The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You clearly and deliberately ignore the proven facts which I have listed and you go off topic to rant and rave about whether I am right or wrong. You should spend more time analysing all the facts in greater detail and less time decrying my research.

Do you accept that Supt Arnold corroborates Reid, because this is very important?

Do you accept that DR Gabe also lists the location of the heart?

So now we have three people all saying the heart was found in the room

and if am right and Kelly was killed by the same killer as the other victims and that killer was supposed to have removed organs at the crime scenes. I have to ask why did he not take organs from Kelly when he had the opportunity to take many different organs from Kelly with no fear of detection. I think my theory of the organs being taken from the mortuary is even more plausible now

I dont see any bald heads in the forum

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But Arnold said, according to Lloyd’s 11th Nov 1888 ““The kidneys and heart had also been removed from the body, and placed on the table by the side of the breasts.”

So he was entirely wrong about the heart being on the table and unbelievably you are using this error of memory as proof of something. Get a grip Trevor.

And then, in the NY Herald 10th Nov 1888 you have Gabe allegedly saying “…Ribs and backbone were exposed and the stomach, entrails, heart and liver had been cut out and carefully placed beside the mutilated trunk”

As evidence you select two newspaper reports (one of which comes from the USA) both of which report an error. We know that the heart was neither on the table nor on the bed next to the body. You actually use errors as evidence. Well done Trevor.

….


I, on the other hand, can present Doctor Bond who stated that the heart was absent after he has presented a list of where the other organs were found in the room. Can anyone honestly believe that when listing where these organs were located he would have neglected to mention the location of the heart?

I have Dr Hebbert, who you are quite happy to quote elsewhere when he favours your own opinion but strangely when he disagrees with you, you repeatedly ‘forget’ to quote him. And Dr Hebbert wasn’t just any old Doctor (or a police officer that didn’t perform an examination of the body), he was Bond’s assistant:

"In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered around the room..."

He wrote this in 1895. Do you think that he never discussed the case with Bond? Or that he hadn’t seen the body?

Then we have our friend Dr Gabe, on November 11th 1888 in the Manchester Evening News (you quote the USA, I quote England):

“… a certain organ was missing".

It appears that there was no other report mentioning: “"The ears and nose were cut off, the liver was lying between the legs, and the head was hanging by a thread" But Gabe mentions this in the same newspaper report which strengthen’s its claim to accuracy.

….

Ok Trevor let’s hypothetically assume that the heart wasn’t missing. What does this prove in regard to your organ thief theory? Precisely nothing.

To start with you have to keep inventing a motive so that you can make a fallacious point. You repeatedly parrot “If he was harvesting organs then why…..” So you are actually saying “if this absolute unknown is true then why….” How can you look to prove something by using an unknown? Then again Trevor, you do have form for this (and on this topic) You don’t know how long the killer required in Mitre Square and you don’t know how long he actually had available and yet weirdly you claim that he couldn’t have had time…..using two unknowns!

Anyway, we have no reason to believe that he was ‘harvesting’ organs.

He may have been attempting cannibalism but either gave up on it or perhaps in Miller’s Court he just took a piece of unnamed flesh that he felt would be easier to eat.

He may have been taking organs for shock value (perhaps to sow the suggestion of cannibalism to the police and the public via The Press) But with the horror of the scene that he’d caused in Miller’s Court he might have decided that there was no need.

It might have been the case that after he’d finished in room 13 and after he’d cleaned himself that he heard someone in Miller’s Court (he might have heard more than one) If he was naturally concerned about being trapped in the room he may have looked out of the door to see if the coast was clear. As soon as he’d seen that it was clear he may have made a dash for it.

Or he simply didn’t think of removing a body part after a period of frenzy.

The problem is that you can’t assume to know why a serial killer did what he did unless he was caught and explained himself. What you are doing is inventing something so that you can use it to prove something else Trevor. You need to stop the “if the killer was harvesting…” point.

[Wickerman]

Some people thrive on exceptions and contradictions. We are clearly wrong to expect an ex officer of the law to appreciate the value of rational thinking.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You clearly and deliberately ignore the proven facts which I have listed and you go off topic to rant and rave about whether I am right or wrong you should spend more time analysing all the facts in greater detail and less time decrying my research.

