Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ripperologist 147 December Mary Kelly

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

  • CGP
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    When are you and others on here going to accept that statement was ambiguous. It came after the initial post mortem. Thereafter the doctors and police went back to Millers Court. Why did they do this just for fun? Or to look for the remaining body parts ? if the latter they probably found what was still missing, and that would account for the absence of the heart on the list of body parts ...
    I have to say I find this quite unbelievable.

    After posting newspaper reports saying that all the body parts were present at the time of the post mortem - and supporting this with the stuff about Bond's post mortem report being ambiguous and his saying nothing about the heart in the accompanying "profile" - you're now saying that the heart was missing when Bond wrote those documents, and that it was only found later when the police went back to Millers Court. Despite the fact that one of the newspaper reports you've previously relied on says "Nothing of any importance was discovered" when they did go back!

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Chris...all

    There's a problem with that last line you quoted, CGP.

    "Again, the late Dr Phillips, police surgeon, were he alive now, would tell you that at no time was any part of the body missing."


    Phillips was alive at the time of the interview. He died on October 27, 1897.
    This interview was conducted on April 12, 1896

    Leave a comment:


  • CGP
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    In this instance we are talking about a specific case i.e. Kelly, and with regards to that Reid is also specific when discussing Kelly.
    No - as I've said a number of times already, I think it's clear he was talking about all the victims.

    The News of the World article quoted him as saying:
    "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."
    [my emphasis]

    "In every instance" tells us he is talking about all the victims, and it would make no sense to use the word "exclusively" if Reid was aware that in two cases the murderer had taken away organs.

    But in any case, we know from the statement quoted in the Morning Advertiser that Reid did mistakenly believe that no organs were missing from any of the victims:
    "Again, the late Dr Phillips, police surgeon, were he alive now, would tell you that at no time was any part of the body missing."

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Debs

    Don`t feel embarrassed for me because I have no reason to feel embarrassed, in fact quite the opposite. This has now put another dent in the old accpted Ripper mystery.
    And I think you truly believe this, Trevor. Maybe I feel pity.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
    This is absolute poppycock, Trevor. You haven't read a word anyone else has written about why Reid is not a reliable source and you don't know the history of the discussion about the sources for the heart being taken away.
    It is you who is again seeking to rely on sources that don't stand up to scrutiny. I feel embarrassed for you.
    Debs

    Don`t feel embarrassed for me because I have no reason to feel embarrassed, in fact quite the opposite. This has now put another dent in the old accpted Ripper mystery.

    As to scrutiny I would suggest the sources quoted, coupled with a common sense approach to all the surrounding facts do stand up much better than yours and the others who like you seem to be stuck in a 1980`s Ripper time warp, whereby you have become totally obsessed with many of these old accepted facts surrounding this mystery like the heart topic, and you and others either cannot or will not accept anything new that upsets that status quo, and will do whatever it takes to keep the pot boiling.

    How sad is that? It a good thing that the general public are now able to look at much of what is now in the Ripper domain and do not readily accept those old previously accepted facts.

    I now have nothing to say on this topic apart from leaving you with this line from The Rocky Horror Show song "Lets do the time warp again"

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by CGP View Post
    It's been well known for years that Reid mistakenly believed that none of the victims had missing organs. As I mentioned before, it's discussed in the book by Nick Connell and Stewart Evans, which was published in 2000.
    In this instance we are talking about a specific case i.e. Kelly, and with regards to that Reid is also specific when discussing Kelly.

    If what was discussed in that book was from another newspaper report then I might suggest that he was perhaps misquoted, as two of the murders where organs were later found missing came under his jurisdiction so I cannot see how such important parts of a murder investigation could be forgotten or misrepresented.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
    Nov. 10th was the date of Bond's report, the request by Anderson is dated Oct. 25th.

    But that is precisely what, "The Pericardium was open below & the heart absent", means.
    This line is a description of the pericardium, the fact the heart was missing.

    All the extracted organs are noted as to their position on the bed, all except the heart. And not one of the other organs are described as "absent", yet they were all "absent" from their original location in the body.
    So we know he did not use the term "absent" in that context.

    This is how we know "absent" means from the room, not from the body.
    When are you and others on here going to accept that statement was ambiguous. It came after the initial post mortem. Thereafter the doctors and police went back to Millers Court. Why did they do this just for fun? Or to look for the remaining body parts ? if the latter they probably found what was still missing, and that would account for the absence of the heart on the list of body parts, and that`s why the topic was never ever mentioned again by any of the police, and that why the newspapers shortly afterwards confirmed that fact, and that`s why Reid corroborates all of that in later years.

    What so difficult in accepting that ?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert Linford
    replied
    Police officers do say strange things. Inspector Moore reckoned that Jack escaped via the window because he couldn't open the door.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicker Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    On Nov 10th as is known he was asked by Anderson to prepare a profile on the killer regarding all the murders. This report starts off where he writes about the Kelly murder.
    Nov. 10th was the date of Bond's report, the request by Anderson is dated Oct. 25th.

    At no point in that report does he mention a missing heart.
    But that is precisely what, "The Pericardium was open below & the heart absent", means.
    This line is a description of the pericardium, the fact the heart was missing.

    All the extracted organs are noted as to their position on the bed, all except the heart. And not one of the other organs are described as "absent", yet they were all "absent" from their original location in the body.
    So we know he did not use the term "absent" in that context.

    This is how we know "absent" means from the room, not from the body.

    Leave a comment:


  • CGP
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    I look on this statement of Reid as a major breakthrough on the heart issue ...
    It's been well known for years that Reid mistakenly believed that none of the victims had missing organs. As I mentioned before, it's discussed in the book by Nick Connell and Stewart Evans, which was published in 2000.

