Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ripperologist 147 December Mary Kelly

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

  • Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
    Yes. It's probably my own fault. I never learn and have this strange thing that I always seem to feel sorry for people and give them the benefit of the doubt, thinking they are capable of honest discussion.
    I want to discuss too. I suppose that's because I am interested in establishing the facts and the truth. But I should learn that sometimes there is no point.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
      One thought that comes to mind is Abberline sifted the ashes in Mary's fireplace. He testified to that at the inquest. He didn't say why he sifted the ashes. It is believed, and reported by papers, that he was looking for something it was believed the Ripper might have taken with him. If not the heart, what was he looking for?

      Clothing had been burned so we could think the question was, clothing was burned, what else? Did the Ripper burn his own clothes? Etc. Or the question might have been about a missing part of the body.

      What's the chance part of her heart was there and part was missing? Maybe Jack was a bit of a cannibal. Maybe he ate a piece of her heart.
      The police by themselves were quite capable of identifying pieces of clothing or the wire rim of a hat, or any other item of daily use.
      The important question is, why would the doctors need to be there to sift through the ashes?

      I think you might agree, the doctors have the ability to identify what they may find, in case it was beyond the knowledge of the police.

      So whether they actually found anything is immaterial, there would be no need to have doctors looking for something if the body was complete.
      Regards, Jon S.
      "
      The theory that the murderer is a lunatic is dispelled by the opinion given to the police by an expert in the treatment of lunacy patients......."If he's insane
      " observed the medical authority, "he's a good deal sharper than those who are not".
      Reynolds Newspaper, 4 Nov. 1888.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
        "Strange obsessive reasons"...? Wow.
        Sorry Christer. I apologise for that.
        We all know that it is not true, and you are one of the most knowledgeable people around (including non - suspect Ripperologists ;-)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jon Simons View Post
          Sorry Christer. I apologise for that.
          We all know that it is not true, and you are one of the most knowledgeable people around (including non - suspect Ripperologists ;-)
          Apology gratefully accepted, Jon - whatever level of knowledge I have, I owe it to a lot of people, you included!
          This is a place where so very many knowledgeable and gifted people are presented with such great opportunitites to take the case forwards. It buggers me that we so often fail miserably in that respect, each and every one of us. The net is a truly two-faced beast; it brings out the worst in us at times, whilst at the same time it offers such tremendeous possibilities.
          It is so often said that the case cannot be solved unless something totally revolutionary happens. Most people fail to realize that it probably HAS happened already. The birth of the net is - as far as I´m concerned - what gave us the chance to break the case, if we can only learn how to tame the beast. I for one will not be giving crash courses on the topic, but I welcome anybody who can do it...
          "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
            The police by themselves were quite capable of identifying pieces of clothing or the wire rim of a hat, or any other item of daily use.
            The important question is, why would the doctors need to be there to sift through the ashes?

            I think you might agree, the doctors have the ability to identify what they may find, in case it was beyond the knowledge of the police.

            So whether they actually found anything is immaterial, there would be no need to have doctors looking for something if the body was complete.
            Absolutely agree. Medical men looking for body part(s).
            The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

            Comment


            • Apology gratefully accepted, Jon - whatever level of knowledge I have, I owe it to a lot of people, you included!
              This is a place where so very many knowledgeable and gifted people are presented with such great opportunitites to take the case forwards. It buggers me that we so often fail miserably in that respect, each and every one of us. The net is a truly two-faced beast; it brings out the worst in us at times, whilst at the same time it offers such tremendeous possibilities.
              It is so often said that the case cannot be solved unless something totally revolutionary happens. Most people fail to realize that it probably HAS happened already. The birth of the net is - as far as I´m concerned - what gave us the chance to break the case, if we can only learn how to tame the beast. I for one will not be giving crash courses on the topic, but I welcome anybody who can do it...
              Thank you for your gracious reply, Christer.

              I find that dislocating my fingers, so I can`t type, goes some of the way to controlling the beast. That and not paying the bill.

              Which revolutionary thing do you refer to ?

              You were on tv again on Christmas Day, at 16hrs. We did watch it.
              I think they may have wanted Toy Story 2 on but hey ...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jon Simons View Post
                Thank you for your gracious reply, Christer.

                I find that dislocating my fingers, so I can`t type, goes some of the way to controlling the beast. That and not paying the bill.

                Which revolutionary thing do you refer to ?

                You were on tv again on Christmas Day, at 16hrs. We did watch it.
                I think they may have wanted Toy Story 2 on but hey ...
                The revolution I point to is simply the Internet - that is the most revolutionizing thing that you and me are going to see in our lifetime. Nothing will open more doors than that has done, and we are still very much benefiting from it. More will come.

                Thanks for the information about the renewed sending of the docu on TV. Christmas Day, you say...? Well, Lechmere did have a beard à la Santa Claus, but I very much doubt that he had what it takes otherwise to bring a joyous X-mas. Let´s just hope that those who jumped into the docu five minutes in, did not mistake it for Toy Story 2...
                "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                Comment


                • Final Assessment

                  I have returned momentarily in order to post my final assessment and evaluation regarding the missing heart issue.In doing so I have taken into account all the various newspaper articles both for and against the two arguments.

