Ripperologist 147 December Mary Kelly

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks Debs !

No, Trevor....it does much more than offer the author's opinion.


The Observer, (London), 18 Nov 88, p5

"Though the coroner prevented most of the medical evidence from coming out, it is believed that much of it will be of a curious nature. According to one report published on Friday it seems that the assassin cut the woman's heart out and carried it away, and if he did not carry away the other parts of the body, it was supposed that he was either disturbed or that he forgot them in his hurry to escape. That he cut the heart out from below instead of cutting through the diaphragm does not, as some argue, show that he is an ignorant person..."

The Observer mentions another report mentioning the missing heart. That makes either three or two papers which mentioned it.

Look at the date of the article 10 days after the event !!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
On Nov 17th 1888 a person who "assisted at the post mortem" told a reporter of the Evening Telegraph that MJK's killer had shown no surgical skill because he removed her heart through cutting the diaphragm, as opposed to cutting through the sternum. To assess the reliability of this newspaper's scoop about the heart, none of the details of which were revealed at the inquest, we can compare it to Dr Bond's notes on MJK's post mortem done for Anderson (the only medical notes we have) and see that is exactly what was done to remove the heart. This source therefore is reliable, it's correct and it's unique as opposed to the sources you are relying on to prop up your theory, which were actually written to counter the idea that the uterus was taken.
Finally, our reliable source says the uterus wasn't missing but the heart is.
So I am not relying on something written by Hebbert and Bond 6 years later-what was published by Harris and provided by Bond and Hebbert corroborates this 1888 article.

You cant say the source was reliable as the source is unknown.I note the article was 8 days after the events and the source would seem to have perhaps come from the Hebbert camp. He was the only one who was initially on the scene and then took no part thereafter. Strange that none of the other papers picked it up dont you think such an important issue?

Equally I cannot verify the sources for the newspapers of the day who printed stories saying nothing was removed. But what Reid said cannot be dismissed lightly.

Just for the record here are those newspaper reports

The Echo, 10th November 1888...

The investigation made by the doctors yesterday was not the final one, mainly because the room was ill-adapted for the purpose of carrying out a complete autopsy. The post-mortem examination-in-chief was only commenced this morning, at the early hour of half-past seven, when Dr. Phillips, Dr. Bond, Dr. Hibbert, and other experts attended. Some portions of the body are missing, and, says an Echo reporter, writing at two o'clock this afternoon, Dr. Phillips and Dr. Bond, accompanied by Inspector Moore, Inspector Abberline, and Inspector Reid, are again paying a visit to Miller's-court, in order to examine the ashes found in the grate, as it is thought small parts of the body may have been burnt.

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.

As you can see Reid was present !!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Howard Brown]

Thanks Debs !

No, Trevor....it does much more than offer the author's opinion.


The Observer, (London), 18 Nov 88, p5

"Though the coroner prevented most of the medical evidence from coming out, it is believed that much of it will be of a curious nature. According to one report published on Friday it seems that the assassin cut the woman's heart out and carried it away, and if he did not carry away the other parts of the body, it was supposed that he was either disturbed or that he forgot them in his hurry to escape. That he cut the heart out from below instead of cutting through the diaphragm does not, as some argue, show that he is an ignorant person..."

The Observer mentions another report mentioning the missing heart. That makes either three or two papers which mentioned it.

[Debra Arif]

Debs

We can only go on the facts as presented to us we have three newspapers stating that all the body parts were accounted for at the time !

We have a senior officer involved in the investigation saying all parts were accounted for.

We then have an absence of any police officers thereafter mentioning anything about a missing heart. Doesn't that tell you something?

You are again relying on Hebbert from 6 years later. He was only at the initial crime scene examination where it was documented that the heart was missing but from the pericardium but that says nothing about missing from the room.He was not involved thereafter.

The evidence to support the suggestion that the heart was found far outweighs the evidence to suggest it was taken away and I am saying no more on this topic because as I said there are the die-hards who will not accept anything which goes against what has been regarded as the norm.

You pays your money and look at it whichever way you want to

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,
On Nov 17th 1888 a person who "assisted at the post mortem" told a reporter of the Evening Telegraph that MJK's killer had shown no surgical skill because he removed her heart through cutting the diaphragm, as opposed to cutting through the sternum. To assess the reliability of this newspaper's scoop about the heart, none of the details of which were revealed at the inquest, we can compare it to Dr Bond's notes on MJK's post mortem done for Anderson (the only medical notes we have) and see that is exactly what was done to remove the heart. This source therefore is reliable, it's correct and it's unique as opposed to the sources you are relying on to prop up your theory, which were actually written to counter the idea that the uterus was taken.
Finally, our reliable source says the uterus wasn't missing but the heart is.
So I am not relying on something written by Hebbert and Bond 6 years later-what was published by Harris and provided by Bond and Hebbert corroborates this 1888 article.

[Debra Arif]

Thanks very much, Debs ! I will go dig up that Evening News article.
XXXXXXXXX

My mistake, How. It was the Evening Telegraph Nov 17th 1888

heart.PNG

[CGP]

If you are going to ignore what Reid says for the reasons you stated, you might as well disregard anything anybody said in 1888 about these murders and simply suggest they got it wrong.

Think about it. Reid thought that none of the victims had any missing body parts. Obviously, he was wrong.

[Paul]

Paul
So on the basis that he was confused, we should totally disregard anything Reid said in connection with the murders, or cherry pick the things he did say which sit well with other theories. Of course he was in the know and so were all the other officers but their silence on this issue speaks volumes as it did then and still does today.