It seems you cant handle the truth

I dont see any bald heads in the forum

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There’s no point in this Trevor. Every single human being on the planet could tell you that you are wrong but you still wouldn’t accept it; or even consider the possibility. You never do Trevor. Whatever theory, suggestion, interpretation you come up with it’s your mindset that it must be right simply because you thought it. You never take in the opinion of others unless you find someone that agrees with you on a particular point. Most people faced with every single person telling them that they are wrong would pause and think “hold on, perhaps I’m wrong on this point?” But not you.

You have an inexhaustible supply of totally unwarranted self-confidence Trevor.

[Wickerman]

. . .

IMHO, which can only amount to speculation on my part, and by all concerned, is that Bond was stating that the heart had been removed from the pericardium from below, and was therefore absent from its usual location,in the pericardium. I don't believe that he was suggesting that it was absent from the room. JMO.

But George, the liver, uterus, kidneys & heart were all removed from their usual locations in the body, and yet only the heart was described as absent.

The liver, uterus & kidneys were all found in the room, so clearly 'absent' did not mean just from the body, it meant from the room.

[Trevor Marriott]

Your theory is a non-starter and always has been. Over on JtRForums, Howard Brown, Chris Phillips, Gary Barnett, Debra Arif, Paul Begg, Neil Bell, Wickerman…all pulling their hair out on this with you. Believe what you want Trevor. No one else does.

You clearly and deliberately ignore the proven facts which I have listed and you go off topic to rant and rave about whether I am right or wrong. You should spend more time analysing all the facts in greater detail and less time decrying my research.

Do you accept that Supt Arnold corroborates Reid, because this is very important?

Do you accept that DR Gabe also lists the location of the heart?

So now we have three people all saying the heart was found in the room

and if am right and Kelly was killed by the same killer as the other victims and that killer was supposed to have removed organs at the crime scenes. I have to ask why did he not take organs from Kelly when he had the opportunity to take many different organs from Kelly with no fear of detection. I think my theory of the organs being taken from the mortuary is even more plausible now

I dont see any bald heads in the forum

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Your theory is a non-starter and always has been. Over on JtRForums, Howard Brown, Chris Phillips, Gary Barnett, Debra Arif, Paul Begg, Neil Bell, Wickerman…all pulling their hair out on this with you. Believe what you want Trevor. No one else does.

You clearly and deliberately ignore the proven facts which I have listed and you go off topic to rant and rave about whether I am right or wrong you should spend more time analysing all the facts in greater detail and less time decrying my research.

It seems you cant handle the truth

I dont see any bald heads in the forum

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am not interested in what Nick Connell wrote in his book, all I am interested in are the results of my examination and what the facts and evidence tell me

No, you pick and choose and get things wrong 99% of the time. It’s why no one ever agrees with you.

You say Reid is unreliable, then please explain how he manages to get everything right about the Kelly murder in that article?

He calls Bowyer “The Indian,” when he was known as “Indian Harry.”
He said that Bowyer found Mary’s body around 8.00 when it was early three hours later.
He said that McCarthy became a perfect madman after the murder yet he testified lucidly at the inquest.
He talks about Kelly’s window having a torn curtain.

The man didn’t even know what year Eddowes was murdered and it was only a month before Kelly!!

Apply the same criteria to Reid that you do to others - unreliable and unsafe to rely on.

But you cant accept or wont accept that there is corroboration of what Reid says in the article from another senior officer who attended the crime scene and there is no suggestion that he was confused because he gave the interview which was published 3 days after the murder.

If I were you I would pack up before you make a complete fool of yourself

Then why does everyone agree with me Trevor, and no one agrees with you?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Your theory is a non-starter and always has been. Over on JtRForums, Howard Brown, Chris Phillips, Gary Barnett, Debra Arif, Paul Begg, Neil Bell, Wickerman…all pulling their hair out on this with you. Believe what you want Trevor. No one else does.

