PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

You picked up on the constant hypocrisy too Debs?

You must realise that the source is only valid if it supports ones theory, otherwise it is questionable.

That's where the amateur detectives go wrong. ;-)

Monty

You should no that corroboration is looked for, and far to many of here want to accept reports and facts on face value, and seek to rely on those to prop up their arguments.

[Debra A]

As to Mr Ryan he is not an expert. In his writings he gives nothing more than an opinion, which seems to be in line with yours both on this and with Thames Torso murder which you have made your baby so I understand you leaning towards his writing.

I have no idea what his ideas on the torso murders are. If you mean I agree that they were victims of foul play, then yes, I do. That's the sum total of my theory so far.

[Debra A]

You picked up on the constant hypocrisy too Debs?

You must realise that the source is only valid if it supports ones theory, otherwise it is questionable.

That's where the amateur detectives go wrong. ;-)

Monty

Who hasn't? ...I mean-honestly, who hasn't yet?!..

[Debra A]

No I am not saying that at all. I said in view of the fact that no other medical man or police officer subscribed to the heart being taken away at the time or thereafter, so caution must be exercised as to why 6 years later he comes forward with his comments.

I also see that in 2005 AP Wolf raised some concerns about the credibility of Dr Herbert did he not?

As to Mr Ryan he is not an expert. In his writings he gives nothing more than an opinion, which seems to be in line with yours both on this and with Thames Torso murder which you have made your baby so I understand you leaning towards his writing.

Yes Debra I am one of a kind not an armchair detective

I am making other people aware of the previously discussed source that you chose not to mention because it contradicts your theory.

[Monty]

Let me get this straight, Trevor-you are now saying the newspaper reporting is actually more reliable than the writings of a doctor who was at the actual scene in Miller's court and helped with the post mortem?!
You are certainly one of a kind, Trevor, I'll give you that!

You picked up on the constant hypocrisy too Debs?

You must realise that the source is only valid if it supports ones theory, otherwise it is questionable.

That's where the amateur detectives go wrong. ;-)

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Let me get this straight, Trevor-you are now saying the newspaper reporting is actually more reliable than the writings of a doctor who was at the actual scene in Miller's court and helped with the post mortem?!
You are certainly one of a kind, Trevor, I'll give you that!

No I am not saying that at all. I said in view of the fact that no other medical man or police officer subscribed to the heart being taken away at the time or thereafter, so caution must be exercised as to why 6 years later he comes forward with his comments.

I also see that in 2005 AP Wolf raised some concerns about the credibility of Dr Herbert did he not?

As to Mr Ryan he is not an expert. In his writings he gives nothing more than an opinion, which seems to be in line with yours both on this and with Thames Torso murder which you have made your baby so I understand you leaning towards his writing.

Yes Debra I am one of a kind not an armchair detective

[Debra A]

Thank for posting that but there is nothing from any other medical men at the scene at the time who suggest the heart was missing from the room other than the ambiguous part from Dr Bond. The newspaper men were clearly on the scene and clearly had a good informant,

When the articles were published the medical men and police for that matter had every opportunity to publicly negate the articles they didn't. why didn't they? It wasn't even mentioned at the brief inquest was it? nor thereafter.

I cannot offer any explanation as to Dr Herbets comments 6 years later, but I would suggest that in view of what I have stated it should be treated with caution. He seems to be the only one suggesting this.

Of course we are back again looking at these murders in a different light are we not? Because if the heart was not missing then either it was a different killer that killed Kelly to the one who killed Chapman and Eddowes, or because no organs were removed from Millers Court and it was the same killer, it brings into question the removal of the organs from the crime scenes with regards to Chapman and Eddowes.

Not good for those who want to prop up the old theories !

Let me get this straight, Trevor-you are now saying the newspaper reporting is actually more reliable than the writings of a doctor who was at the actual scene in Miller's court and helped with the post mortem?!
You are certainly one of a kind, Trevor, I'll give you that!

[Trevor Marriott]

There is another source you don't mention that probably should be taken into account too, Trevor:

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


-This description of the Miller's Court scene was described in the medical jurisprudence text ' A system of legal medicine '

"The thanks of the editor are due to Dr. Hebbert, lately associated with Mr. Bond, the coroner of London, England, who has, in conjunction with Dr. F.A. Harris, presented for the first time in a book of medical jurisprudence the records of the Whitechapel murder cases, and the deductions therefrom, which must in future play a great part in the determination of the identity of the dead body.
New York May 1894"

First documented in 'The Criminologist' article 'Another Look at Mary Kelly's Heart' by S. Gouriet Ryan in 1998.

Thank for posting that but there is nothing from any other medical men at the scene at the time who suggest the heart was missing from the room other than the ambiguous part from Dr Bond. The newspaper men were clearly on the scene and clearly had a good informant,

When the articles were published the medical men and police for that matter had every opportunity to publicly negate the articles they didn't. why didn't they? It wasn't even mentioned at the brief inquest was it? nor thereafter.