If you are going to ignore what Reid says for the reasons you stated, you might as well disregard anything anybody said in 1888 about these murders and simply suggest they got it wrong.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,
I didn't say that we should disregard what Reid says, but, assuming he wasn't writing nonsense for his own amusement, he clearly had quite serious memory issues at this time when it came to recalling the Ripper case accurately. What he said at that time in his life must be considered unreliable and be treated with caution. Obviously this would not apply to what he said at other times, so it isn't a case of cherry-picking, just being aware of and understanding the sources.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor:
In the meantime, here's a dissertation from Dave Yost ( co-author of News From Whitechapel ) on the missing heart:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...yostheart.html

It tells us no more than is known and simply gives an opinion by the writer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
Well, to begin with Reid was looking back from his retirement and like many policemen may have been basing his memories on a collection of newspaper cuttings. So you have got to allow for the possibility that he wasn't corroborating them, but using them. However, that's theorising. The point you must not avoid is that Reid said no body parts were taken from any victim, and he denied that there was any significant mutilation - now, come on, how can you place any credence in Reid when he effectively said the Ripper's victims weren't mutilated.

I might as well ask where there is any statement by any police officer that the heart had not been taken away. The point is that we don't have many statements about anything regarding Mary Kelly.

Back to Reid - but he was mistaken about important things, wasn't he? Saying that the victims suffered some superficial knife scratches is a pretty important mistake for goodness sake! I mean, the murderer wasn't called Jack the Ripper for no good reason.

Paul
So on the basis that he was confused, we should totally disregard anything Reid said in connection with the murders, or cherry pick the things he did say which sit well with other theories. Of course he was in the know and so were all the other officers but their silence on this issue speaks volumes as it did then and still does today.

If you are going to ignore what Reid says for the reasons you stated, you might as well disregard anything anybody said in 1888 about these murders and simply suggest they got it wrong.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, you do your past career a huge disservice with this kind of selective logic. Your reasoning and rationale is utterly hopeless.

Maybe hopeless, but it is true logic and rationale, get you head out of the sand.

When we get to this contentious issue as we have done before, we always have the same handful of posters who wont accept what cannot be denied.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Paul]

Paul

Its not as simple as that is it? We have the head of Whitechapel CID who was directly involved in the case who corroborates the newspaper articles.

Aside from what has been mentioned already, where is there any statement from any other police officer connected to this who says the heart had been taken away?

If you support the fact that the heart was taken away the of course you wil suggest Reid is mistaken but come on something as important as that mistaken, I think not

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,
Well, to begin with Reid was looking back from his retirement and like many policemen may have been basing his memories on a collection of newspaper cuttings. So you have got to allow for the possibility that he wasn't corroborating them, but using them. However, that's theorising. The point you must not avoid is that Reid said no body parts were taken from any victim, and he denied that there was any significant mutilation - now, come on, how can you place any credence in Reid when he effectively said the Ripper's victims weren't mutilated.

I might as well ask where there is any statement by any police officer that the heart had not been taken away. The point is that we don't have many statements about anything regarding Mary Kelly.

Back to Reid - but he was mistaken about important things, wasn't he? Saying that the victims suffered some superficial knife scratches is a pretty important mistake for goodness sake! I mean, the murderer wasn't called Jack the Ripper for no good reason.

[Wicker Man]

We can only go on the facts as presented to us we have three newspapers stating that all the body parts were accounted for at the time !

We have a senior officer involved in the investigation saying all parts were accounted for.

We then have an absence of any police officers thereafter mentioning anything about a missing heart. Doesn't that tell you something?

You are again relying on Hebbert from 6 years later. He was only at the initial crime scene examination where it was documented that the heart was missing but from the pericardium but that says nothing about missing from the room.He was not involved thereafter.

The evidence to support the suggestion that the heart was found far outweighs the evidence to suggest it was taken away and I am saying no more on this topic because as I said there are the die-hards who will not accept anything which goes against what has been regarded as the norm.

You pays your money and look at it whichever way you want to

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, you do your past career a huge disservice with this kind of selective logic. Your reasoning and rationale is utterly hopeless.

[Jerry Dunlop]

Reid was also mistaken on the McKenzie murder. Here is what he says in the article written by Mr. Connell.

After the death of Kelly, which happened on Lord Mayor’s Day, by the way,’ said Reid who continued to make selections from his hideous photographs, ‘a year and eight months passed without our being again called out, and we began to hope the murders had ended. During this time, however, the new system of police patrol, which brought into use for the first time the India-rubber silent boots, and which necessitated one policeman always passing another, was continued. One morning about one o’clock an officer passing the Castle-alley from Whitechapel to Wentworth-street, paused under a lamp in the Alley to eat his supper. After eating his supper he walked down Castle-alley into Wentworth-street, a distance of less than a hundred yards. At the corner of Wentworth-street he met an officer coming in the reverse direction to pass over the same ground. They stood about a minute exchanging a word, and officer number two went up the alley. Number one had taken a few steps down Wentworth-street when he heard his mate’s alarm whistle. He ran back into Castle-alley and found his mate standing over the corpse of a woman who had been murdered and mutilated on the very spot where within the past five minutes he had stood.

Of course, he is speaking of the murder of Alice McKenzie and states it was a year and a half after the murder of Mary Kelly when we know it was only 8 months after her murder. He also states PC Allen ran back to meet Andrews at the body and testimony proves Allen went to the station after being informed of the murder. Reid is obviously remembering things erroneously.

[Howard Brown]

Thanks for that Chris !

[CGP]

The thing is that Reid believed that none of the victims had body parts missing, not just that there was nothing missing in Kelly's case. I think that's clear enough from what Trevor Marriott quoted above, but it's clearer still in a letter by Reid to the Morning Advertiser published on 30 March 1903. An extract from it was published by Nick Connell and Stewart Evans in their book on Reid, and the text is available here:
http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...53&postcount=3

Obviously, Reid was mistaken in this belief.