|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Debra J. Arif
Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 22
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 1:03 pm: | 
|
Hamilton, Allan McLane. A system of legal medicine / by Allan McLane Hamilton and Lawrence Godkin ; with the collaboration of James F. Babcock ... [et al.]. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. New-York, 1900. 2 vols
I have just been reading the above book, and come across a description of the mutilations of one of the Whitechapel murder victims, although the victim is not named it is undoubtedly refering to the mutilations inflicted upon Mary Jane Kelly, and was used to illustrate the forensic technique of determining sex.
The facial mutilation descriptions seem to be a bit more exaggerated than Dr. Bonds original observations, but there is also reference to the heart being actually taken away from the crimescene and the victim was stated to be naked in this description.
It would seem that the details of Kelly's mutilations and the taking of the heart have been in print since 1900 at least.
>>The thanks of the editor are due to Dr. Hebbert, lately associated with Mr. Bond, the coroner of London, England, who has, in conjunction with Dr. F.A. Harris, presented for the first time in a book of medical jurisprudence the records of the Whitechapel murder cases, and the deductions therefrom, which must in future play a great part in the determination of the identity of the dead body.
New York May 1894<<
>>2.Sex-The distinction of sex where a whole unmutialted corpse is presented for inspection is too obvious to require comment. On the other hand, if the body is mutilated and decomposed, great care is required on the part of the expert,
and still further difficulties are presented when it is a skeleton alone with which he has to deal. Indeed, there may be cases where the whole body has been so badly
mutilated that it is by the preparation of the skeleton alone that an idea of the sex may be formed. Just such a case might have occured in one of the so called Whitechapel murders in London, in the years 1887-89. Here nine
women were murdered and mutilated by an unknown assassin.
In the particular illustrative instance, the woman was murdered in a bedroom. The body was naked when found. The eyebrows, eyelids, ears, nose, lips and chin had been cut off, and the face gashed by numerous knife-cuts.
The breasts had been cut off, and the whole abdominal parietes, together with the external organs of generation had been removed. The skin and much of the muscular tissue, not, however, exposing the bone, had been slashed away from the anterior
aspect of the thighs as far as the knees. The abdominal viscera and pelvic viscera, including bladder, vagina, and uterus with appendages, had been torn from their cavities and in fact there was no sign of sex except the long hair upon the head, and, as is well known, that alone is not positive sign, inasmuch as in some nations the hair is worn long by men. The fact the whole bladder had been removed did away with the help that might have been afforded by the prescence of the prostate gland. In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered around the room, and showed the sex without doubt. But if all the organs and parts had been taken away or the body exposed to the effects of decomposition, a careful preparation of the skeleton would have been imperative to decide that the body was that of a woman.
It might further be stated that in this case, in consequence of the hacking of the fearures, the prescence or absence of a beard could not be stated, and if the hair had been designedly cut off there would have been absolutely no sign by which sex could have been determined.
The hair on the pubes had been removed in this case, and the difference in the growth of the pubic hair tapering up towards the umbilicus in the male, and simply surrounding the organs of generation in the female, could not be availed as an indication of sex.<<
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2024
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 5:01 pm: |
|
Debra
Careful with this Hebbert chap.
He was at the Westminster Hospital and well thought of, but in 1886 he had a very dodgy encounter with our mate, Winslow, in the courts.
The case involved a certain Madame Tafani, who had been sectioned to the Hampstead Lunatic Asylum, under the Lunacy Act by two doctors, one of them Hebbert.
It was a set-up.
But I think it was Winslow who got his nose punched, but it should have been Hebbert.
My impression is that these sort of doctors from the LVP were in exactly the same situation as the ex-coppers of today, if they were somehow involved in a famous case then they wanted to make a fast buck from it. |
Debra J. Arif
Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 24
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 6:10 pm: |
|
AP
I have been reading a lot about this Forbes Winslow guy lately...it's the first time I have encountered Hebbert though.
I am dipping in and out of about ten different books at the moment, most of them met. police memoirs from the early 1900's.
I have just looked up the Tanfani case you mentioned in The Times, but not had a proper chance to read it yet.