[Trevor Marriott]

Nick Connell wrote a book on Reid:

"As in other interviews given by Reid on the Whitechapel murders, this contains glaring and obvious errors, including getting the year of the Mitre Square murder wrong, saying that Emma Smith was killed by one man when she had described three attackers, claiming that no body parts had been removed and saying that nobody saw a man with any of the victims on the nights they were killed are just a few examples.
...
It is perplexing to read the remarks of a police officer who had worked so closely on the Whitechapel murders investigation for so long, making numerous errors just a few years after the crimes had been committed. Yet on other occasions Reid was accurate, such as still being able to remember exactly how much weekly rent Mary Kelly had to pay. Disappointingly, Edmund Reid has not proved to be the most reliable source on the subject of the Whitechapel murders.


But hold on……Trevor takes his word as gospel…….why……clearly because it suits him to do so. He’s doing what he always does…applies different standards to different people…..the people who don’t favour his arguments are unreliable….those that might favour are paragons of rectitude.

Its an ongoing joke.

I am not interested in what Nick Connell wrote in his book, all I am interested in are the results of my examination and what the facts and evidence tell me

You say Reid is unreliable, then please explain how he manages to get everything right about the Kelly murder in that article?

But you cant accept or wont accept that there is corroboration of what Reid says in the article from another senior officer who attended the crime scene and there is no suggestion that he was confused because he gave the interview which was published 3 days after the murder.

If I were you I would pack up before you make a complete fool of yourself

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Patrick Differ]

Nick Connell wrote a book on Reid:

"As in other interviews given by Reid on the Whitechapel murders, this contains glaring and obvious errors, including getting the year of the Mitre Square murder wrong, saying that Emma Smith was killed by one man when she had described three attackers, claiming that no body parts had been removed and saying that nobody saw a man with any of the victims on the nights they were killed are just a few examples.
...
It is perplexing to read the remarks of a police officer who had worked so closely on the Whitechapel murders investigation for so long, making numerous errors just a few years after the crimes had been committed. Yet on other occasions Reid was accurate, such as still being able to remember exactly how much weekly rent Mary Kelly had to pay. Disappointingly, Edmund Reid has not proved to be the most reliable source on the subject of the Whitechapel murders.


But hold on……Trevor takes his word as gospel…….why……clearly because it suits him to do so. He’s doing what he always does…applies different standards to different people…..the people who don’t favour his arguments are unreliable….those that might favour are paragons of rectitude.

Its an ongoing joke.

I personally think the Police at that time, especially detectives and inspectors had more on their plate then just the Whitechapel murders. Plus they were dealing with a new type of agressive Press. Reid strikes me as possibly just being overwhelmed. One story blends into another over time. Fiction becoming fact. Reid thought all Whitechapel murders were by the same hand. Is that far fetched, would he be in a position to know, was he too close to it, was he biased to Whitechapel day to day living? Were any of the Police reliable with the facts? The fact that they could not catch this killer eventhough they surged, went undercover, and had vigilantes says alot about the ability of the killer. All of these cops could not be that incompetent.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nick Connell wrote a book on Reid:

"As in other interviews given by Reid on the Whitechapel murders, this contains glaring and obvious errors, including getting the year of the Mitre Square murder wrong, saying that Emma Smith was killed by one man when she had described three attackers, claiming that no body parts had been removed and saying that nobody saw a man with any of the victims on the nights they were killed are just a few examples.
...
It is perplexing to read the remarks of a police officer who had worked so closely on the Whitechapel murders investigation for so long, making numerous errors just a few years after the crimes had been committed. Yet on other occasions Reid was accurate, such as still being able to remember exactly how much weekly rent Mary Kelly had to pay. Disappointingly, Edmund Reid has not proved to be the most reliable source on the subject of the Whitechapel murders.


But hold on……Trevor takes his word as gospel…….why……clearly because it suits him to do so. He’s doing what he always does…applies different standards to different people…..the people who don’t favour his arguments are unreliable….those that might favour are paragons of rectitude.

Its an ongoing joke.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Too right I am-----Take the blinkers off for a change Supt Arnold also states the heart was found in the room, and corroborates Reid or are you suggesting he was also mistaken.

