Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ripperologist 147 December Mary Kelly

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ripperologist 147 December Mary Kelly

    I have just read the article by Nick Connell in the current issue of Ripperolgist on Det Insp Reid and in particular the article he writes on Insp Reid and his recollections of the WM.

    For those who may not know I have always vehemently postulated that the heart was not removed from Kellys room citing a number of different newspaper articles of the day that support my belief.

    In Nicks article Reid states that no organs were found missing from the room and I quote from the article

    "I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete"

    Now Nick goes onto say that Reid has got this wrong along with other discrepancies he highlights. Now surely something like an organ removal from a victim in an horrific murder case he was involved in would be something that would remain firmly in his mind. But no Reid says there was no removal and that all parts were accounted for

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

  • #2
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    I have just read the article by Nick Connell in the current issue of Ripperolgist on Det Insp Reid and in particular the article he writes on Insp Reid and his recollections of the WM.

    For those who may not know I have always vehemently postulated that the heart was not removed from Kellys room citing a number of different newspaper articles of the day that support my belief.

    In Nicks article Reid states that no organs were found missing from the room and I quote from the article

    "I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete"

    Now Nick goes onto say that Reid has got this wrong along with other discrepancies he highlights. Now surely something like an organ removal from a victim in an horrific murder case he was involved in would be something that would remain firmly in his mind. But no Reid says there was no removal and that all parts were accounted for

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Hi Trevor

    As Nick Connell writes, Inspector Reid gets a lot of things wrong about the murders, including saying, incredibly, that the Mitre Square murder took place "in September 1889 or 90."

    No organs removed?

    Trevor, are you really saying with a straight face that a kidney was not removed from Catherine Eddowes?

    Best regards

    Chris
    Christopher T. George, Lyricist & Co-Author, "Jack the Musical"
    https://www.facebook.com/JackTheMusical/ Hear sample song at https://tinyurl.com/y8h4envx.

    Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conferences, April 2016 and 2018.
    Hear RipperCon 2016 & 2018 talks at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Chris G. View Post
      Hi Trevor

      As Nick Connell writes, Inspector Reid gets a lot of things wrong about the murders, including saying, incredibly, that the Mitre Square murder took place "in September 1889 or 90."

      No organs removed?

      Trevor, are you really saying with a straight face that a kidney was not removed from Catherine Eddowes?

      Best regards

      Chris
      I am only referring to The Kelly murder ! and I have mentioned what Nick says. If you are going to cherry pick the bits that suit an argument and those that dont there is no hope for you. Kellys heart was not missing

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
        I am only referring to The Kelly murder ! and I have mentioned what Nick says. If you are going to cherry pick the bits that suit an argument and those that dont there is no hope for you. Kellys heart was not missing

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Sorry I thought you were supporting Reid's statement that "In every instance the body was complete."

        Chris
        Christopher T. George, Lyricist & Co-Author, "Jack the Musical"
        https://www.facebook.com/JackTheMusical/ Hear sample song at https://tinyurl.com/y8h4envx.

        Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conferences, April 2016 and 2018.
        Hear RipperCon 2016 & 2018 talks at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Chris G. View Post
          Sorry I thought you were supporting Reid's statement that "In every instance the body was complete."

          Chris
          Thats ok Chris, it is still the season of goodwill to all men, even to me

          He does say that all of Kellys body was complete. I guess he means all parts later accounted for

          Happy New year to you

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • #6
            Happy New Year to you, Trevor.
            Christopher T. George, Lyricist & Co-Author, "Jack the Musical"
            https://www.facebook.com/JackTheMusical/ Hear sample song at https://tinyurl.com/y8h4envx.

            Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conferences, April 2016 and 2018.
            Hear RipperCon 2016 & 2018 talks at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/.

            Comment


            • #7
              Trevor,
              In 1903 Reid wrote several letters to the Morning Advertiser in which he displayed surprising ignorance about the Ripper crimes, in particular denying that the mutilations were more than some knife slashes and that any organs had been removed.

              Balance that against the the article by Francis A. Harris, 'Death in its Medico‑Legal Aspects' (in Hamilton, Allen McLane et al, A System of Legal Medicine. New York: E.B. Treat, 1894) which draws upon information provided by Dr Bond or Dr Hebbert stating that ‘all the organs, except the heart were found scattered about the room’, indicating that the statement that the heart was missing meant that it was absent from the room.

              I'm afraid Reid reveals himself to be a very unreliable source and I certainly wouldn't be inclined to use him to counter the evidence of the doctors who were there and examined the body.

              Comment


              • #8
                Thanks for that, Paul.

                Trevor...

