Heartless?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jon,



It is the January 1889 edition and it is a book.



It could be read that way but I think it sounds like the rest of the information we have about the heart...it could be interpreted different ways.



I'm still not sold one way or the other. Perhaps the police were trying to hold back evidence or give out faulty evidence in hopes of bringing the murderer out. I remember reading something about that.

(In trying to find more info last night on this topic, I found that Archaic had already posted this article previously. Credit to Archaic and apology to Casebook)

DRoy

Can we stop suggesting all the time the police were holding things back, its cropped up in another thread. Its wearing thin now !

They held nothing back with regards to Chapman Eddowes regarding the missing organs.

The only thing they were probably holding back is a statement saying "we havent a clue"

[Trevor Marriott]

Who removed all of the various organs, which included the uterus and the kidneys, and placed them in various positions around the body? Clearly this killer showed a propensity for removing organs, whether he took any with him or not.

...Or is this very basic fact too difficult to contemplate?

No but it shows that your argument that the killer removed the organs from Chapman and Eddowes does not stand up.

Firstly the doctors never sugested that whoever removed the organs from Kelly showed any medical knowledge in how they were cut out.

Secondly by the fact that the killer didnt take away any organs from Kelly despite taking them all out and in fact could have taken them all away with him, adds much weight to suggesting that the organs were not removed by the killer from Chapman and Eddowes. If of course the kiler of Kelly was the same killer of Chapman and Eddowes.

Or maybe you want to suggest that he was disturbed before he had time to pack them in his lunch box, Thats a good old chestnut to throw in !

I wonder where that has been used before.

[DRoy]

Hi Errata,

I am curious as to why the papers were under the impression that it had been found. Was it an early attempt to try and hold some evidence back to weed out the crazies? Did somebody attached to the case try to make the public feel better and so lied to the papers about the heart being found? Did they actually find the heart?

I agree. We know they held info back but what about dis-information?

Warren is quoted just after resigning that they were following up on clues and leads but that they were not going to share any of that with the public. This of course just after the Kelly murder. It would be hard to find proof of them providing dis-information though.

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

Not to be ghoulish, but I can think of any number of ways that the heart was there on the scene, but didn't make it to Dr. Bond. Starting with organs be loaded into and transported by buckets. It's possible it fell out of a bucket and a dog ran off with it.

I suspect the police constables provided the buckets and the organs were placed in each bucket by the doctors, each organ being noted simply because they are removing evidence from a crime scene.
Therefore the organ is noted as missing before anything left the room, which is consistent with Dr. Bond's report.

However, because Bond was also present at the Saturday morning post-mortem, which concluded by about 10:00 am, and Dr. Bond most likely wrote his report from home, consulting notes made at the post-mortem, as they do, it should be pretty clear that the heart was still not present by the time he wrote his autopsy report later that day.
Which also explains why Phillips & Macdonald felt the need to return to Millers Court in the afternoon?, to sift the ashes.

Something anatomical was missing.

Regards, Jon S.

[DRoy]

Hi Jon,

Do you actually have a date for that press cutting?

It is the January 1889 edition and it is a book.

The article doesn't actually say the heart was found, instead the sentence continues by suggesting "these organs", which might only refer to "the stomach, entrail & liver", were placed beside the body.
A simple oversight by the reporter could explain the inconsistency.

It could be read that way but I think it sounds like the rest of the information we have about the heart...it could be interpreted different ways.

As is often the case, no proof either way, but by the preponderance of the evidence it appears the heart was never found.

I'm still not sold one way or the other. Perhaps the police were trying to hold back evidence or give out faulty evidence in hopes of bringing the murderer out. I remember reading something about that.

(In trying to find more info last night on this topic, I found that Archaic had already posted this article previously. Credit to Archaic and apology to Casebook)

DRoy

[Errata]

Not to be ghoulish, but I can think of any number of ways that the heart was there on the scene, but didn't make it to Dr. Bond. Starting with organs be loaded into and transported by buckets. It's possible it fell out of a bucket and a dog ran off with it. I don't know how likely it is, but it's possible. It's also possible that it didn't make it to Dr. Bond by the time of the report. If it rolled under the bed, for example.

I am curious as to why the papers were under the impression that it had been found. Was it an early attempt to try and hold some evidence back to weed out the crazies? Did somebody attached to the case try to make the public feel better and so lied to the papers about the heart being found? Did they actually find the heart?

It's kind of important. Taking the uterus is clearly a fetish. Taking a kidney points to possible cannibalism. Taking a heart is personal. It doesn't really correlate with a uterus in terms of fetish, and it makes for lousy eating. If the killer took the heart, that means something. If he didn't that means something else. It's too symbolic an organ to shrug off it's disappearance.

[Hunter]

Sorry to dissapoint the organ removal theorists.

Who removed all of the various organs, which included the uterus and the kidneys, and placed them in various positions around the body? Clearly this killer showed a propensity for removing organs, whether he took any with him or not.

...Or is this very basic fact too difficult to contemplate?

[Wickerman]

I'd hope both could but they can't both be right!

...Unless the heart goes missing between the viewing and the post-mortem exam...but I'm not going there

Cheers
DRoy

DRoy.
Do you actually have a date for that press cutting?

There is a minor detail I think I should draw your attention to.
The heart is only mentioned as "removed along with the stomach, entrails & liver".

The article doesn't actually say the heart was found, instead the sentence continues by suggesting "these organs", which might only refer to "the stomach, entrail & liver", were placed beside the body.
A simple oversight by the reporter could explain the inconsistency.

Whereas Dr. Bond makes specific reference to the heart. His observations were made at Millers Court, and he was present for the post-mortem the following morning so if the heart had been located in the mean time then he would hardly have left the issue open as he did in his autopsy report written on the same day (Sat.) as the post-mortem.
As is often the case, no proof either way, but by the preponderance of the evidence it appears the heart was never found.

It would appear the heart was there ! Sorry to dissapoint the organ removal theorists

Thats ok Trevor, you keep digging, you'll get there in the end...



Regards, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

Assessing the Vital Organs

I'm not sure that The Echo's report is relevant. Isn't "the organ hitherto taken away" likely to be a reference to the uteri taken from both Chapman & Eddowes?

The two articles from The Times seem pretty conclusive but, as always, we are reliant on the journalist's faith in his source which may, or may not, be justified.

I think an earlier poster made a valid point, inasmuch as, if the heart had been found, we would expect to find some comment as to the presence, or absence, of signs of cardio-vascular disease.

This is from the post mortem report into the death of Nelson, who died of a wound to the left pulmonary artery from a musket ball, and effectively drowned in his own blood:
'The heart was small and dense in its structure; its valves, pericardium, and large vessels were sound, and firm in their structure.The lungs were sound, and free from adhesions. The liver was small, and in its colour natural, firm in its texture, and every way free from the smallest appearance of disorganization. The stomach, as well as the spleen and other abdominal contents, was alike free from the traces of disease.'

Nelson's death was as a result of a gunshot wound, yet it is clear that good practise, as early as 1805, required that the condition of the vital organs be documented. We can't know with certainty at this remove but I think, on the balance of probabilities, as its condition is not noted in the case of MJK, that the heart was absent.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

It would appear the heart was there ! Sorry to dissapoint the organ removal theorists

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.

[DRoy]

And Dr. Bond couldn't?

I'd hope both could but they can't both be right!

...Unless the heart goes missing between the viewing and the post-mortem exam...but I'm not going there

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

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

Alas Dave, that which remains unproven will forever be but a theory.

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.

Once again Dave, thankyou so much.

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

And Dr. Bond couldn't?

Regards, Jon S.

[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

[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.

[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