As far as the errors in the MM they are not minor as you suggest

, I found many discrepancies in Macnaghten’s notes regarding Druitt. He stated that Druitt lived with his family, but records show that he lived alone at 9, Elliot Place. He stated that Druitt had committed suicide around the 10th of November, three weeks before he committed suicide. Although this is not confirmed, when the body was examined only an approximate time of the suicide was given due to the effects of decomposition due to it being in the water for a long period of time. He also stated that Druitt was about 41 at the time of his death, when in fact he was only 31. Finally, he mentions Druitt as being a doctor, when he was a barrister and schoolmaster.

Further questions surround another entry found in The Aberconway Version, which relates to another Ripper suspect Michael Ostrog. In the original Scotland Yard Version dated February 23rd 1894. Macnaghten describes Ostrog as follows: “Michael Ostrog, a Russian doctor, and a convict, who was subsequently detained in a lunatic asylum as a homicidal maniac. This man’s antecedents were of the worst possible type, and his whereabouts at the time of the murders could never be ascertained.”
In the handwritten part of The Aberconway Version, Ostrog is described as: “Michael Ostrog. A mad Russian doctor & a convict & unquestionably a homicidal maniac. This man was said to have been habitually cruel to women, & for a long time was known to have carried out with him surgical knives & other instruments; his antecedents were of the very worst & his whereabouts at the time of the Whitechapel murders could never be satisfactory accounted for. He is still alive.” Note the absence of any mention of a lunatic asylum.
The relevant part here is in the last line of the Aberconway handwritten notes, which reads, “He is still alive”. As can be seen above in the original version Macnaghten stated Ostrog had been subsequently detained in a lunatic asylum. However, further research showed that at the time of the Whitechapel murders Ostrog was in prison in France. Additional research shows that in June 1894 four months after the original version in which Macnaghten states Ostrog was detained in a lunatic asylum; Ostrog was arrested in Slough for an offence of theft and remanded in custody. There is evidence to show that between September 1887 and March 1888 Ostrog was detained in a lunatic asylum.

Its clearly unsafe !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


First…you state that he wasn’t directly involved in all of the murders which you allow as an excuse for his howlers. Ok, Macnaghten wasn’t there when they pulled Druitt out of the Thames six years previous to the memorandum. Again, why is him mistaking 31 for 41 and Doctor for son of one utterly unforgivable and yet Reid’s mistakes aren’t? Cherrypicking.

Reid is clearly stating that the killer took no organs in any of the murders. No one at the time believed that. So as a ‘get out’ clause you are suggesting that years after the murder former Inspector Reid became the only person in England who thought that the killer hadn’t taken organs. You’d have thought that he’d have mentioned this earth-shattering theory somewhere wouldn’t you? No Trevor, all of the evidence tells us that Reid simply wasn’t reliable.

No he doesnt he is specifiacally talking about the Kelly murder in the extract I posted

Dr Bond stated “The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent.” But he doesnt ever state that it was never found

He clearly does. It’s in English.

He then went on to say ”The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus & Kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the Rt foot, the Liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side & the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.”

The heart is the ‘biggie’ when it comes to internal organs and yet….Dr Bond ‘forgets’ to mention it.

I dont believe in Bonds report to Anderson he mentions the heart being missing, and Dr Hebbert who you quote took no further part after the initial crime scene examination

He took more of part the Reid?

[/QUOTE]

Your silly theory has been thoroughly dismissed. Only you believe it. I can’t recall hearing such desperate stuff. That an organ thief wouldn’t have taken organs from a body before a post mortem is such an obvious fact that you should be utterly ashamed that you, a former police officer, can’t understand the point and its significance. For once in your life admit that you got it wrong. How anyone can go on and on with a theory despite absolutely no one agreeing with him is excruciating to watch and be a part of.

[Trevor Marriott]

More proof that Reid was unreliable and that you ‘concur’ with him speaks volumes. No matter how you have been proven wrong you are still dogmatically attached to your theory.

Too right I am-----Take the blinkers off for a change Supt Arnold also states the heart was found in the room, and corroborates Reid or are you suggesting he was also mistaken.

