Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ripperologist 147 December Mary Kelly

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    Howard Brown
    Registrar

  • Howard Brown
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

  • Howard Brown
    Registrar

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

    Leave a comment:

  • Trevor Marriott
    Author & Researcher

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
    Weren't the earlier newspaper reports concerned with dispelling the idea that MJK's uterus was taken? This was the rumour at the time. I don't remember any article which specifically mentions the heart in those batches of reports.
    The statements about no missing organs were directly in response to that suggestion about the uterus I feel.

    The Evening News article of 17th Nov 1888 clearly comes from a reliable source, someone who 'assisted at the post mortem' - and looking at what the Evening News also says-that the heart was removed by cutting the diaphragm and not through the sternum-clearly shows the source is accurate. This information was never revealed at the inquest, yet here we have an article that reports what Bond stated in his report to Anderson about the Kelly murder.
    The evening news article also corroborates the material passed to Harris by Hebbert and Bond and published in 1894 in that it clearly states that "the uterus is not missing, but the heart is."
    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

    Leave a comment:

  • Debra Arif
    Registered User

  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    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
    Weren't the earlier newspaper reports concerned with dispelling the idea that MJK's uterus was taken? This was the rumour at the time. I don't remember any article which specifically mentions the heart in those batches of reports.
    The statements about no missing organs were directly in response to that suggestion about the uterus I feel.

    The Evening News article of 17th Nov 1888 clearly comes from a reliable source, someone who 'assisted at the post mortem' - and looking at what the Evening News also says-that the heart was removed by cutting the diaphragm and not through the sternum-clearly shows the source is accurate. This information was never revealed at the inquest, yet here we have an article that reports what Bond stated in his report to Anderson about the Kelly murder.
    The evening news article also corroborates the material passed to Harris by Hebbert and Bond and published in 1894 in that it clearly states that "the uterus is not missing, but the heart is."

    Leave a comment:

  • Trevor Marriott
    Author & Researcher

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty View Post
    It staggers me that a self proclaimed 'expert' and former Murder Squad detective can fail to comprehend the role of a Local CID Inspector.

    Its as if Reid had no other cases to work on whilst Jack was doing his business between 88 and 91.

    Why were Abberline, Swanson, Moore et al bought in?

    Nick is correct in stating Reid made errors, this is a fact. That's no slight on a man whose workload would have been considerate.

    Monty
    I am nor disputing Reid made errors everyone makes errors but one so grave as this not in a month of Sundays,

    I can remember vividly back to many of my early cases which were not as memorable as the Kelly murder. So I am sure Reid remembers this fact about this case just as vividly.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:

  • Monty
    Author & Researcher

  • Monty
    replied
    It staggers me that a self proclaimed 'expert' and former Murder Squad detective can fail to comprehend the role of a Local CID Inspector.

    Its as if Reid had no other cases to work on whilst Jack was doing his business between 88 and 91.

    Why were Abberline, Swanson, Moore et al bought in?

    Nick is correct in stating Reid made errors, this is a fact. That's no slight on a man whose workload would have been considerate.

    Monty

    Leave a comment:

  • Debra Arif
    Registered User

  • Debra Arif
    replied
    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 ?
    How-the Evening News of Nov 17 1888 apparently got information from one of the doctors who 'assisted in the post mortem' when it reported that the killer showed no anatomical skill as he removed the heart by cutting through the diaphragm instead of cutting through the sternum. The article goes on to say the uterus is not missing but the heart is.

    Sorry if this is in the article but I haven't read it yet.

    Leave a comment:

  • Trevor Marriott
    Author & Researcher

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul View Post
    Trevor,
    You were not the first person to take the view that Mary Kelly's heart was not taken away by the murderer. Back in 2004 when writing Jack the Ripper: The Facts I made it clear that the newspapers largely took the view that no body part was missing. However, I went to some trouble to make clear that the rumour persisted that one or more body parts were missing.

    Given that it was easy to withhold the post-mortem details from journalists, the persistent rumours are rather telling, especially in light of Dr. Bond's statement that the heart had been taken from the body. Add to Bond's statement the statement by Francis A. Harris that ‘all the organs, except the heart were found scattered about the room’, and I think you have very clear evidence from the best sources possible that the heart was missing.

    On the one hand you have newspapers stating that all the body parts were accounted for, but noting a rumour that a body part was absent, and on the other hand you have the doctor who performed the autopsy and possibly his assistant stating that the heart was absent and not found in the room.

    So, you either accept the contemporary newspapers which reported a received statement that no body part was missing, or you have the first-hand statement of the doctor who was present at the autopsy that the heart was not present.

    You can accept the first option if you like, but as the evidence exists at present it would appear to be the least likely,
    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

    Leave a comment:

  • Trevor Marriott
    Author & Researcher

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    Trev:

    The answer may lie in the fact that the Metropolitan Police were reticent in offering information to the press. I can see this not being mentioned in the press even if the police were aware of her heart being taken.