                  Great play as been made about the post mortems. In the grand scheme of things it is academic whether or not there was one or more. What is important is as to what followed thereafter. The newspapers all conflict with each other on this issue so on their own they should not be relied upon to corroborate either argument. So based on those alone their is no definitive answer.

                  Itis accepted that Dr Bonds report is ambiguous to say the least and again no definitive answer can gathered from this.

                  It is also noticeable that after the post mortem and inquest the missing heart was never mentioned by any other Doctor other than Hibbert who was only present at the post mortem and did not go back to the house thereafter. He was Dr Phillips assistant and scribes the notes at the post mortem and later only confirms the ambiguous statement made by Bond.

                  It is noticeable that following on from the post mortem and the inquest, there is no mention of the missing heart made by any of the police officers of any rank thereafter until 1896, and here, in my opinion, lies the definitive answer with D.I Reid. He was in command of H Divison CID. He attended the crime scene and was actively involved in the investigation thereafter so if anyone knew the truth I would have expected to have been him.

                  As it is known he gave an interview with The News of the World in 1896. Below is part of that interview which solely relates to The Mary Kelly Murder and no reference is made to any other murders in this part of the interview.

                  “This was a case in which a pretty, fair-haired, blue-eyed, youthful girl was murdered. She rented a room in a house in Dorset-street, or which she paid 4s 6d a week rent. The room was badly furnished for the reason that her class of people always pawn or sell anything decent they ever get into their
                  places. The curtains to the windows were torn and one of the panes of glass was broken.

                  Kelly was in arrears with her rent and one morning a man known as ‘The Indian’ who was in the employment of the landlord of the house, went round about eight o’clock to see the woman about the money. Receiving no answer to his knock at the door, he peered through the window, and through the torn curtain saw the horrible sight of the woman lying on her bed hacked to pieces and pieces of her flesh placed upon the table.

                  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. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation. The landlord was brought round to the house by his man, and the sight of the poor mutilated woman turned his brain.”


                  Since the republication of this article it has been painful to watch and see the lengths some researchers who clearly want to support the theory of the killer taking the organ will go to prop up this theory. Clearly in my opinion Reid holds the key to the real truth.

                  In an attempt to water down the impact Reid’s statement now has on the missing heart issue, futile attempts have been made by some to pour water on this important part of the article by attempting to discredit Reid himself.

                  It is suggested by those researchers that in later years he was forgetful, or gave the wrong facts some of which are highlighted in the full article. I fully accept that may be the case in relation to some of the anomalies highlighted in the full article, but each part of the full interview has to be carefully analysed with that in mind.

                  However, when we look at this important part of the interview about the Kelly murder I have to ask what has he got wrong, where has he misled anyone? Every detail he mentions about the Kelly murder is spot on except for the time Bowyer went to Millers court. Just because he got other facts wrong about other cases he mentions in the article, does that automatically mean to say he got everything wrong about the Kelly murder?

                  Why is he correct and should be believed? Because as a police officer involved in the case and having attended the crime scene, and seeing such a horrific sight, and then having to investigate that murder thereafter, you can bet your life not just with Reid but with anyone, all of that would stay firmly in anyone’s mind for the rest of their life. So when he says no body part was missing, he should be believed.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • "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. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation. The landlord was brought round to the house by his man, and the sight of the poor mutilated woman turned his brain."

                    As has been pointed out several times already, the first three sentences obviously aren't referring only to Kelly's murder, as the phrase "In every instance" makes clear. And if Reid was aware that body parts had been taken in other cases, it would make no sense for him to say the mania of the murderer was "exclusively" for mutilation (rather than for the theft of body parts).

                    Reid mistakenly thought no body parts had been taken from any of the victims. If the quotation in the News of the World isn't clear enough, that is confirmed by his letter to the Morning Advertiser, quoted above. So far from holding "the key to the real truth", Reid was simply wrong in his belief about the series of murders as a whole, so his opinion can't be relied on in relation to any of the murders in particular.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by CGP View Post
                      "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. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation. The landlord was brought round to the house by his man, and the sight of the poor mutilated woman turned his brain."

                      As has been pointed out several times already, the first three sentences obviously aren't referring only to Kelly's murder, as the phrase "In every instance" makes clear. And if Reid was aware that body parts had been taken in other cases, it would make no sense for him to say the mania of the murderer was "exclusively" for mutilation (rather than for the theft of body parts).

                      Reid mistakenly thought no body parts had been taken from any of the victims. If the quotation in the News of the World isn't clear enough, that is confirmed by his letter to the Morning Advertiser, quoted above. So far from holding "the key to the real truth", Reid was simply wrong in his belief about the series of murders as a whole, so his opinion can't be relied on in relation to any of the murders in particular.
                      I dont want to be unkind to you but might I suggest you read it again because if you believe what you wrote then you need a reality check, because no where in that article that relates to Kelly can in be remotely construed that he is talking about or referring to any other murder than that of Kelly.