As far as the errors in the MM they are not minor as you suggest

, I found many discrepancies in Macnaghten’s notes regarding Druitt. He stated that Druitt lived with his family, but records show that he lived alone at 9, Elliot Place. He stated that Druitt had committed suicide around the 10th of November, three weeks before he committed suicide. Although this is not confirmed, when the body was examined only an approximate time of the suicide was given due to the effects of decomposition due to it being in the water for a long period of time. He also stated that Druitt was about 41 at the time of his death, when in fact he was only 31. Finally, he mentions Druitt as being a doctor, when he was a barrister and schoolmaster.

Further questions surround another entry found in The Aberconway Version, which relates to another Ripper suspect Michael Ostrog. In the original Scotland Yard Version dated February 23rd 1894. Macnaghten describes Ostrog as follows: “Michael Ostrog, a Russian doctor, and a convict, who was subsequently detained in a lunatic asylum as a homicidal maniac. This man’s antecedents were of the worst possible type, and his whereabouts at the time of the murders could never be ascertained.”
In the handwritten part of The Aberconway Version, Ostrog is described as: “Michael Ostrog. A mad Russian doctor & a convict & unquestionably a homicidal maniac. This man was said to have been habitually cruel to women, & for a long time was known to have carried out with him surgical knives & other instruments; his antecedents were of the very worst & his whereabouts at the time of the Whitechapel murders could never be satisfactory accounted for. He is still alive.” Note the absence of any mention of a lunatic asylum.
The relevant part here is in the last line of the Aberconway handwritten notes, which reads, “He is still alive”. As can be seen above in the original version Macnaghten stated Ostrog had been subsequently detained in a lunatic asylum. However, further research showed that at the time of the Whitechapel murders Ostrog was in prison in France. Additional research shows that in June 1894 four months after the original version in which Macnaghten states Ostrog was detained in a lunatic asylum; Ostrog was arrested in Slough for an offence of theft and remanded in custody. There is evidence to show that between September 1887 and March 1888 Ostrog was detained in a lunatic asylum.

Its clearly unsafe !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


First…you state that he wasn’t directly involved in all of the murders which you allow as an excuse for his howlers. Ok, Macnaghten wasn’t there when they pulled Druitt out of the Thames six years previous to the memorandum. Again, why is him mistaking 31 for 41 and Doctor for son of one utterly unforgivable and yet Reid’s mistakes aren’t? Cherrypicking.

Reid is clearly stating that the killer took no organs in any of the murders. No one at the time believed that. So as a ‘get out’ clause you are suggesting that years after the murder former Inspector Reid became the only person in England who thought that the killer hadn’t taken organs. You’d have thought that he’d have mentioned this earth-shattering theory somewhere wouldn’t you? No Trevor, all of the evidence tells us that Reid simply wasn’t reliable.

No he doesnt he is specifiacally talking about the Kelly murder in the extract I posted

Dr Bond stated “The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent.” But he doesnt ever state that it was never found

He then went on to say ”The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus & Kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the Rt foot, the Liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side & the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.”

The heart is the ‘biggie’ when it comes to internal organs and yet….Dr Bond ‘forgets’ to mention it.

I dont believe in Bonds report to Anderson he mentions the heart being missing, and Dr Hebbert who you quote took no further part after the initial crime scene examination

[/QUOTE]

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I have no wish to involve myself in the interchange between Trevor and yourself, but I would like to presume to offer an opinion on the boldened statement.

As you would know the Pericardium is the fibrous sheath that surrounds the heart. The traditional means of accessing the pericardium, and the enclosed heart, was via a spreading of the rib cage. However there was at the time a recently developed technique taught by Virchow that involved access via the abdominal cavity and opening the pericardium from below, to which technique Bond is referring. So the sequence is to first open the pericardium from below. The next procedure is to remove the heart from the pericardium.

IMHO, which can only amount to speculation on my part, and by all concerned, is that Bond was stating that the heart had been removed from the pericardium from below, and was therefore absent from its usual location,in the pericardium. I don't believe that he was suggesting that it was absent from the room. JMO.

Virchow's technique was cutting edge at the time and had been taught to very few of his students....one of whom was Francis Thompson.

Wait....isn't this an Eddowes thread??

Hello George,

I take your point about the interpretation of the phrase but I can’t see him listing the location of the other organs and yet he neglects to mention the heart. And when we add that to that Gabe’s “"a certain organ was missing.” Then we get Hebbert (who was Bond’s assistant and who attended the inquest) saying “ all the organs except the heart were found scattered around the room..."

