How many victims?

[Trevor Marriott]

Dr. Bond indicates the heart was missing from the chest cavity.

We have a description of the placement of the organs at the crime scene, and the heart is not listed as being found.

Finally, we have press reports that indicate that a portion of the organs was, in fact, missing, which also point out that earlier reports (pre PM) were incorrect in saying nothing was missing. This from the Echo, Nov 13th (same appears in The Daily Telegraph of the same day, though without the heading and embedded in a larger paragraph):

PORTION OF BODY IS MISSING.

The medical testimony adduced at the inquest was limited to that which was absolutely required to enable the Jury to find respecting the cause of death. A morning contemporary is, however, enabled to state, on what it declares to be good authority, that, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, a portion of the body organs was missing. The police, and with them the divisional surgeon, have arrived at the conclusion that it is the interest of justice not to disclose the details of the professional inquiry.

And from the Times, Nov 13th, we have the following, which indicates that Dr. Phillips had not completed his examination at the time of the inquiry (On the 12th I believe) but the following article is on the 13th and the statement that indicates "some portions of the body of the deceased worman are missing" comes after he has completed his 6.5 hour examination:

No question was put to Dr. Phillips as to the mutilated remains of the body, and the Coroner did not think fit to ask the doctor whether any portions of the body were missing. The doctor stated to the jury during the inquiry that his examination was not yet completed. His idea was that by at once making public every fact brought to light in connexion with this terrible murder, the ends of justice might be retarded. The examination of the body by Dr. Phillips on Saturday lasted upwards of six-and-a-half hours. Notwithstanding reports to the contrary, it is still confidently asserted that some portions of the body of the deceased woman are missing.

And we also have this from the Observer (18th of Nov, 1888) which specifically mentions the heart being taken: (found by Stephen Gouriet Ryan and published in Ripperana, #13, July 1995, p16-17) as indicated here https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...ostheart.html:

"Though the coroner prevented most of the medical evidence from coming out, it is believed that much of it will be of a curious nature. According to one report published on Friday it seems that the assassin cut the woman's heart out and carried it away, and if he did not carry away the other parts of the body, it was supposed that he was either disturbed or that he forgot them in his hurry to escape. That he cut the heart out from below instead of cutting through the diaphragm does not, as some argue, show that he is an ignorant person..."

So, basically, evidence in favour of Kelly's heart being taken away:
1) it was not found in the body
2) it was not found in the room
3) there are press reports suggesting that
a) some portion of the body was missing
b) earlier reports to the contrary were wrong
4) at least one press report, many days after the examination, specifically says it was the heart that was missing

Evidence against the heart being taken?
1) In an interview many years later, Insp. Reid says nothing was missing

- Jeff

The fact that the medical evidence for the inquest was allegedly supressed is academic because we do not know what that evidence would have been, so it is wrong to suggest that evidence to show the killer took away the heart might have been that which was supressed.

The evidence to show that the heart was not taken away is more than you seem to want to admit to

Insp Reid was head of Whitechapel CID he attended the crime scene so he is just as credible as Dr Bond but of course Bond did not ever say outright that the killer took away the heart,and of course this is evident by his letter to Andesron where he discusses the murders but makes no mention of any missing organs.

Insp Reid also was one of the persons who returned to the crime scene following the post mortem
Walter Dew attended the crime scene and in his memoirs makes no mention of the killer taking away the heart nor do any other senior officers who were directly involved. Now I would have thought that when officers were writing memoirs something as important as a killer cutting a heart out and taking it away would be at least worthy of some mention.

I see you have been selective in the press reports you quote did you forget abut these ?

The Echo, 10th November 1888...

“The investigation made by the doctors yesterday was not the final one, mainly because the room was ill-adapted for the purpose of carrying out a complete autopsy. The post-mortem examination-in-chief was only commenced this morning, at the early hour of half-past seven, when Dr. Phillips, Dr. Bond, Dr. Hibbert, and other experts attended. Some portions of the body are missing, and, says an Echo reporter, writing at two o'clock this afternoon, Dr. Phillips and Dr.
Bond, accompanied by Inspector Moore, Inspector Abberline, and Inspector Reid, are again paying a visit to Miller's-court, in order to examine the ashes found in the grate, as it is thought small parts of the body may have been burnt.”

The Times 10th November
“The latest account states upon what professes to be indisputable authority that no portion of the woman's body was taken away by the murderer. As already stated, the post-mortem examination was of the most exhaustive character, and surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for and placed as closely as possible in its natural position.”

