Heartless?

[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.

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.”

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?)

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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

[Debra A]

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.

A correction: The newspaper article I am referencing is The Dundee Evening Telegraph of Nov 17th 1888.

[Kattrup]

https://www.jack-the-ripper-tour.com...of-mary-kelly/

I note that in the article Supt Arnold states that the heart was found in the room

Would you point out Arnold's statement, please? I've read the article twice now, and cannot find any quote from Arnold, or anywhere that he is referenced as making a statement.

Indeed, the article mentions that the official directly asked, Dr. Gabe, declined to make a statement.

[Debra A]

If we want to present results that mean something, and allow our research to maintain a degree of integrity we must.

Steve

Absolutely, Steve. Anyone who demonstrates perfectly that they don't understand how to evaluate sources and blatantly advocates cherry picking cannot be expected to be taken seriously as a researcher or theorist, surely?

[Debra A]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

What a post, you excel even yourself Trevor.

The post above demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about the differences between research and personal recreational reading.


It appears you have no understanding of how research should be conducted, if it is to have any value.

For research to be of use in advancing knowledge, it must have integrity, something which it seems you do not accept or understand.

The article you are talking about has Gross mistakes, not small ones in it,

Sometimes mistakes can be explained away as simple typos or depending on the time from the event, minor memory lapses, this is not the case here.


There is no way of knowing what Arnold has really said or seen?


Did for instance he say he had entered via the window or did that come from the journalist?


Did he say he had seen the kidneys and heart on the table? or was it the journalist?


Given the above issues how do we know the information reportedly gathered from Arnold, is not actually gather from other sources or simply rumour?


How can we be sure it is not partly or wholly an invention by the journalist?


The fact is that it is meant to be a first hand account and we cannot trust that it is!.


Do you really not see that there is no way of answering those question because of the gross mistakes in the article.
,
We cannot cherry pick what we want, either a source is reliable of it is not.
.


What was utterly unbelievable this afternoon was that you claimed that Arnold may have got the details wrong because of a memory issue, in an article published two days after the murder!.


The Reid article is questioned on entirely different grounds, to suggest they are the same is highly disingenuous..

Part of your argument for accepting it as being reliable, was your view that despite the article being 8 years after the events in Miller Court, Reid would of course have no no memory issues, he was there.

And yet today its was maybe Arnold got it wrong, because he was relying on his memory only some 2 days after the event.

Those alternative views are so funny.


You argue about newspapers protecting sources, but fail to understand that is not the same thing at all.
Your attempt to employ it really does demonstrate you apparent complete lack of understanding on how to use sources.


At the end of your post, you again try and compare research to everyday reading, the two actives are not the same.

One is a personal activity, the other is carried out with the intention of passing knowledge to others.that should be done with honesty and a degree of integrity.


steve

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?

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

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

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
,