Heartless?

[The Grave Maurice]

Sorry if I have missed the relevant thread.

I have always thought that MJK's heart was removed from, or destroyed on, the scene of her murder. However, I'm reading a new book (which I'll talk about soon on the appropriate thread) that quotes The Daily News and The Times of November 10 and 12 as saying that all her body parts were accounted for during the postmortem exam. (I realise that The Times of the period isn't always the most reliable of sources for our topic.)

I know about Bond's report that states "the pericardium was open below and the heart absent", but the book's author maintains that Bond's statement doesn't mean that the heart was not somewhere in the room.

I know I've read theories that MJK's heart was taken away or even, perhaps, boiled in the spoutless kettle. So, my question is: are we certain that MJK's heart was actually missing?

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi GM.

I’m going to guess that the book you’re reading is Robert A. Snow’s In Pursuit of Jack the Ripper. I very much enjoyed this book but there were some things, like Snow stating that Kelly’s heart was not missing, that I disagreed with. The short answer, to my mind, is that yes, Kelly’s heart does appear to have been missing.

There were newspaper reports, the Daily Telegraph 13 November for example, which did actually state that some “bodily organ” was missing while the Observer, 18 November, stated flat out that the killer “cut the woman’s heart out and carried it away.”

Also, in Dr. Allan McLane Hamilton and Lawrence Godkin’s 1894 book, A System of Legal Medicine, Dr. Francis A. Harris wrote a section titled Death in its Medico-Legal Aspects in which was a segment titled Identity of the Dead Body. This segment was written with the aid of Dr. Charles A. Hebbert, Dr. Thomas Bond’s assistant, and uses the murder of Mary Kelly as an example. Here it is stated “In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered about the room…”

Finally we have Dr. Bond’s own report in which, as you posted, he states “the pericardium was open below and the heart absent.” It has been pointed out that this statement doesn’t necessarily mean that the heart was taken away and was missing but beyond this it is what Dr. Bond doesn’t say that is important.

Nowhere in Bond’s notes of the description of the body in situ does he state where the heart was found in the room, although he tells us where everything else was found. Nowhere in Bond’s autopsy notes does he mention the condition of the heart, which he would have routinely done as part of the post mortem, had it been found. The likelihood is, therefore, that Kelly’s heart was missing and taken away.

Wolf.

[The Grave Maurice]

As usual, an excellent post, Wolf. Thanks. And you're right, it is Snow's book that I'm reading.

[Wickerman]

...Nowhere in Bond’s notes of the description of the body in situ does he state where the heart was found in the room, although he tells us where everything else was found. Nowhere in Bond’s autopsy notes does he mention the condition of the heart, which he would have routinely done as part of the post mortem, had it been found. The likelihood is, therefore, that Kelly’s heart was missing and taken away.

Except that when we read Bond's summary (because that is all it was), we can see that he was writing about the condition of the body in-situ, in room 13, before the body was moved.
The official, and I expect more extensive, post-mortem was the responsibility of Dr Philips. It is within that missing document the true answers will lie.
All we can determine was that Bond could not find the heart in room 13, but as body parts (pieces of flesh & organs?) were carried from the scene in pails to the mortuary the possibility still exists that all was recovered.
Maybe, ...but maybe not.

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

Nowhere in Bond’s notes of the description of the body in situ does he state where the heart was found in the room, although he tells us where everything else was found. Nowhere in Bond’s autopsy notes does he mention the condition of the heart, which he would have routinely done as part of the post mortem, had it been found. The likelihood is, therefore, that Kelly’s heart was missing and taken away.

Wolf.

Well, the thing is, there is quite a bit that Bond's report leaves out, some of which might be darned useful to know. We know the uterus was under her head. Did that include the fallopian tubes and ovaries? Was the vagina intact, was it removed separately, was it removed with the uterus? Where is her bladder? Or her gall bladder? Were there injuries to the spine through the thoracic and abdominal cavities? Was she hit on the head? Did they ever find the torn off lobe of the lung?

Now I completely understand that at a scene like this, things get lost. Not physically, although there is a chance of that too (Pails? Really? Ugh). I mean you can be staring at a bladder and just not see it for the rest of the carnage. So I understand why his report is less that absolutely thorough. It's still a good report, all things taken into account.

Now Bond's apprentice said that the heart was not found "strewn across the room" like the other organs. This can be true, with them still finding the heart. It could have rolled under the bed, it could have been carved up and shoved down her throat or other places. It could have been wrapped in her chemise. There are any number of ways they could have gone over her body in the morgue and said "oh there it is". Or it could have been taken away by the killer.

But if the only people stating plainly and unequivocally that the heart was taken by the killer is the press, that's not good enough. I just don't trust the people who gave us Spring-Heeled Jack to be accurate, much less to choose accuracy over sensationalism. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm just saying newspaper screamers do not evidence make.

[DRoy]

Here is an apparant version of what Dr. Gabe saw. It is from The Alienist and Neurologist.

Interesting to note that he is not quoted in this article but does seem to jive with similar comments he apparantly gave to reporters. Also interesting that the heart is said to have been there but placed beside the body. However, he notes that other parts were missing.

