Heartless?

[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

https://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
,

[Elamarna]

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.

You also want to totally dismiss this article because parts of it are incorrect.

You also want to totally dismiss the Reid article for the same reason.

And you also want to dismiss the newspapers that also stated no organs were taken because we dont have sources. In that respect when the press are dealing with these type of cases much of the information they gather comes from sources who do not want to be identified hence the absence of sources. But that doesn't make the content unreliable does it?

We do know that parts of all the aforementioned are correct, and proven, but of course to prop up the old accepted theory that the killer took kellys heart you suggest that the relevant parts, which are correct and prove that the killer didnt should not be accepted, using the incorrect parts to negate what clearly is the truth.

In an ideal world it would be nice to prove everything we read in a newspaper or an autobiography, but we dont live in an ideal world.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Steve

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.

You also want to totally dismiss this article because parts of it are incorrect.

You also want to totally dismiss the Reid article for the same reason.

And you also want to dismiss the newspapers that also stated no organs were taken because we dont have sources. In that respect when the press are dealing with these type of cases much of the information they gather comes from sources who do not want to be identified hence the absence of sources. But that doesn't make the content unreliable does it?

We do know that parts of all the aforementioned are correct, and proven, but of course to prop up the old accepted theory that the killer took kellys heart you suggest that the relevant parts, which are correct and prove that the killer didnt should not be accepted, using the incorrect parts to negate what clearly is the truth.

In an ideal world it would be nice to prove everything we read in a newspaper or an autobiography, but we dont live in an ideal world.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

But you cannot dismiss the whole content of the article

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

Steve

[Fisherman]

But you cannot dismiss the whole content of the article

Then maybe you could pick out the odds and ends that we may rely on for Steve, Trevor?

[Trevor Marriott]

Not to me personally, but to the truth it certainly is.





Not because it goes against my beliefs, but because it goes against the known established historical facts!!

It would be equally unreliable no matter what it was about or what it said.
I find it inconceivable that a researcher does not understand this.







But he claims he entered by it, or rather the article claims not him, there is a difference.





So he may have had a memory lapse, a mere two days after the event?
The interview itself would be even earlier than the publication!

That really would make not just the article; but Arnold himself unreliable.

I really cannot believe you have said that.






It would be important if the article was reliable

It is not important, because the article is unreliable!



The article refers to going in via the window---wrong!

It claims the kidneys were on the table---probably wrong!

Those are major reporting inaccuracies to put it mildly.



I still cannot believe that have just attempted to explain one of those away as a memory lapse some 2 days after the event.



Trevor the fact is that the source, in this particular instances, is unreliable.

There is no way to know what, if any of it is truthful reporting, rather than repeating of rumours and stories in early circulation.

And yes it may be due to the reporter, it probably is.

It is not Arnold who is unreliable, but the article just because of several minor error

Arnold and Reid corroborate each other when they say the heart was not taken away. Both then corroborate the newspaper articles
Which say the same. All of that put together is pretty strong evidence against one ambiguous statement of Dr Bond with no corroboration to back him up.

Surely even with blinkers on you can see that ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Steve

But you cannot dismiss the whole content of the article

[Elamarna]

Yes I am using this article is that a problem to you ?

Not to me personally, but to the truth it certainly is.

I wonder if it had contained a statement saying the heart was missing would you be so quick to dismiss it ? You woulndt you would be ramming it down my throat. But because it goes against your beliefs, and others it is regarded as unreliable

Not because it goes against my beliefs, but because it goes against the known established historical facts!!

It would be equally unreliable no matter what it was about or what it said.
I find it inconceivable that a researcher does not understand this.

I accept that window part is incorrect, however we know the broken window was an important part of the finding of the body, and he does then say that the door was forced.

But he claims he entered by it, or rather the article claims not him, there is a difference.

What has to be remembered is that I suspect Arnold was speaking from memory,and Bonds observations were being written down at the time and that is where we have the ambiguity with Bonds statement.

So he may have had a memory lapse, a mere two days after the event?
The interview itself would be even earlier than the publication!

That really would make not just the article; but Arnold himself unreliable.

I really cannot believe you have said that.

But importantly Arnold does refer to the heart being present, and he is also correct about naming the other organs found in the room. So it is not correct to dismiss the full content of the article. Also taking into account errors perhaps made by the interviewer.

It would be important if the article was reliable

It is not important, because the article is unreliable!



The article refers to going in via the window---wrong!

It claims the kidneys were on the table---probably wrong!

Those are major reporting inaccuracies to put it mildly.



I still cannot believe that have just attempted to explain one of those away as a memory lapse some 2 days after the event.



Trevor the fact is that the source, in this particular instances, is unreliable.

There is no way to know what, if any of it is truthful reporting, rather than repeating of rumours and stories in early circulation.

And yes it may be due to the reporter, it probably is.

It is not Arnold who is unreliable, but the article.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

You are using this report are you not?

simple yes or no?

If not please provide the report of Arnold you are using?

No arguments here about memory lapses, primary or secondary sources. This report is clearly demonstrated to be unreliable by the mistakes it includes.

Or are you going to argue Arnold did climb in via the window and the kidneys were on the table?



Steve

Yes I am using this article is that a problem to you ?

I wonder if it had contained a statement saying the heart was missing would you be so quick to dismiss it ? You woulndt you would be ramming it down my throat. But because it goes against your beliefs, and others it is regarded as unreliable

I accept that window part is incorrect, however we know the broken window was an important part of the finding of the body, and he does then say that the door was forced.

What has to be remembered is that I suspect Arnold was speaking from memory,and Bonds observations were being written down at the time and that is where we have the ambiguity with Bonds statement.

But importantly Arnold does refer to the heart being present, and he is also correct about naming the other organs found in the room. So it is not correct to dismiss the full content of the article. Also taking into account errors perhaps made by the interviewer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Did Supt Arnold have an unfortunate split in his trousers ?

Thomas the Rrrrrrrrrrripper!

[Elamarna]

No based on several different witness corroborative statements, two from senior police officers who were at the crime scene. Insp Reid in charge of CID and Supt Arnold in charge of all H division.

Add to those the press reports. As I asked what else is needed for it to be accepted as fact.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

You are using this report are you not?

simple yes or no?

If not please provide the report of Arnold you are using?

No arguments here about memory lapses, primary or secondary sources. This report is clearly demonstrated to be unreliable by the mistakes it includes.

Or are you going to argue Arnold did climb in via the window and the kidneys were on the table?



Steve