I cannot offer any explanation as to Dr Herbets comments 6 years later, but I would suggest that in view of what I have stated it should be treated with caution. He seems to be the only one suggesting this.

Of course we are back again looking at these murders in a different light are we not? Because if the heart was not missing then either it was a different killer that killed Kelly to the one who killed Chapman and Eddowes, or because no organs were removed from Millers Court and it was the same killer, it brings into question the removal of the organs from the crime scenes with regards to Chapman and Eddowes.

Not good for those who want to prop up the old theories !

[Debra A]

The heart was not accounted for, Trev.

This has always been a contentious issue based on the ambiguous comment by the doctor that the heart was absent from the pericardium. Bbut that is not clear proof that it was missing from the room or taken away by the killer.

[B]To try to come to a proper conclusion about this there were several newspapers reported that no organs were removed from the room. Now i treat newspaper report wih caution but in this case several different papers corroborate each other with the same story, Can they all be wrong ?

There is another source you don't mention that probably should be taken into account too, Trevor:

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


-This description of the Miller's Court scene was described in the medical jurisprudence text ' A system of legal medicine '

"The thanks of the editor are due to Dr. Hebbert, lately associated with Mr. Bond, the coroner of London, England, who has, in conjunction with Dr. F.A. Harris, presented for the first time in a book of medical jurisprudence the records of the Whitechapel murder cases, and the deductions therefrom, which must in future play a great part in the determination of the identity of the dead body.
New York May 1894"

First documented in 'The Criminologist' article 'Another Look at Mary Kelly's Heart' by S. Gouriet Ryan in 1998.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thats a subjective assumption Trevor.

Neither Garry nor myself need to trash the statements of witnesses or policemen to arrive at this interpretation.

No need to trash them if you assess and evaluate them in unbiased fashion you cān see the flaws in them. That's when you trash them !

[Wickerman]

Not if neither have a brain capable of applying reasoned logic and the idea does not in the first place stand up to close scrutiny !

Thats a subjective assumption Trevor.

Neither Garry nor myself need to trash the statements of witnesses or policemen to arrive at this interpretation.

[Trevor Marriott]

But Trevor, you can't use the mortuary lists, or in fact anything from the City of London mortuary to back up your new theory. If I understand it from TV, your theory is that the City of London mortuary is where the organs of Catherine Eddowes were removed.

You are retired law enforcement. Let's say you are in court testifying in a criminal prosecution. And it turns out the morgue has removed the victms body parts. Everything, and I mean everything concerning the morgue would be disallowed. The defense lawyers would be in heaven. They'd be peeing all over themselves with glee.

But here we are, with you telling us the City of London is where the organs of Catherine Eddowes were removed, yet we need to accept the mortuary lists. In your theory, Trevor, we accept nothing from the mortuary. Everthing about the mortuary is hopelessly compromised.

How can I make it any clearer. I can't.

Roy

So is the rest of what we have been asked to accept.

Try taking the blinkers off and look at it another way !

If she was not wearing an apron then the killer could not have cut or torn it could he. Therefore he could not have taken the organs away in it.

As far as the mortuaries are concerned both the body of Chapman and Eddowes were left for many hours before the doctors came back to do the post mortems

The mortuary lists were produced as evidence to show what Eddowes was wearing and the cuts to the clothing and what was in her possessions. There is nothing compromising about the lists. They are prime evidence made at the time you cant get better evidence than that, unlike other witness statements which were no doubt prepared at a later date if at all in some case before the inquest.

There is no suggestion that the morgue persee removed the organs. The suggestion is that a.n. other. could have had and seized the opportunity. That person being either a medical student, an anatomist. or a doctor for the purpose of medical research. It has already been established that these persons could go and obtain organs freely at mortuaries from deceased persons for that purpose.

We all know that the bodies should not have been tampered with, but needs must when the devil calls. We know that Chapman`s body was tampered with before the post mortem that's documented

If one of those persons did removed the organs then haste would have been needed hence the somewhat crude way these organs were removed and could also account for some of the internal injuries documented by the doctors when they came to do the post mortem, which have been attributed to the killer.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Garry.

When two people can arrive at the same conclusion quite independently it speaks more in favour of the idea.

Not if neither have a brain capable of applying reasoned logic and the idea does not in the first place stand up to close scrutiny !

[Wickerman]

Hi Garry.

When two people can arrive at the same conclusion quite independently it speaks more in favour of the idea.

[Garry Wroe]

My interest was due to the fact that I had researched all the available published material up to 1998 to see if any author had suggested that this portion of apron might have been used to carry away organs - no-one had. Not even the likes of Stewart, Paul & Martin who among others were all Casebook contributors at the time had ever heard of the idea.
This seemed strange to me as my impression was that it was so obvious a possibility that someone must have given thought to the idea.
Hence my dissertation on the subject in late 1998.

Oh, now I understand, Jon. I wasn't aware of your dissertation. I'll give it a read when I have the time.