The Echo 12th November

“Nothing of any importance was discovered in the ashes at the deceased's house. A small portion only of the remains is missing, while it is noticeable as a special incident in the barbarous murder that the organ hitherto taken away at the mutilations was found in the room, although it had been cut out of the body...”
The Times 12th November

“As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination, which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case. The examination was most minutely made, and lasted upwards of 2 ½ hours after which the mutilated portions were sewn to the body, and therefore the coroner's jury will be spared the unpleasant duty of witnessing the horrible spectacle presented to those who discovered the murder. The ashes found in the fireplace of the room rented by the deceased woman were also submitted to a searching examination, but nothing likely to throw any light on this shocking case could be gleaned from them.”

The Echo 12th November

“Nothing of any importance was discovered in the ashes at the deceased's house. A small portion only of the remains is missing, while it is noticeable as a special incident in the barbarous murder that the organ hitherto taken away at the mutilations was found in the room, although it had been cut out of the body...”

The Times 12th November

“As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination, which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case. The examination was most minutely made, and lasted upwards of 2 ½ hours after which the mutilated portions were sewn to the body, and therefore the coroner's jury will be spared the unpleasant duty of witnessing the horrible spectacle presented to those who discovered the murder. The ashes found in the fireplace of the room rented by the deceased woman were also submitted to a searching examination, but nothing likely to throw any light on this shocking case could be gleaned from them.”

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Dr. Bond indicates the heart was missing from the chest cavity.

We have a description of the placement of the organs at the crime scene, and the heart is not listed as being found.

Finally, we have press reports that indicate that a portion of the organs was, in fact, missing, which also point out that earlier reports (pre PM) were incorrect in saying nothing was missing. This from the Echo, Nov 13th (same appears in The Daily Telegraph of the same day, though without the heading and embedded in a larger paragraph):

PORTION OF BODY IS MISSING.

The medical testimony adduced at the inquest was limited to that which was absolutely required to enable the Jury to find respecting the cause of death. A morning contemporary is, however, enabled to state, on what it declares to be good authority, that, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, a portion of the body organs was missing. The police, and with them the divisional surgeon, have arrived at the conclusion that it is the interest of justice not to disclose the details of the professional inquiry.

And from the Times, Nov 13th, we have the following, which indicates that Dr. Phillips had not completed his examination at the time of the inquiry (On the 12th I believe) but the following article is on the 13th and the statement that indicates "some portions of the body of the deceased worman are missing" comes after he has completed his 6.5 hour examination:

No question was put to Dr. Phillips as to the mutilated remains of the body, and the Coroner did not think fit to ask the doctor whether any portions of the body were missing. The doctor stated to the jury during the inquiry that his examination was not yet completed. His idea was that by at once making public every fact brought to light in connexion with this terrible murder, the ends of justice might be retarded. The examination of the body by Dr. Phillips on Saturday lasted upwards of six-and-a-half hours. Notwithstanding reports to the contrary, it is still confidently asserted that some portions of the body of the deceased woman are missing.

And we also have this from the Observer (18th of Nov, 1888) which specifically mentions the heart being taken: (found by Stephen Gouriet Ryan and published in Ripperana, #13, July 1995, p16-17) as indicated here https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...ostheart.html:

"Though the coroner prevented most of the medical evidence from coming out, it is believed that much of it will be of a curious nature. According to one report published on Friday it seems that the assassin cut the woman's heart out and carried it away, and if he did not carry away the other parts of the body, it was supposed that he was either disturbed or that he forgot them in his hurry to escape. That he cut the heart out from below instead of cutting through the diaphragm does not, as some argue, show that he is an ignorant person..."

So, basically, evidence in favour of Kelly's heart being taken away:
1) it was not found in the body
2) it was not found in the room
3) there are press reports suggesting that
a) some portion of the body was missing
b) earlier reports to the contrary were wrong
4) at least one press report, many days after the examination, specifically says it was the heart that was missing

Evidence against the heart being taken?
1) In an interview many years later, Insp. Reid says nothing was missing

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

I tend to agree with Abby on this one. Seven in total, starting with Tabram and finishing with Mackenzie. As for for MJK heart, on the balance of probability I think the killer took it with him. Does its removal by the killer mean that a theory you have about him would be likely Trevor? Or do you think the facts as we have then indicate that it was somewhere else or burnt in the fire?

The only evidence to suggest the killer took away the heart comes from dr bond who only states it had been removed from The pericardium.there is zero evidence to show it was taken away by the killer that is fact.

this wild belief stems from the misguided belief that the killer took away the organs of chapman and eddowes.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Losmandris]

I tend to agree with Abby on this one. Seven in total, starting with Tabram and finishing with Mackenzie. As for for MJK heart, on the balance of probability I think the killer took it with him. Does its removal by the killer mean that a theory you have about him would be likely Trevor? Or do you think the facts as we have then indicate that it was somewhere else or burnt in the fire?

[Trevor Marriott]

But we also have the article by Dr Hebbert in A System of Legal Medicine, in which he states that "all the organs except the heart were found scattered about the room".
So if it wasn't found in the body, and it wasn't found in the room.....is your money as safe as you'd like to think?

