that some of the earlier reports were refering to the rumours that the uterus had been removed when they report that the organ thought to have been removed and taken away had been found. I've also mentioned this to Trevor before. I think it's an important point.

[Elamarna]

Lets stick to the fact that is in issue and not muddy the waters.

Exactly, is the report reliable?
And is it a first hand account of Arnold's?

Is there any direct evidence from anyone who was directly involved to corroborate the inference being drawn by researchers from Bonds statement to show that the heart wad taken away by the killer. The answer is no, end of story

That depends on how you interpret Dr Hebberts comments in "A system of legal medicine":

"all the organs except the heart were found scattered around the room"


There are enough difference between Hebbert's version of the scene and Bond's to suggest that one is not a mere copy of the other, and so should be view as as independent support.

Is there any evidence to show that the heart was not taken away yes end of story.

Who do we believe, and what evidence is reliable? Two police officers directly involved, numerous newspaper articles all saying nothing was taken away.

No Trevor, not two, just Reid!

As Kattrup as said, there appears to be no reference to Arnold talking about the heart in the debated article.

They all cant be wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually they can be!

However that is not what we are discussing, which is the reliability of a specific newspaper article.


Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

Once again, the Echo articles from 10th and 12th are contradicted by the same paper on 13th;

"PORTION OF BODY IS MISSING.
The medical testimony adduced at the inquest was limited to that which was absolutely required to enable the Jury to find respecting the cause of death. A morning contemporary is, however, enabled to state, on what it declares to be good authority, that, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, a portion of the body organs was missing. The police, and with them the divisional surgeon, have arrived at the conclusion that it is the interest of justice not to disclose the details of the professional inquiry."

[Debra A]

Is it me or are the comments that Trevor is attributing to Arnold very similar to the comments made to the press by John McCarthy on 10th November on what he saw when he looked through the window?

[Elamarna]

I think you need to rethink you logic.

Here we have Bond making an ambiguous statement, which does not conclusively prove that the heart was missing from the room.

We have no corroboration from anyone directly involved with him or anyone independent to back up the inference researchers have drawn from Bonds statement to suggest that it was missing.

We dont even have anything from anyone else involved in later years who reports the killer took away the heart, its not ever mentioned and why is that?


And of course like normal you are attempting to move the goalposts, the current debate is not about thew heart per se.
It was and is about the reliability of a newspaper report and if it can be regarded as being a first hand account of Arnold.


On the other side we have two senior police officers who were directly involved stating that no organs were taken away by the killer.


Yes we have a source for Reid saying so. which has been questioned on differing issues.

Please name a reliable source for the second officer Arnold, one where he is actually reported as saying this?

You have claimed this is the report of an interview with Arnold, can you please point out where the article gives that impression.

It reads like a press report, with information presented, which has been gathered from several different sources.


In addition we have a number of newspaper articles which also report nothing was taken away.

So even if you dont want to accept outright that nothing was taken away based on what is known, and the balance of probability tells us that nothing was taken away. The evidence to back this up is overwhelming.

As to Bond you cite him as a historical source, to my mind so are all the others mentioned above

Bond's report is a primary source, THE primary source for the post mortem!

While there are some problems over its provenance, it is considered by most to be genuine.

Are you putting Bond's report into the same category as the article we have been discussing?

Can you confirm or deny that please?


I note, not surprisingly, that there has been no response from you to post # 67

And of course you are still not addressed the issues raised about you suggestion, that Arnold may have had a memory issue within 48 hours of the event, or how this is at odds with you view on Reid and his memory 8 years after the same event.



Steve

[PaulB]

Trevor,
Whilst I have no desire or real interest in this turgid and increasingly desperate arguments of yours, Kattrup pointed out that Superintendent Arnold did not state that the heart was in the room. In fact, he appeared to have made no reference to the heart at all. I think Kattrup deserves a reply

The article states:
"Mr Arnold entered by the window, and a horrible and sickening sight presented itself. The poor woman lay on her back on the bed entirely naked. And throat was cut from ear to ear, right down to The spinal column. The ears and emotions have been cut clean off. The breasts had also been cleanly cut off and placed on a table which was by the side of the bed.. The kidneys and heart had also been removed from the body, I'm placed on the table by the side of the breasts."

A little while back you replied to Steve in the following way: "So according to your thinking, we should dismiss every article we read in every daily newspaper that is published, or do our own research into all those articles and quotes that appear in those papers to prove them correct, before we accept them."

The answer to that is that no source is accepted or dismissed without being fully and properly assessed, so, no, we do not dismiss every newspaper article. However, we do undertake our own research into all the newspapers and quotes that appear in those newspapers in an effort to establish accuracy or not. That means actual work, not trawling the internet for whatever we can find, as you do.

It is ironic that you should have said that to Steve because you have ceaslesly berated everyone for uncritically accepting what the sources tell us, which, of course, none of us do. Except, apparently, you. And one reason for that is to make sure we don't make dumb errors.