                      "stories of portions of the body being taken away. In every instance"

                      We know that several newspaper reports relate to organs in the plural"

                      "The mania of the murderer was mutilation"

                      Reid knew that no organs were taken away from Kelly so he is stating the motive for the murder when continuing to discuss the murder of Kelly.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Trevor Marriott

                        I'm not under any illusion that you're going to listen to reason, and probably there's no danger of anyone else being taken in by this nonsense. I probably should exercise more self-control and just ignore you, as most people do.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by CGP View Post
                          Trevor Marriott

                          I'm not under any illusion that you're going to listen to reason, and probably there's no danger of anyone else being taken in by this nonsense. I probably should exercise more self-control and just ignore you, as most people do.
                          But you like others cannot exercise self control because as soon as anyone posts anything that goes against the status quo, there your all are like a shoal of piranhas all swimming together ready to tear apart anything that threatens that status quo and threatens any of your own theories.

                          There is no reason to continue to listen to your interpretation of what you believe Reid is saying. It is flawed it has been pointed out to you where it is flawed but you wont accept it and I am sure when the rest of the Forums jury come on line they will be saying the same thing as you are. Why is there this inherent need to keep propping up the old accepted theories when many of them do not now stand up to close scrutiny.

                          You need to take another look see where the nonsense is coming from !

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                            ... when the rest of the Forums jury come on line they will be saying the same thing as you are.
                            No doubt.

                            Comment


                            • Trev:

                              There are roughly 95-100 members who log in every day.

                              You know where Hangin' Judge Phillips, Debs, and I stand on the issue of the missing heart.


                              Excluding these three people....is there anyone who agrees with Trevor's position that:

                              1. Reid was referring only to the Kelly murder.
                              2. That Kelly's heart was not missing.

                              Please speak up....

                              Thanks
                              To Join JTR Forums :
                              Contact [email protected]

                              Comment


                              • There are valid points on both sides of the argument so maybe the answer is not so simple as Mary's heart was missing or no, it was not missing.

                                On one hand we seem to have something missing, whether body part or something else, and there is Abberline sifting ashes and medical men searching. The papers reported it was feared the Ripper had burned something in the fire.

                                On the other hand we have Reid saying no body part was missing. Trevor makes a valid point that surely he would have remembered if the heart was missing, the heart with all its historic and romantic connotations. We are not talking about an appendix or one ovary, but a whole heart. While I find Reid less than accurate, a missing heart is a big thing.

                                Reid cites no missing organs as a support for the killer's mania being mutilation. That makes me think of someone whose goal is vandalism pure and simple. But if said person vandalizes a building and takes a souvenir, his main goal is still destruction. One way of looking at it.

                                Going back to the heart, is it possible the heart was not readily found? Could the heart have been secreted somewhere in the room or stuffed inside the mattress and only found later after the ashes were sifted, etc.? If so, that would also tell us something about the killer.

                                It was said in the papers that a policeman removed a bucket covered with paper from Millers Court and that the bucket contained parts of the murdered woman. Could the heart have slipped out of the bucket? Could it have been found much later in a vehicle used to transport the body and parts? Could it even have been misplaced in the mortuary and found later?

                                Is it possible only part of the heart was missing? A slice or so? There was some thought that the killer may have eaten the heart.

                                The heart is very important. Was the killer saying Mary had stolen his heart? Unrequited love, even in Jack was merely a deranged stalker? Etc.

                                We do not have a complete story such as, the heart was missing, a search was made and it was found in a certain place in a certain condition. Add to that the shortened inquest and our lack of medical details, and we end up with a partial story.

                                I think Mary's heart is well worth considering further. Is it possible she had something like a loose brick in her fireplace where she kept a few valuables, perhaps a few coins? Could the killer have emptied this and replaced the contents with her heart? Prostitutes only love money, perhaps he would be saying. Of course this is pure fantasy on my part, however the story may be a lot bigger than her heart was missing or no, it wasn't.

                                I always thought the police had an idea who was Jack at the time of Mary's murder. Perhaps they did. Perhaps he heart was temporarily missing.

                                Yet another thought, if I correctly identify this line of thinking with Trevor, is about mortuary attendants taking parts. Perhaps a mortuary attendant swiped the heart for whatever reason and it was later accounted for. Maybe it was a very sick joke which was found out.

                                What if her heart was missing but it became one of those controlled bits of information only the police know until the crime is solved? What if the story for public consumption was that the heart was not missing...but it really was? What if, by the time of Reid's interview, police were still thinking finding a dessicated human heart in possession of a suspect, would solve the case? Reid would have no responsibility to tell the press or anyone else the truth. Various readings indicate the human heart can remain fairly intact for many years. For example, the tale of Anne Boleyn's heart being interred in a church in Kent.

                                When Reid says "in every instance", I think it refers to MJK's body, singular. I visualize a check list of body parts being reassembled. Spleen, check; liver, check; ovary, check..... Perhaps there was half a heart?
                                The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X