I don't think it was the first time Winslow had done something like that though, I think I saw another case of him committing a woman named weldon to an asylum in exchange for cash. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 650
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 11:59 pm: |
|
Hi Debra,
Great find... on one hand we always need to be dubious of second hand reports like this, but it does confirm a lot of things we've only recently rediscovered and negates a few of the more out there recent concepts (like the alleged split femur).
On the heart thing, there was at least one published newspaper article in 1888 stating that the heart was removed from MJK's crime scene, and it actually refers to another published report which some have decided must have been an earlier newspaper piece.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 2:03 am: |
|
This 'great find' was made many years ago and an article on it published in The Criminologist 'Another Look at Mary Kelly's Heart' by S. Gouriet Ryan in the Winter 1998 issue. Dr. Hebbert was Bond's assistant. |
Debra J. Arif
Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 28
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 5:48 pm: |
|
AIP
There is nothing about it on the casebook though...at least,I have tried everything on the search engine, if it is a repeat then I am sorry for bothering!
Hi Dan
You seem to be one person at leat who hasn't come across it!
Debra
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2032
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 6:30 pm: |
|
Debra
just like you I always take the precaution of using the casebook search engine when I think I have found something new. But, err, it doesn't work in that regard.
Half the fun of doing this is to understand search engines, The Times is a right buggar, but can be tamed.
While I have your attention, do you have census records for uncle Charles in 1871?
Thank you for bothering with your original post. |
Debra J. Arif
Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 29
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 6:59 pm: |
|
AP
I have the 1871 record that Robert sent me...I will post it on the Cutbush thread |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 659
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 7:15 pm: |
|
Hi Debra,
I think you'll find that the vast majority of people haven't come across it. AIP has shown himself to have a fairly extensive collection and to know more about the case than most of the published authors.
Most of the "great finds" in this field are just rediscoveries of earlier sources that were highly publicized at the time but that haven't been discussed much since.
For all the importance of S. Gouriet Ryan's research there's next to nothing said about any of it anywhere. His Spring 1997 Criminologist piece (the one that uncovered the fact that a newspaper had printed in 1888 that MJK's heart was taken, as I refer to above) hardly gets any reference anywhere (but at least that one I was familiar with). Some people (including big name authors) still try to say that the heart wasn't removed from the room or claim that the fact that it had been wasn't known to the public until the late 20th century.
The fact that you've posted it here is a first anyway, so don't be discouraged. It deserves a lot more publicity than it has gotten.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 2:18 am: |
|
It was also published in Ripperana No. 24, April 1998 - 'Latest Research on M. J. Kelly' by S. Gouriet Ryan, pages 17-19. It is fully referenced to A System of Legal Medicine edited by Allan McLane Hamiltion, U.S. edition, New York, 1894, pages 61-63, chapter entitled 'Death in its Medico-Legal Aspects'. It has also appeared elsewhere. |
S. Gouriet Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 9:30 pm: |
|
Re: "A System Of Legal Medicine" messages of Debra Arif, A. P. Wolf, Dan Norder and 'AIP' -
As the old saying has it: "Speak of the Devil and he will appear." - I am the S. Gouriet Ryan who wrote the article "Mary Kelly's Heart: A Very 'Curious Item'", which appeared in the Spring 1997 issue of "The Criminologist" (Vol. 21, No.1, pp. 55-62), as well as its follow-up article "Another Look At Mary Kelly's Heart" (Winter, 1998, Vol. 22, No.4, pp. 238-248), in the former of which I argued that pages were missing from the end of Dr. Bond's full report on Kelly (MEPO 3/3153), and that it was her heart which was the organ which her er had abstracted and taken away from the scene, and revealed that this latter information had in fact been reported in two newspapers at the time (thus giving the lie to a crucial claim of the supporters of the alleged "Maybrick Diary" that, apart from a select few, only the er himself could have known that the heart was missing...); and, in the follow-up piece, I revealed the important discovery which I had made in the months following that first article's publication, namely some of this very missing information itself, which Dr. Hebbert had sent to a Dr. Francis A. Harris of New York (formerly Medical Examiner of Suffolk Co. Mass., b.1848, d. 1919) for inclusion in a chapter of the forensic textbook "A System Of Legal Medicine" - a discovery which, at one blow, verified my argument that pages were indeed missing from the end of the report, restored these long-lost details to the body of Ripper knowledge, and proved once and for all that the heart was indeed the organ widely-rumoured to have been taken from Kelly's body by her er. Of these two articles, the most important one, obviously, is the second one, since in the preceding one I had only been able to argue (convincingly, I think, though) that these things must be so; it is rather ironic, therefore, that the newly-resurrected "New Criminologist" journal has chosen to honour the first article by listing it on its "Hall Of Fame" website page, whilst overlooking the (in my opinion) far more significant sequel article. Because there was a backlog of articles submitted to "The Criminologist" at the time (as there often was), "Another Look etc." did not appear in print until more than a year and a half had passed since the initial article's publication, which seems to have led not only to readers and commentators failing to appreciate the linkage between the two, and the significance of the revelations - something which I had feared would be the result, - but also to the second article's very existence being overlooked or ignored thereafter.
