Ripperologist 147 December Mary Kelly

[Howard Brown]

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.

[Chris G.]

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.

[Paul]

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,

[Trevor Marriott]

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

[Trevor Marriott]

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

[Debra Arif]

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.

[Monty]

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

[Trevor Marriott]

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

[Debra Arif]

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."

[Trevor Marriott]

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

[Howard Brown]

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

[Howard Brown]

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

[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.

[Howard Brown]

Thanks for that Chris !

[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.