Thanks
DRoy

[lynn cates]

breast

Hello Roy. Thanks for posting this.

One report had a breast under her head.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Here is an apparant version of what Dr. Gabe saw. It is from The Alienist and Neurologist.

Interesting to note that he is not quoted in this article but does seem to jive with similar comments he apparantly gave to reporters. Also interesting that the heart is said to have been there but placed beside the body. However, he notes that other parts were missing.

Thanks
DRoy

I think he also has organs in different places than described by Bond. As I recall, Bond has one breast under the head and the liver at her feet, for example.

[DRoy]

Hello Roy. Thanks for posting this.

One report had a breast under her head.

Cheers.
LC

Thanks Lynn,

Since it isn't an actual quote I was a little reluctant to post it.

If he did in fact say the heart was there, you'd assume it was because he was able to specifically (excuse the pun) pick out the heart.

Since Dr. Gabe pretty much vanished from Ripper lore after all his talking to reporters, he could very well have added to his story or forgotten the true details.

Thanks
DRoy

[DRoy]

Errata,

I don't know when the actual article was written so I can imagine Dr. Gabe could have been mistaken in the details. Being mistaken about where a certain body part was placed seems likely...at least more likely than including a heart when there wasn't one there at all.

Don't get me wrong...I'm playing devil's advocate in the spirit of discussion only. I don't have an opinion on the matter, but I found this article interesting.

[Wickerman]

There might be good cause for considering this "missing heart" theory.

We know the post-mortem was held at the mortuary and began very early Saturday morning:

"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."
The Times, 12 Nov.

"The examination was most minutely made, and lasted upwards of 2 ½ hours after which the mutilated portions were sewn to the body,.."

As Bond's report, dated this same day, the 10th Nov (Sat.) indicates, the heart was absent and not otherwise mentioned as elsewhere in the room.



It appears the doctors had cause to return to Millers Court sometime later in the day (after the post-mortem?).

"A somewhat important investigation was made on Saturday in the room in Miller's court....... Dr. Phillips and Dr. Macdonald, M.P., the coroner for the district, visited Miller's court, and after the refuse had been passed through a sieve it was subjected to the closest scrutiny by the medical gentlemen. Nothing, however, was found at the examination which is likely to afford any assistance or clue to the police."
The Daily News, 12 Nov.

If the Daily News report is accurate, and they did indeed have cause to return to Millers Court to sift the ashes, then this was after the long post-mortem, or before it was concluded, and therefore would suggest something of a medical nature was indeed missing from the body. Why else would doctors be sifting the ashes as opposed to policemen?
Whatever they were looking for must have been anatomical in nature.

Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

I wasn't aware it was merely a theory Jon...I thought it was a definitely ascertainable fact!

Cheers!

Dave

[Dave O]

Hi Jon,

If it's helpful, I have Macdonald holding 4 inquests in Hackney and Bethnal Green on Saturday, Nov 10. The first was scheduled to begin at 10.15 am. I think the very earliest he would have wrapped up the last one was 12 or 12.30, so unless he and Phillips went to 13 Miller's Court very early, I think you're right that they're sifting ashes in the afternoon.

Cheers,
Dave

[Abby Normal]

Hi GM.

I’m going to guess that the book you’re reading is Robert A. Snow’s In Pursuit of Jack the Ripper. I very much enjoyed this book but there were some things, like Snow stating that Kelly’s heart was not missing, that I disagreed with. The short answer, to my mind, is that yes, Kelly’s heart does appear to have been missing.

There were newspaper reports, the Daily Telegraph 13 November for example, which did actually state that some “bodily organ” was missing while the Observer, 18 November, stated flat out that the killer “cut the woman’s heart out and carried it away.”

Also, in Dr. Allan McLane Hamilton and Lawrence Godkin’s 1894 book, A System of Legal Medicine, Dr. Francis A. Harris wrote a section titled Death in its Medico-Legal Aspects in which was a segment titled Identity of the Dead Body. This segment was written with the aid of Dr. Charles A. Hebbert, Dr. Thomas Bond’s assistant, and uses the murder of Mary Kelly as an example. Here it is stated “In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered about the room…”

Finally we have Dr. Bond’s own report in which, as you posted, he states “the pericardium was open below and the heart absent.” It has been pointed out that this statement doesn’t necessarily mean that the heart was taken away and was missing but beyond this it is what Dr. Bond doesn’t say that is important.

Nowhere in Bond’s notes of the description of the body in situ does he state where the heart was found in the room, although he tells us where everything else was found. Nowhere in Bond’s autopsy notes does he mention the condition of the heart, which he would have routinely done as part of the post mortem, had it been found. The likelihood is, therefore, that Kelly’s heart was missing and taken away.

Wolf.

And with what we know about mutilating, trophy taking serial killers, probably masturbated with and/or eaten.

[DRoy]

What of Dr. Gabe saying the heart was there? We know he was at the scene.

Should there not be some clout to him identifying the heart and saying it was present? Surely we can assume this doctor is capable of identifying a heart

DRoy