I'd like to thank Dan Norder and 'AIP' who pointed out swiftly on this message-board web-page that I had discovered and published these details on Kelly's heart etc. as early as 1997/98, and for making sure that due credit was given for it. I'm very gratified to know that at least some people saw my articles and took note of and appreciated their contents. I think I may say, without sounding too boastful, that the discovery of the Hebbert material in the American forensic textbook (which was serendipitous - the State Library of New South Wales is a most unlikely institution to hold an almost unknown forensic work, their holdings on the subject of medical jurisprudence being sparce) was indeed a "great find", and I entirely agree with Mr. Norder that so important a discovery "deserves a lot more publicity than it has gotten".
As for Debra Arif who could find no mention of it, there is a very brief mention under my nom de plume 'S. Gouriet Ryan' in the third edition of "The Jack The Ripper A To Z", but at the time when the latter was compiled, the first article had either just been published or was yet to be published, I forget which, and the second article was still in the works. (I have a vague memory that I brought the details to Martin Fido's notice in a letter, and that he wrote the entry from that...) It is quite right to assert these articles of mine, and the important information contained in them, "hardly gets any reference anywhere". I was as surprised as anyone, and, I might say, rather disgruntled too, that the publication of this material caused scarcely a ripple at the time. I tried to bring it to the public's attention by sending it to the editor of "Ripperana", Nick Warren, but he merely pooh-poohed one forensic detail and damned the rest with faint praise, or, rather, passed over it in virtual silence; certainly he didn't make much of it. I also wrote to Professor David Canter, the British profiling expert, to point out, as nicely as I could, that the chapter to do with the Ripper case in his book "Geographical Profiling" contains errors of fact, most notably that his comments and conclusions drawn from the missing heart were unfounded, but I have never received any reply, not even an acknowledgement... It seems clear that Mr. Canter had not been told of my revelations vy any of the Ripper'experts' with whom he had consorted, even though one would think that at least one of them should have known of them. The only person either to pick up on or publicly refer to the contents of my articles was the American commenator David Yost. I was therefore very gratified indeed to discover, by chance, the other day, that my articles and the Hebbert material had suddenly and belatedly found an appreciative audience back in May, all this time after those articles' appearance; and, to be honest, relieved that I had got the credit...
|
Erin
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 60
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 2:27 am: |
|
I came upon this through a link from another topic, so you'll have to pardon me for dredging up an old post. I had a few questions for anyone who might be able to answer.
First of all, is the information from Dr. Hebbert contained in this publication that which is thought to be missing from Dr. Bond's report? What is it has led anyone to believe that Dr. Bond's report was incomplete--simply the publication of additional details in the newspapers? Furthermore, when I looked at the entries for Ryan and Stead (alas, there is nothing for Hebbert) in the A-Z I found mention of evidence of Kelly's having been sodomized by her killer. I see nothing in the passage here indicating this. Is this the complete text of Dr. Hebbert's recollections of the Kelly murder, or are there sections missing from his notes as well? Forgive me if it seems that I'm being overly or deliberately obtuse on this matter, I don't have access to the Criminologist and I find this topic to be a very fascinating and promising one indeed.
Many thanks to both Mr. Ryan for discovering this important evidence and to Debra for making Casebook users like myself aware of it.  |
Debra J. Arif
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 187
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 4:20 am: |
|
Hi Erin
Two of the articles by S. Gouriet Ryan can be viewed online here
http://www.newcriminologist.co.uk/author.asp?bio=764363571
You need to register as a member but it's free.