[GBinOz]

Dr Bond stated “The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent.”

The heart is the ‘biggie’ when it comes to internal organs and yet….Dr Bond ‘forgets’ to mention it.

Hi Herlock,

I have no wish to involve myself in the interchange between Trevor and yourself, but I would like to presume to offer an opinion on the boldened statement.

As you would know the Pericardium is the fibrous sheath that surrounds the heart. The traditional means of accessing the pericardium, and the enclosed heart, was via a spreading of the rib cage. However there was at the time a recently developed technique taught by Virchow that involved access via the abdominal cavity and opening the pericardium from below, to which technique Bond is referring. So the sequence is to first open the pericardium from below. The next procedure is to remove the heart from the pericardium.

IMHO, which can only amount to speculation on my part, and by all concerned, is that Bond was stating that the heart had been removed from the pericardium from below, and was therefore absent from its usual location,in the pericardium. I don't believe that he was suggesting that it was absent from the room. JMO.

Virchow's technique was cutting edge at the time and had been taught to very few of his students....one of whom was Francis Thompson.

Wait....isn't this an Eddowes thread??

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's not cherry picking, and it's not just about Reid, another senior officer who attended the crime scene, corroborates what Reid said that no organs were found missing so you don't have any argument. And I would not call the errors in the MM minor

Just for your info Reid was not directly involved in all the murders so he can be excused for some memory lapses in some of the other reports and as far as the the Kelly murder is concerned, he was spot on with everything even to the last detail I have highligted in red the points he got right and I notice despite all your huffing ad puffing you cannot dispute what he said.

Staying with Reids article, he states the motive was murder and mutilation, and I concur, as i have said that about all the other murders

“This was a case in which a pretty, fair-haired, blue-eyed, youthful girl was murdered. She rented a room in a house in Dorset-street, or which she paid 4s 6d a week rent. The room was badly furnished for the reason that her class of people always pawn or sell anything decent they ever get into their places. The curtains to the windows were torn and one of the panes of glass was broken.
Kelly was in arrears with her rent and one morning a man known as ‘The Indian’, who was in the employment of the landlord of the house, went round about eight o’clock to see the woman about the money. Receiving no answer to his knock at the door, he peered through the window, and through the torn curtain saw the horrible sight of the woman lying on her bed hacked to pieces and pieces of her flesh placed upon the table.
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. The landlord was brought round to the house by his man, and the sight of the poor mutilated woman turned his brain.
The suggestion having been made that in the eyes of a murdered person a reflection of the murderer might be retained, we had the eyes of Kelly photographed and the photographs magnified, but the effort was fruitless.We tried every possible means of tracing if the woman had been seen with a man, but without avail. An example of the difficulty we had may be found in that women came forward who swore that they saw Kelly standing at the corner of the court at eight o’clock of the morning her body was found, but the evidence of the doctors proved this to be an impossibility. By that hour the woman had been dead not less than four hours

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

More proof that Reid was unreliable and that you ‘concur’ with him speaks volumes. No matter how you have been proven wrong you are still dogmatically attached to your theory.

First…you state that he wasn’t directly involved in all of the murders which you allow as an excuse for his howlers. Ok, Macnaghten wasn’t there when they pulled Druitt out of the Thames six years previous to the memorandum. Again, why is him mistaking 31 for 41 and Doctor for son of one utterly unforgivable and yet Reid’s mistakes aren’t? Cherrypicking.

Reid is clearly stating that the killer took no organs in any of the murders. No one at the time believed that. So as a ‘get out’ clause you are suggesting that years after the murder former Inspector Reid became the only person in England who thought that the killer hadn’t taken organs. You’d have thought that he’d have mentioned this earth-shattering theory somewhere wouldn’t you? No Trevor, all of the evidence tells us that Reid simply wasn’t reliable.

Dr Bond stated “The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent.”

He then went on to say ”The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus & Kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the Rt foot, the Liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side & the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.”

The heart is the ‘biggie’ when it comes to internal organs and yet….Dr Bond ‘forgets’ to mention it.