                No offense...but when you state :

                For those who may not know I have always vehemently postulated that the heart was not removed from Kellys room citing a number of different newspaper articles of the day that support my belief.

                First of all, why would a newspaper mention that her heart was not missing in the first place if all the other parts were there ?

                On top of that, relying on what a reporter heard ( when ? from who ? ) about the condition of the room and depending on that newspaper to be as much of an authoritative source as an on-site doctor is what newbies do, don't they ?
                To Join JTR Forums :
                Contact [email protected]

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Paul View Post
                  Trevor,
                  In 1903 Reid wrote several letters to the Morning Advertiser in which he displayed surprising ignorance about the Ripper crimes, in particular denying that the mutilations were more than some knife slashes and that any organs had been removed.

                  Balance that against the the article by Francis A. Harris, 'Death in its Medico‑Legal Aspects' (in Hamilton, Allen McLane et al, A System of Legal Medicine. New York: E.B. Treat, 1894) which draws upon information provided by Dr Bond or Dr Hebbert stating that ‘all the organs, except the heart were found scattered about the room’, indicating that the statement that the heart was missing meant that it was absent from the room.

                  I'm afraid Reid reveals himself to be a very unreliable source and I certainly wouldn't be inclined to use him to counter the evidence of the doctors who were there and examined the body.
                  Paul
                  Yes some of what is written in the article proves him to be just that.

                  But what he says is corroborated by a number of newspaper articles published "at the time of the murder" or vice versa which ever way you choose to look at it, all of which state all the body part were accounted for.

                  Macnaghten has proved to be an even more unreliable source but look at how many still swear by the MM.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
                    Thanks for that, Paul.

                    Trevor...

                    No offense...but when you state :

                    For those who may not know I have always vehemently postulated that the heart was not removed from Kellys room citing a number of different newspaper articles of the day that support my belief.

                    First of all, why would a newspaper mention that her heart was not missing in the first place if all the other parts were there ?

                    On top of that, relying on what a reporter heard ( when ? from who ? ) about the condition of the room and depending on that newspaper to be as much of an authoritative source as an on-site doctor is what newbies do, don't they ?
                    Howard
                    The newspapers stated that all the body parts were accounted for. Now it is accepted that newspaper articles cannot be totally relied upon. But in this case several different ones all carry similar accounts stating nothing was missing from the room.

                    Now for additional corroboration we have one of the senior police officers involved in the investigation stating the same. Now they cant all be wrong can they?

                    How can such a senior police officer get something as important as this fact wrong when directly involved in the case?

                    Now I know this is hard for some to accept, but facts such as these cannot be dismissed lightly just because it goes against what has previously been accepted.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Trevor:

                      I'd still go with what Bond or Hebbert stated. They, not Inspector Reid, were on the spot. That's not a slight at Inspector Reid at all.

                      When you say that the newspapers mentioned all of her organs/parts were there ( at least in the room )...who did they get that information from ?
                      To Join JTR Forums :
                      Contact [email protected]

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I ought to know this by now....but I can't remember at the moment.

                        Does anyone remember reading an article in which mention of Kelly's heart is made as being missing ? I think I do but since I can't remember, that counts as a no.
                        To Join JTR Forums :
                        Contact [email protected]

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
                          Trevor:

                          I'd still go with what Bond or Hebbert stated. They, not Inspector Reid, were on the spot. That's not a slight at Inspector Reid at all.

                          When you say that the newspapers mentioned all of her organs/parts were there ( at least in the room )...who did they get that information from ?
                          Howard
                          I have no idea where the papers got their information from but if Reid is correct it appears they were spot on.

                          This has been gone through before, Hebbert was not involved after the initial crime scene examination. So what he says thereafter is conjecture on his part based on him being present at the initial crime scene examination.

                          As to Bond he makes the initial ambiguous statement that the heart was absent from the pericardium that doesn't mean it was missing from the room.

                          Surely if it was missing he would have followed that fact up with another statement on such an important matter.

                          As I said this has been gone over before at length and from my perspective I have nothing to add if you and others want to continue to argue it over again then so be it. I am quite happy to continue to say the heart was not taken.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
                            I ought to know this by now....but I can't remember at the moment.

                            Does anyone remember reading an article in which mention of Kelly's heart is made as being missing ? I think I do but since I can't remember, that counts as a no.
                            To help you, I dont even recall seeing any record of any of the police officers involved in the case including those even higher up stating that the heart had been taken.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Kelly's heart missing, like her alleged pregnancy, was part of the 'old' ripperology before expository documents were found. I remember reading that her heart was missing - I think it had been said to have been burned in the kettle or some such - but the story has since changed. I'll have to look through my old books.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X