Another Look At Mary Kelly's Heart - Pt. 2: Further Revelations
Published on 08 November 2005 | Author RYAN, S. Gouriet.
Another Look At Mary Kelly's Heart
Published on 30 October 2005 | Author RYAN, S. Gouriet.
*Revised and updated version of the 1998 article
Debra |
s. gouriet ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 1:01 am: |
|
To debra; Thank you for your kindness in spreading the word about the existence of my two articles on the Hebbert Material, the first, a revised and updated version of my 1998 article, including a photo of Dr. Hebbert, the second an all-new article with important revelations which have a strong bearing on the authenticity of the information, as well as hitherto unknown biographical material on Dr. Hebbert. It's very sporting of you. (I know how it is to be 'pipped atbthe post', s to speak...
To Erin: Regarding my entry in the 'Jack the Ripper A To Z', the words used in it were3 not my own, but those of the book's authors (or one of them, anyway), and has led to your confusion. At the time when I let Martin Fido know about the pages missing from the end of Bond's report on Kelly (MEPO 3/3153, ff. 10-18) my article, 'Mary Kelly's Heart; A Very 'Curious' Item', had not yet appeared in the 19907 issue of 'the Criminologist', so I gave him a precis of its contents. He (or they0 rightly stated in the entry under my 'nom de plume' that I wasarguing in that article that the report is missing at least one page, probably more, from its end. The comments in brackets in the entry, however, in reference to Kelly's alleged pregnancy or the allegation that she had been sodomised, are not my own, but, unfortunately, convey the IMPRESSION that they ARE part of the missing information. (It is remarkable that nowhere in the report as extant is there any mention of semen having been found either in or on Kelly's ual organs, or anywhere else...) In fact, in my follow-up article, 'Another look At Mary kelly's Heart', published in 'The Criminologist' in 1998, and now revised and published on-line, I wrote: 'Kelly probably was neither pregnant nor sodomised, despite ing rumours and claims, or Hebbert, I feel, would have mentioned these salient, heinous aspects in his description of the crime. true, he may have been sticking to facts pertaining strictly to the theme of identification, or Harris may have edited his remarks, but there is no mention of a foetus' presence in or absence from the abstracted uterus and surely such a pertinent, potentially identifying, fact would not have been omitted. Hebbert averre3d that only the HEART was missing. Clearly, the uterus could have shown no sign of being, or having recently been, gravid.' All the same, it is quite likely that the forensic facts contained in the material forwarded by Hebbert to the American doctor Francis A. Harris were not ALL the facts which had once been on the pages long-missing from the Bond report. Hebbert may have chosen to send only those facts, or Harris may have chosen to use only those facts out of those that Hebbert had sent him. they certainly PROVE, however, that there were once further pages to the end of the report, probably contained in a section headed 'Comments', with which both Dr. Bond and Dr. Hebbert were in the habit of closing p.m. reports. (See below.) My two on-line articles prove, beyond dispute, that Dr. Hebbert's material is authentic and derives from the missing pages.
The reason why it is definite that pages are missing from the end of the Bond report may be summarised as follows: 1) there is no signature, no credentials, and no date, at the conclusion of the report as extant, which things one was not allowed to omit from a valid p.m. report; 2) there is no statement of the one cause of at the report's conclusion, which was also mandatory; 3) various forensic details are missing from the report which could scarcely have been left out by so eminent and experienced an expert as Dr. Bond, eg. her ual condition and her gynaecological condition.