    Reid mentions 'stories' ( whether they were found in the British press is something I'm going to tackle tomorrow ).....I'm guessing they were more than local mouth to ear gossip and wound up in some tabloid somewhere.

    Was Reid present at Miller's Court and was he looking over the medical men's shoulders while they did their work ?

    Edit:

    Our posts crossed, Trevor. I agree that we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Hopefully, there will be a definitive resolution to our mutual satisfaction some time soon.
    Howard
    Reid was head of CID in Whitechapel, so I think it is fair to say that he would have known what was going on especially with regards to something as important as missing organs.

    Whether you believe Reid or not in this instance, he is a pivotal figure when trying to unravel the whole Ripper mystery. Lets look at what he brings to the table, setting aside the heart issue, as to who was telling the truth and who was making stuff up and what impact he has on where the truth lies from a research perspective.

    Lets look at the Swanson Marginalia and in particular the contents, as to who wrote it and when has been discussed at length previous so I dont intend to re hash that. We all know that it describes some from of an ID parade involving a Jew named by his surname only Kosminski.

    Researchers suggest that it is accurate and authentic, and go some way to use what Robert Anderson says in his 1910 book to corroborate this. However in 1910 and thereafter following the publication of Andersons book Insp Reid goes to great length in the press to totally refute and challenge Anderson wrote.

    The Morning Advertiser April 23. 1910.
    Now we have Sir Robert Anderson saying that Jack the Ripper was a Jew, that I challenge him to prove, and what is more it was never suggested at the time of the murders. I challenge anyone to prove that there was a tittle of evidence against man, woman or child in connection with the murders, as no man was ever seen in the company of the women who were found dead”

    Why would Reid lie he had no reason to. He offered a direct challenge to Anderson who failed to respond, now I wonder why that was, perhaps his nose had grown so big he couldn't get out of his house !

    So if Anderson was lying then through Insp Reid it again brings into question the Swanson Marginalia.

    The removal of the heart issue has further implications as far as the murders are concerned. It is suggested that the same killer killed Kelly as did he Eddowes and Chapman, who according to the old accepted facts also removed the organs from both. Now of course if the heart of Kelly was not taken, that has massive impact on who took the organs from the other two and how they came to be taken. So I can see why some want to keep the missing heart topic alive

    So these are just other examples of how the old accepted facts have been readily accepted without question as being correct all of these years and continue to do so today.

    Perhaps with a new year now upon us some of the old ripper die-hards scattered across the globe will extract their heads from the sand and take a new look at this mystery in a new light, because as has been shown continually, many of the old accepted facts do not now stand up to close scrutiny.

    Happy New year to both you and Nina.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:

  • Paul
    Registered User

  • Paul
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    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
    Trevor,
    You were not the first person to take the view that Mary Kelly's heart was not taken away by the murderer. Back in 2004 when writing Jack the Ripper: The Facts I made it clear that the newspapers largely took the view that no body part was missing. However, I went to some trouble to make clear that the rumour persisted that one or more body parts were missing.

    Given that it was easy to withhold the post-mortem details from journalists, the persistent rumours are rather telling, especially in light of Dr. Bond's statement that the heart had been taken from the body. Add to Bond's statement the statement by Francis A. Harris that ‘all the organs, except the heart were found scattered about the room’, and I think you have very clear evidence from the best sources possible that the heart was missing.

    On the one hand you have newspapers stating that all the body parts were accounted for, but noting a rumour that a body part was absent, and on the other hand you have the doctor who performed the autopsy and possibly his assistant stating that the heart was absent and not found in the room.

    So, you either accept the contemporary newspapers which reported a received statement that no body part was missing, or you have the first-hand statement of the doctor who was present at the autopsy that the heart was not present.

    You can accept the first option if you like, but as the evidence exists at present it would appear to be the least likely,

    Leave a comment:

  • Chris G.
    Registered User

  • Chris G.
    replied
    Originally posted by admin tim View Post
    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.
    The speculation has been that the victim's heart was burned in the fire if it wasn't removed from the room.

    Leave a comment:

  • Howard Brown
    Registrar

  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Trev:

    The answer may lie in the fact that the Metropolitan Police were reticent in offering information to the press. I can see this not being mentioned in the press even if the police were aware of her heart being taken.

    Reid mentions 'stories' ( whether they were found in the British press is something I'm going to tackle tomorrow ).....I'm guessing they were more than local mouth to ear gossip and wound up in some tabloid somewhere.

    Was Reid present at Miller's Court and was he looking over the medical men's shoulders while they did their work ?

    Edit:

    Our posts crossed, Trevor. I agree that we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Hopefully, there will be a definitive resolution to our mutual satisfaction some time soon.

    Leave a comment:

  • admin tim
    Registered user

  • admin tim
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • Trevor Marriott
    Author & Researcher

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

  • Trevor Marriott
    Author & Researcher

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X