    Leave a comment:


  • CGP
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    But he was directly involved in Kellys post mortem and that was fresh in his mind which he refers to. So why not mention it especially when he is trying to profile the killer ?
    You might as well ask why he didn't mention Chapman's missing uterus or Eddowes's missing kidney. The report simply doesn't go into that level of detail. It doesn't describe the mutilations of any of the victims.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Debs

    You are clutching at straws ! You are trying to protect an old accepted theory, Not withstanding that if the heart was not removed then it now has a tremendous impact on other integral parts of what have been regarded as accepted facts.


    I look on this statement of Reid as a major breakthrough on the heart issue, and I know why some are desperately trying to negate it with suggestions of memory failure.

    It is plain and clear by all that has been written and discussed,and what has been put forward that the balance of probability firmly swings in the direction of no heart being taken. Reids statement and the absence of this being talked or written about by officers both senior or otherwise thereafter adds to that. The absence of Bond mentioning it in his report to Anderson adds to it also.

    The newspaper article have to be taken on face value for both sides of the argument

    What you seek to rely on is now greatly watered down and now highly contentious in the light of all the aforementioned.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    This is absolute poppycock, Trevor. You haven't read a word anyone else has written about why Reid is not a reliable source and you don't know the history of the discussion about the sources for the heart being taken away.
    It is you who is again seeking to rely on sources that don't stand up to scrutiny. I feel embarrassed for you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by CGP View Post
    As far as I can see, Bond doesn't mention missing organs for any of the murders in that report, so you can't make an argument from his silence about Kelly's heart.
    But he was directly involved in Kellys post mortem and that was fresh in his mind which he refers to. So why not mention it especially when he is trying to profile the killer ?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
    Trevor, as has been pointed out a few times now-whether or MJK's heart was removed from the crime scene has always been up for debate. It's been discussed periodically for the 12 years that I've been using the internet boards and always with 'for' and 'against' so this is not "the old previously accepted fact" you make it out to be. It has always been a case of weighing up the sources.



    Bond did report that the heart had been removed through the pericarduim below, a fact not disclosed at inquest and only known for certain when Bond's notes were returned. He also mentions the position that all the other organs were found in but doesn't mention where the heart was placed. Why not?

    The 17th Nov Telegraph source I posted which I believe is a previously un- discussed source tells us that someone present at the post mortem stated the heart was removed by cutting through the diaphragm, this technique is confirmed by surgeon Wynne Weston Davies in his recent book on Mary Jane Kelly. This same Telegraph article tells us the heart was taken away from the scene. This was confirmed in later years by Hebbert (with Bond's permission) in material he submitted for Harris's medical jurisprudence text. So we have precise details of the removal of the heart and method used, previously undisclosed, in a contemporary Nov 17th 1888 article which also tells us the heart was taken from the scene.




    We regard it as an early criminal profile now but Bond wasn't asked to provide a specific criminal profile in the sense police or psychologists would undertake one now! All through the murders we see the establishment struggling with the idea of a killer who mutilated and removed organs and what motivated this act and the significance of it.
    Debs

    You are clutching at straws ! You are trying to protect an old accepted theory, Not withstanding that if the heart was not removed then it now has a tremendous impact on other integral parts of what have been regarded as accepted facts.


    I look on this statement of Reid as a major breakthrough on the heart issue, and I know why some are desperately trying to negate it with suggestions of memory failure.

    It is plain and clear by all that has been written and discussed,and what has been put forward that the balance of probability firmly swings in the direction of no heart being taken. Reids statement and the absence of this being talked or written about by officers both senior or otherwise thereafter adds to that. The absence of Bond mentioning it in his report to Anderson adds to it also.

    The newspaper article have to be taken on face value for both sides of the argument

    What you seek to rely on is now greatly watered down and now highly contentious in the light of all the aforementioned.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott
    As to the suggestion of memory loss levied against Reid. What about Dr Bond who carried out the initial post mortem and was responsible for the ambiguous statement, which has led to the missing heart forming an integral part of what I term as "the old previoulsy accepted facts"
    Trevor, as has been pointed out a few times now-whether or MJK's heart was removed from the crime scene has always been up for debate. It's been discussed periodically for the 12 years that I've been using the internet boards and always with 'for' and 'against' so this is not "the old previously accepted fact" you make it out to be. It has always been a case of weighing up the sources.

    Bond did report that the heart had been removed through the pericarduim below, a fact not disclosed at inquest and only known for certain when Bond's notes were returned. He also mentions the position that all the other organs were found in but doesn't mention where the heart was placed. Why not?

    The 17th Nov Telegraph source I posted which I believe is a previously un- discussed source tells us that someone present at the post mortem stated the heart was removed by cutting through the diaphragm, this technique is confirmed by surgeon Wynne Weston Davies in his recent book on Mary Jane Kelly. This same Telegraph article tells us the heart was taken away from the scene. This was confirmed in later years by Hebbert (with Bond's permission) in material he submitted for Harris's medical jurisprudence text. So we have precise details of the removal of the heart and method used, previously undisclosed, in a contemporary Nov 17th 1888 article which also tells us the heart was taken from the scene.



    On Nov 10th as is known he was aksed by Anderson to prepare a profile of the killer regarding all the murders. The report starts off where he writes about the Kelly murder. At no point does he mention the missing heart. Did he forget? Surely not, after only two days! Or did he deliberately leave out something like that as not being important. I doubt that, after all a killer taking away a heart, would be an important part of a criminal profile would it not.A profile he was asked to prepare.
    We regard it as an early criminal profile now but Bond wasn't asked to provide a specific criminal profile in the sense police or psychologists would undertake one now! All through the murders we see the establishment struggling with the idea of a killer who mutilated and removed organs and what motivated this act and the significance of it.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X