Further, in my on-line article, 'Another Look At Mary Kelly's Heart - Part II: Further Revelations', I show conclusively: 1) that Dr. Hebbert was present at the examination of Kelly's remains at the scene of the3 crime and at the later examination at the mortuary; 2) that the Bond report is NOT in Bond's handwriting but in HEBBERT'S - i.e. that Bond had dictated his findings to his colleague, who therefore was perfe3ctly placed to know what were the true forensic facts in the Kelly case, and had no need to invent them (unlike others); 3) that Hebbert is known to have had his own notes on the cases on which he collaborated with his superior, Bond, and may well have even had his own copy of the report on Kelly. And 4) that both Bond and Hebbert routinely ended their reports with a 'Comments' section, in keeping with the contemporary professional injunction that the conclusions drawn from the facts should be kept separate from the body of the report itself whichthose facts. As I say, I believe that this 'Comments' section was on the now-missing pages and that they were in fact detached by Ch. Insp. Swanson himself, for the reason that they were far more useful to the police than wading through great masses of detail on organ size, weight, condition etc., and that they never got put back with the report (perhaps deliberately, perhaps due to an oversight) when Swanson sent the report to be filed at the Met. Police Registry on the 23rd April 1889. (This is shown by the fact that the 'last' page of the report as extant (folio 18) bears that very date stamped on its otherwise blank reverse, as well as on the inside front of the file cover - put there by either the Registrar or his clerk.) I further contend that Dr. Bond probably referre3d to 6the mode of abstracting the heart in that 'Comments' section, in describing the skill or otherwise of Kelly's er, and that his seemingly bald remark 'Heart Absent' only seems cryptic or ambiguous to us because the further information in the 'Comments' section is missing. Thus, I believe that the sum of all the information contained in my various articles on the subje3ct put entirely beyond dispute my firm conviction that pages are indeed missing from the end of Bond's report on Kelly as extant, as anyone who cares to read the two on-line articles will undoubtedly be able to see for themselves.
Those who wish to know just what sort of forensic information might have appeared in the missing pages should examine the reports by Bond on 3 of the c4 victims of the Thames Torso er. the 4th one was made by Hebbert himself. They all have a 'Comments' section at the end. All but the 4th report - on the Pinchin street Torso - are missing from the National archives, but Hebbert, with bond's approval, sent copies of all 4 reports to Dr. Harris for inclusion in the textbook 'A System Of Legal Medecine' and they can therefore be found therein. Thus, Dr. hebbert was, all unknowingly, responsible for the 3 now-missing reports on the Torso victims having been handed down to posterity as well... I might add that I once wrote 2 lengthy articles on the Hebbert Information on the Thames torso er's victims, entitled 'Various Matters Forensic: the 'Thames Torso mysteries' - PARTS i AND ii, as well as a third one in which I make a very cogent case against a particular (unsuspected) butcher who at the very least would have been a 'Person Of Interest' if not a 'prime suspect' to the police, if they had known at the time what I have myself uncovered about him. these articles have never been submitted for publication because they are way beyond the usual 4000-word limit (due to the large amount of 'new' material) and because I have long had a project in mind of publishing my own true-crime journal,. entitled 'Studies In Black', as an 'occasional papers' type of journal, which I still hope to do at sometime in the future.... |
Stephen Thomas
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 3:28 pm: |
|
Debra,
I suppose that this is now a dead thread that even your good self will never again lay eyes upon. However if you do ever clap your eyes upon it again I would like to say that I for one appreciated your work here. The description of the murder scene here is most entertaining compared with that of Dr. Bond. I had never seen it before and thanks for putting it here. And thanks to the other chap with the false name who came up with this first. You are obviously an all round good fellow. I haven't been following the 'Was the heart missing?' business as it has to do with that 'Diary' nonsense to which I pay no attention. However I will say that the passage quoted does not actually say that the heart was missing but only that it was not found outside of the body like the other organs mentioned. I would understand the relevant sentence to mean that the heart was still in the body. Other evidence might prove that the heart was absent but that particular sentence does not in any way imply that the heart was taken from the body or indeed from the crime scene. |
Debra J. Arif
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 200
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
s. gouriet ryan
I found the articles excellent, they deserve much more recognition than they seem to have got.
I found the Hebbert information whilst looking at the torso murders too.
I don't set out to do 'firsts', so on that score it doesn't make any difference to me. I just like to pass on information that I have read that other's might not have seen before, and could find useful.
I hope when your material on the torso murders is eventually published that it will get a lot more publicity this time, I hope you will let us know here when you get them published.
Stephen
Thanks for the comments, I think if you read the articles I put in the link you will see how the line fits, basically we should be looking at Hebberts and Dr Bonds notes as part of the same report. Bond said the heart was absent and Hebbert said the all the organs except the heart were found scattered around the room, therefore taken together as one report I see it as the heart was absent from the body and was not found in the room along with the rest of the organs.
Debra |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5321
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 2:35 pm: |
|
Yes indeed, this was a very good discovery and re-discovery by Mr Ryan and Debra.
