Heartless?

[Trevor Marriott]

Seriously?

Based on this report Jon?


Steve

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Steve, Abby ....... ;-)

Took you literally, silly me.

steve

[Abby Normal]

Steve, Abby ....... ;-)

got it.lol

[Jon Guy]

huh?

Seriously?
Based on this report Jon?

Steve, Abby ....... ;-)

[Abby Normal]

None, I think you`ve finally put the Kelly`s heart issue to bed, Trevor.

huh?

"...and the heart absent."

[Elamarna]

None, I think you`ve finally put the Kelly`s heart issue to bed, Trevor.

Seriously?

Based on this report Jon?


Steve

[Jon Guy]

The article was LLoyds weekly Nov 11th

The point being, is that it is statement from another police officer who was at the crime scene adding even more corroboration to the fact that the heart was not taken away.

How much more evidence is need to convince people ?

None, I think you`ve finally put the Kelly`s heart issue to bed, Trevor.

[Elamarna]

The article was LLoyds weekly Nov 11th

The point being, is that it is statement from another police officer who was at the crime scene adding even more corroboration to the fact that the heart was not taken away.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

Just because he was there it does not mean the report is accurate.

It is certainly wrong on 1 point- he did not, as far as we know, enter via the window.

And probably wrong on a 2nd- Bond states the kidneys were under her head not on the table.

Forget the heart issue for one moment, several details in this report are wrong, the report cannot be said to have a high level of reliability.


You are really selling yourself a Lemon to attempt use this report as support, for any theory at all.




steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Did Supt Arnold have an unfortunate split in his trousers ?

The article was LLoyds weekly Nov 11th

The point being, is that it is statement from another police officer who was at the crime scene adding even more corroboration to the fact that the heart was not taken away.

How much more evidence is need to convince people ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

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

Did Supt Arnold have an unfortunate split in his trousers ?

[Elamarna]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk[/QUOTE]



Trevor and Jon,


Apart form the discrepancy mentioned by Jon the major issue with this report is that it also claims:

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


which appears to be inaccurate to say the least.



Steve

[Jon Guy]

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

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

Indeed, Arnold says it was on the table with her kidneys.
Whereas, Dr Bond`s post mortem notes state that the kidneys were under head.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DRoy]

Jon,

I couldn't agree more with what you've said. Sure makes discussions more fun and interesting though doing it the hard way!

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

Hunter,

He meant just what he said. The heart was absent.

I agree, he meant exactly what he said. In layman terms...the sack was open and the heart wasn't in it.

Whether Bond gave a description of the condition of the various organs or not, he accounted for their whereabouts after they were removed from their original location.

It was my intent when commenting on the condition of the removed parts to show that he concentrated on what he felt mattered...the condition of the body, not its parts. That's why it seems it would be easy for him to miss stating where the heart was found.

Examples: He comments on the condition of both lungs because they were still in the body. He finds the time to mention a one inch "superficial incision" on the thumb. There are more words regarding that incision than any of the removed organs including the heart!!! Doesn't that seem odd? Not so if the removed parts were of less importance to the doctor.

Why is it that you only mention the organs? What about the other body parts? If it was his goal to tell us where all of the removed body parts ended up then he missed telling us where the partly removed nose, cheeks, eyebrows and ears were found. Since he has added an "s" to those parts...I count that as 7 partially missing parts not including the heart. But, I guess if you are going to pick your own variables in what to include or not then you would be correct...the heart is the only organ that he doesn't give its whereabouts.

DRoy