Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reid : News Of The World Article April 12, 1896

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

  • Howard Brown
    replied
    It is not an obvious conclusion you are wrong Bonds statement is ambiguous, and he makes no mention of the missing heart in his report to Anderson, now even you must find that strange.

    **************************************************

    Those with the Ultimate Sourcebook by Evans & Skinner can see the report which Bond provided for Anderson on pages 383 and 384.

    The only thing that's strange is your bizarre belief that you know more than one of the attendant physicians.


    No other senior officers have made any mention of Kelly's heart being taken away by the killer in fact no other officers at all make mention that I can see, and you have to ask why?


    Because in the scheme of things, it was seen as just another terrifying deed in a series of murders loaded with terrifying deeds.

    It's important to you because you want other people to believe the killer wasn't responsible for removing and taking organs from previous victims....which, of course, he did.

    Leave a comment:

  • Trevor Marriott
    Author & Researcher

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    Just to correct you Bond states the heart was absent from the pericardium he does not say it was missing from the room. nor does he ever say the killer took it away.

    Just to correct you, I did not mention the word 'missing'.


    There are also several newspaper reports from the day which also confirm no organs were taken away by the killer.

    Did any of the newspaper reporters do an inventory of the physical damage done to her body ? If not, then the reports are not confirmations.


    I suggest you take the matter up with Dr. Bond who did do an in-depth inventory.
    Absent does mean 'missing' in that whatever was supposed to be in its place was not. If the heart was absent from the pericardium, it was either taken from the room or in the room somewhere. No two ways about it.

    Since no one has been found to have reported, "Yes, I found the heart in the room", the obvious conclusion is that it was not in the room ( We're not talking the Royal Albert Hall, but 13 Miller's Court).

    It is not an obvious conclusion you are wrong Bonds statement is ambiguous, and he makes no mention of the missing heart in his report to Anderson, now even you must find that strange.

    Reids is quite clear and concise, who do I believe, Reid of course he was in charge of Whitechapel CID he went to the crime scene, he went to Millers court later that day, he attended the post mortem. So if anybody knew the real truth it was him and he has gone on record as saying that none of her organs were taken away.

    No other senior officers have made any mention of Kellys heart being taken away by the killer in fact no other officers at all make mention that I can see, and you have to ask why?


    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:

  • Howard Brown
    Registrar

  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Just to correct you Bond states the heart was absent from the pericardium he does not say it was missing from the room. nor does he ever say the killer took it away.

    Just to correct you, I did not mention the word 'missing'.


    There are also several newspaper reports from the day which also confirm no organs were taken away by the killer.

    Did any of the newspaper reporters do an inventory of the physical damage done to her body ? If not, then the reports are not confirmations.

    I suggest you take the matter up with Dr. Bond who did do an in-depth inventory.
    Absent does mean 'missing' in that whatever was supposed to be in its place was not. If the heart was absent from the pericardium, it was either taken from the room or in the room somewhere. No two ways about it.

    Since no one has been found to have reported, "Yes, I found the heart in the room", the obvious conclusion is that it was not in the room ( We're not talking the Royal Albert Hall, but 13 Miller's Court).

    Leave a comment:

  • Trevor Marriott
    Author & Researcher

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    At the bottom of the second column, Reid mentions Kelly's remains and his opinion as to whether any were removed.



    Dr. Phillips was a witness at the Kelly Inquest...he did not elaborate to the extent of mentioning the internal damage.

    But Dr. Thomas Bond did. He wrote an extensive report on November 16th which specifically mentioned that Kelly's heart was absent.

    Could Phillips have performed a superficial assessment of Kelly's corpse ? Phillips was against public disclosure of the mutilations going back to Chapman's murder, which he knew what would happen in this murder.

    Since Bond wrote his report for a police official ( Anderson ), his assessment may have been more in depth considering it was not for public disclosure since his report was certainly more in depth than the Phillips' deposition
    Just to correct you Bond states the heart was absent from the pericardium he does not say it was missing from the room. nor does he ever say the killer took it away.

    There are also several newspaper reports from the day which also confirm no organs were taken away by the killer.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:

  • Trevor Marriott
    Author & Researcher

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    Many thanks to Rob Clack for sharing the article.

    Note: I cannot enlarge the scan without distorting it and rendering it illegible.

    Press Ctrl and then tap the plus/minus key to the left of the backspace key to enlarge it. Best I can do or suggest at this time.




    This is the relevant quote
    "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"


    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:

  • Howard Brown
    Registrar

  • Howard Brown
    replied
    At the bottom of the second column, Reid mentions Kelly's remains and his opinion as to whether any were removed.



    Dr. Phillips was a witness at the Kelly Inquest...he did not elaborate to the extent of mentioning the internal damage.

    But Dr. Thomas Bond did. He wrote an extensive report on November 16th which specifically mentioned that Kelly's heart was absent.

    Could Phillips have performed a superficial assessment of Kelly's corpse ? Phillips was against public disclosure of the mutilations going back to Chapman's murder, which he knew what would happen in this murder.

    Since Bond wrote his report for a police official ( Anderson ), his assessment may have been more in depth considering it was not for public disclosure since his report was certainly more in depth than the Phillips' deposition

    Leave a comment:

  • Howard Brown
    Registrar

  • Howard Brown
    started a topic Reid : News Of The World Article April 12, 1896

    Reid : News Of The World Article April 12, 1896

    Many thanks to Rob Clack for sharing the article.

    Note: I cannot enlarge the scan without distorting it and rendering it illegible.

    Press Ctrl and then tap the plus/minus key to the left of the backspace key to enlarge it. Best I can do or suggest at this time.



Working...
X