Robert |
Stephen Gouriet Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 12:34 am: |
|
To Debra: Thank you for the kind words. The articles seem to have been somewhat overlooked back in 1997 and 1998 due to the limited circulation of the professional journal 'The Criminologist' which was only available to those in the medico-legal professions and, indirectly, to those who could access the issues at law libraries etc. As for your very laudable attitude concerning not having any interest yourself in being the first to discover long-lost information, I admire it, but, for myself, the fact that my discoveries, and my articles, were largely ignored for so long by the inner circle of Ripper experts makes me unable to resist wanting to get some recognition for them now, to be honest. By the way, I notice that you have also found information on the early Thames Torso in 1873, which I found years ago and which figures in my article 'Various Matters Forensic: the Thames Torso - Part I', written back in 2000, along with two other articles on the same subject, but which were never submitted for publication because they are so long and I was going to publish them myself in my own journal. All three are likely to appear in print in 2006 and I shall be happy to apprise you all of their publication when, and if, it comes to pass.
To Stephen Thomas; I'm afraid I cannot agree with your interpretation of the meaning of the sentence in the Hebbert text which refers to Kelly's heart. The clear implication of that sentence is that all the organs were accounted for by being found in various parts of the room - all, that is, EXCEPT THE HEART which was found to be entirely missing. This led the experts to go back to the scene and sift through the ashes of the fire in the grate in Kelly's room, but it is obvious that no sign of the heart being burnt there could be found - and it WOULD undoubtedly have left substantial traces. (Please don't anyone try and tell me that a human heart, which is largely muscle, could be turned to ashes unidentifiable from other ashes, no matter how hot the fire. Dr. Bond was an acknowledged forensic expert of huge experience, not a fool.)
That the heart was entirely missing from the room is proven irrefutably by the combined evidence of the Bond report as extant (more on the method of removal of the heart might well have appeared in the missing pages from the end), bythe 'Observer' piece of Nov. 18 and the 'published report' which it cited, and by the evidence of the material provided to the forensic textbook by Dr. Hebbert, who was himself present at the scene of the crime examination and at the later p.m. examination at the mortuary, and certainly had his own notes on the case to draw on, if not his own copy of the report. There is, therefore, absolutely no doubt that the heart had been taken from the scene of the crime by Kelly's er, not just cut out.
To Robert: I thank you for your kind words, as well... |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 909
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 5:15 pm: |
|
This all is wonderful. I am waiting for my registration to be finalized so I can read all three articles on the Criminologist website.
I can confirm one of Mr. Ryan's comments. I used to be an elementary school teacher but I am back in college retraining to become a Medical Records Technician. We have had it drilled into us again and again that a Doctor must sign everything he writes, orders, notes, prescriptions, everything. I have already done one practicum in the medical records department of a local hospital. Much of my duties comprised going through patient charts making sure everything was signed and if it wasnt you had to flag it and notify the doc, and he had to come down to the records office and sign. There are legal ramifications if that signature is not there. It would be unthinkable for Dr. Bond to write a detailed report on a high profile case like that and not sign it. Its just not done. It is normal for hospitals to send out letters every month to those Doctors who have not signed documents in patient's charts. If the letters are ignored the doctor loses his privileges at that hospital. Thats how serious it is. |
Debra J. Arif
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 210
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 6:49 pm: |
|
Hi Diana
Did you have to pay to access 3 of the articles?...I could only get 2 of them when I registered....any info on getting the third greatfully accepted.
Stephen G.R.
I can understand what you are saying about recognition after all the hard work and reaearch you put into it. I think AP put me onto the Thames torso of 1873 as reported in The Times, he found it much earlier on and posted the details on the board , but it went unnoticed for several weeks.
Debra |
Stephen Gouriet Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 6:59 pm: |
|
For some reason the internet kiosk machine that I used for my previous message kept omitting the word 'murder' or 'murderer'(!), for which I apologise... I tried everything to make it work, but it refused to cooperate... |
Intrigued
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Who belongs to the 'inner circle of Ripper experts'? - what an intriguing appellation and concept. Sounds a bit like Mr. Radka's 'cabal.' |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 911
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 4:22 pm: |
|
Debra, My registration on the Criminologist website was free. I got the confirmation email and havent had time yet to follow up. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