You see, if you go through the newspapers, particularly the early reports and those weekly newspapers which in the main drew upon those early reports (as analysis would have shown you), you will see plantiful reports where the heart is located, including on the bedside table (note The Times): it was placed between Kelly's legs: (Boston Daily Globe, 10 November 1888), placed beside the mutilated trunk (New York Herald, 10 November 1888), placed on the table beside the bed (The Star, The Times, 10 November 1888). It was subsequent to those reports that speculation about the heart emerged.

So, not only are you wrong to assert that the presence of the heart was attested by Supt. Arnold (he never commented on it), you are wrong that the newspaper report in this respect is reliable and up-to-date. Good research would help you a lot.

And now that your friend has put you right, do I take it that you now fully accept that you have been wrong all these months about what primary and secondary sources are?

[Debra A]

There was no anatomical skill shown by the killer in this murder as Dr Bond states "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" (Primary Source?)

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This is also the conclusion reached by the source in the Dundee Evening Telegraph 17th Nov 1888 article. What rules out Bond as being the the doctor who assisted in the post mortem of Mary Jane Kelly and gave these conclusions to the press in that case?

[Fisherman]

You are correct and that would be made easy if the contents of abdomen had been removed first. As we know the killer completely eviscerated the body. But of course the report doesn't tell us whether or not the pericardium was also cut out as part of the evisceration.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I believe it says that it was "open below", and the heart absent. What I am getting at is that this is not enough for me to conclude that a student of the Virchow method held the knife. Not by any means.

[Trevor Marriott]

With my limited knowledge of medicine and anatomy, I would like to ask this question:

If the killer did not have access to the implements necessary to open up the ribcage, is it safe to say that the only way the heart could be removed would be by reaching up into the thorax from underneath, and opening the pericardium?

You are correct and that would be made easy if the contents of abdomen had been removed first. As we know the killer completely eviscerated the body. But of course the report doesn't tell us whether or not the pericardium was also cut out as part of the evisceration.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

It is a newspaper source, Trevor. It's reliability should be evaluated by the information it contains. It is important to consider who would have known the method used to removed the heart at that time I think. We are told that the information was given to the reporter by a doctor who was present at the post mortem [Sat 10th] and in all respects that seems to add up, given that we know it was not made public via the inquest what specific method was used to remove the heart and it remained unknown until 1987. In Novemeber 1888 a limited amount of people would have had that knowledge, the doctors involved in the post mortem would be one such set of people. So nothing in the article can be shown to be definitely incorrect and in fact contains more information than was known right up until 1987 when Bond's report was returned. On that basis, I personally think the source was someone in the know and the reliability of the statement that the heart was also taken away therefore carries some weight also as far I am concerned.

But that someone then is in direct conflict with Bond. Because if it was that so unusual, then surely he would have identified that aspect and that would have given rise to the anatomical knowledge belief and Bond did do the post mortem, so that article may not be as accurate as you are led to believe. From my limited medical knowledge, to access the heart without breaking ribs etc it has to be via the diaphragm and pericardium which is made easy when the other abdominal organs are removed.

I dont recall any other doctors or police who were present making any observation about anatomical knowledge being shown, in fact the contrary

A timeline of newspapers and dates that reported organs missing or not missing would probably be useful here.

The Echo, 10th November 1888...

“The investigation made by the doctors yesterday was not the final one, mainly because the room was ill-adapted for the purpose of carrying out a complete autopsy. The post-mortem examination-in-chief was only commenced this morning, at the early hour of half-past seven, when Dr. Phillips, Dr. Bond, Dr. Hibbert, and other experts attended. Some portions of the body are missing, and, says an Echo reporter, writing at two o'clock this afternoon, Dr. Phillips and Dr. Bond, accompanied by Inspector Moore, Inspector Abberline, and Inspector Reid, are again paying a visit to Miller's-court, in order to examine the ashes found in the grate, as it is thought small parts of the body may have been burnt.”

The Times 10th November

“The latest account states upon what professes to be indisputable authority that no portion of the woman's body was taken away by the murderer. As already stated, the post-mortem examination was of the most exhaustive character, and surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for and placed as closely as possible in its natural position.”

The Echo 12th November

“Nothing of any importance was discovered in the ashes at the deceased's house. A small portion only of the remains is missing, while it is noticeable as a special incident in the barbarous murder that the organ hitherto taken away at the mutilations was found in the room, although it had been cut out of the body...”

The Times 12th November

“As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination, which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case. The examination was most minutely made, and lasted upwards of 2 ½ hours after which the mutilated portions were sewn to the body, and therefore the coroner's jury will be spared the unpleasant duty of witnessing the horrible spectacle presented to those who discovered the murder. The ashes found in the fireplace of the room rented by the deceased woman were also submitted to a searching examination, but nothing likely to throw any light on this shocking case could be gleaned from them.”

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

With my limited knowledge of medicine and anatomy, I would like to ask this question:

If the killer did not have access to the implements necessary to open up the ribcage, is it safe to say that the only way the heart could be removed would be by reaching up into the thorax from underneath, and opening the pericardium?

[Debra A]

I would suggest that this report is definitely a secondary source. I accept that there were newspapers at the time which suggested that an organ was taken away but the later editions clarify this issue, that nothing was taken away.

It is a newspaper source, Trevor. It's reliability should be evaluated by the information it contains. It is important to consider who would have known the method used to removed the heart at that time I think. We are told that the information was given to the reporter by a doctor who was present at the post mortem [Sat 10th] and in all respects that seems to add up, given that we know it was not made public via the inquest what specific method was used to remove the heart and it remained unknown until 1987. In Novemeber 1888 a limited amount of people would have had that knowledge, the doctors involved in the post mortem would be one such set of people. So nothing in the article can be shown to be definitely incorrect and in fact contains more information than was known right up until 1987 when Bond's report was returned. On that basis, I personally think the source was someone in the know and the reliability of the statement that the heart was also taken away therefore carries some weight also as far I am concerned.

A timeline of newspapers and dates that reported organs missing or not missing would probably be useful here.

[Trevor Marriott]

Personally, I would say one of the most important sources on the issue of the heart being taken is the 17th November 1888 Dundee Evening News article. The reporter was given a specific piece of information about the exact method used to remove the heart and made the statement that the information had come from one of the doctors attending the post mortem.

Unlike the previous murders, there was no reporting of Mary Jane Kelly's wounds or detailed descriptions of exactly what was done to her given at the inquest. As a consequence of this, there are no reports in the newspapers on this subject either. The doctors and police kept these specific details confidential and in fact, it wasn't until Bond's report was returned in 1987 that the details of how the heart was removed was revealed to us.

We learned that Mary Jane Kelly's heart was removed through the diaphragm and not through the sternum, exactly as the Dundee Evening News reporter had described back in November 1888 from information he says he received from a dotor at the post mortem.
This same article went on to say that the uterus had not been taken but the heart had.

The method used to remove the heart was something the post mortem doctors would certainly have concentrated on in trying to determine if this organ was removed with any medical skill or knowledge being displayed.

I would suggest that this report is definitely a secondary source. I accept that there were newspapers at the time which suggested that an organ was taken away but the later editions clarify this issue, that nothing was taken away.

There was no anatomical skill shown by the killer in this murder as Dr Bond states "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" (Primary Source?)

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Excellent post demonstrating how firsthand accounts take precedence over secondhand

Lets stick to the fact that is in issue and not muddy the waters.

Is there any direct evidence from anyone who was directly involved to corroborate the inference being drawn by researchers from Bonds statement to show that the heart wad taken away by the killer. The answer is no, end of story

Is there any evidence to show that the heart was not taken away yes end of story.

Who do we believe, and what evidence is reliable? Two police officers directly involved, numerous newspaper articles all saying nothing was taken away.

They all cant be wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

Trevor,

To demonstrate how inaccurate this report is lets look at the report and compare it to Bonds report and other known facts:




1. Mr. Arnold entered by the window, and a horrible and sickening sight presented itself.

He did not from all reports (1)



2. The poor woman lay on her back on the bed, entirely naked. Her throat was cut from ear to ear, right down to the spinal column. The ears and nose had been cut clean off.


"ears being partly removed" -- Bond (2)



3. The breasts had also been cleanly cut off and placed on a table which was by the side of the bed.


"with one breast under the head the other breast by the Rt foot"--Bond (3)



4. The stomach and abdomen had been ripped open, while the face was hacked about, so that the features of the poor creature were beyond all recognition.




5. The kidneys and heart had also been removed from the body, and placed on the table by the side of the breasts.


"Kidneys under the head" -- Bond (4)



6. The liver had likewise been removed, and laid on the right thigh.


"the Liver between the feet" -- Bond (5)



7. The lower portion of the body and the uterus had been cut out.


No mention of where it was. "the uterus under the head --Bond"




8. One hand had been placed in the empty abdomen.



9. The thighs had been cut and slashed about so as to leave the bones visible.



There is no mention of the "intestines by the right side & the s pleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table." --Bond




So let us look at what we have:


9 points are made in the article.


5 of these are wrong (assuming one accepts Bond of course).



A further item, the uterus is correctly said to have been taken from the body but it is not recorded where it was.


Three other items are completely missed.



What we have is a report with more facts wrong than right, which omits three specific sets of organ/tissue completely and does not record where another is found.

And this is meant to be an eyewitness, first person report by Arnold you say!

I doubt that very much!




Trevor it is not me pushing a personal belief, it is purely comparing a report against what are accepted facts and the result is clear for all to see.

The report is unreliable.



Steve
,

Excellent post demonstrating how firsthand accounts take precedence over secondhand