Hebbert was Dr Bond’s assistant and was responsible for taking notes at the crime scene, and the post mortem. It is believed he prepared Bonds report to Anderson from those notes. Bonds report surfaced in later years but would appear to be missing the final page or pages, as to what that page or pages may or may not have contained we can only speculate.

It should also be noted that following the post mortem as has previously been mentioned several Doctors and Police officers revisited the crime scene, for what purpose is unclear. It is suggested that this was to examine the contents of the fire grate, as it was believed that perhaps body parts had been burnt by the killer. However, Dr Hebbert was not one of those and so what if anything was found during that visit must remain a mystery, because all he does is corroborate Bonds ambiguous post mortem report.

Money still safe

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Bond made notes of where all Kelly’s major organs were in the room except for the heart. The implication was that the heart, unless burned (unlikely), must have been taken away.

If its presumed removal by her killer was not made clear at the time, that should probably be blamed on the way Macdonald conducted the inquest. When Wynne Baxter conducted the inquests on other victims, the removal of uteruses and a kidney was highlighted and received due publicity. Macdonald on the other hand did his best to play down and conceal all these details.

Thats pure conjecture on your part

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Gordon]

Bond made notes of where all Kelly’s major organs were in the room except for the heart. The implication was that the heart, unless burned (unlikely), must have been taken away.

If its presumed removal by her killer was not made clear at the time, that should probably be blamed on the way Macdonald conducted the inquest. When Wynne Baxter conducted the inquests on other victims, the removal of uteruses and a kidney was highlighted and received due publicity. Macdonald on the other hand did his best to play down and conceal all these details.

[Abby Normal]

If you were to include Annie Millwood and Carrie Brown they would also fit with the pattern of escalation especially since Millwoods is very similar to Tabram's but less severe and Carrie Brown's is very similar to MJK's and is very extreme.

totally agree with you on millwood. i think she was an early ripper victim. not so sure about brown. unless of course it was hermans.
was he in NY around this time after coming from England?

[Joshua Rogan]

There is no conspiracy to be had, its plain and simple, Bond stated the heart was mising from the pericardium there is no mention of it being taken away by the killer. No one therefater mentions the heart being taken away by the killer. But we do have mention both in the press of the day and in Reids later interview that all the organs were accounted for so all off that evidence against one ambiguos statement. I know where my money is a safe bet

But we also have the article by Dr Hebbert in A System of Legal Medicine, in which he states that "all the organs except the heart were found scattered about the room".
So if it wasn't found in the body, and it wasn't found in the room.....is your money as safe as you'd like to think?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Trevor,

Morning Advertiser, 10th November 1888—

“The photographer who had been called in to photograph the room and the body removed his camera from the premises at half-past four, and shortly afterwards a detective officer carried from the house a pail with which he left in a four-wheel cab. The pail was covered with a newspaper, and it was stated that it contained portions of the woman's body. It was taken to the house of Dr. Phillips, 2 Spital Square.”

Simon

[Herlock Sholmes]

I forgot to mention the pail that was removed from the room and taken to the home of Dr Phillips which presumably contained body parts before the post mortem

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The contents of which would have been seen by the Doctors before being put into the Pail. Who they have missed a heart? Doubt it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Assuming that Bond wasn’t making it up and that he knew what a heart looked like, he said that it was missing from the pericardium therefore it was removed from the body. So if it wasn’t in the body and neither Bond nor anyone else mention it being on a table or the bed or the floor then where was it?

Wouldn’t Bond and the other Doctors have spotted it? So why is Reid more reliable than Bond? Even more to the point why are the Press more reliable?

Perhaps they should have asked Reid to have performed the Post Mortem assisted by Fred Smith, reporter from The Star?

I forgot to mention the pail that was removed from the room and taken to the home of Dr Phillips which presumably contained body parts before the post mortem

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

. bone. The viscera were found in various parts viz; the uterus & kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right 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 & thighs were on a table.

But he doesn’t find the heart.

[Astatine211]

If you were to include Annie Millwood and Carrie Brown they would also fit with the pattern of escalation especially since Millwoods is very similar to Tabram's but less severe and Carrie Brown's is very similar to MJK's and is very extreme.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no conspiracy to be had, its plain and simple, Bond stated the heart was mising from the pericardium there is no mention of it being taken away by the killer. No one therefater mentions the heart being taken away by the killer. But we do have mention both in the press of the day and in Reids later interview that all the organs were accounted for so all off that evidence against one ambiguos statement. I know where my money is a safe bet

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Assuming that Bond wasn’t making it up and that he knew what a heart looked like, he said that it was missing from the pericardium therefore it was removed from the body. So if it wasn’t in the body and neither Bond nor anyone else mention it being on a table or the bed or the floor then where was it?

Wouldn’t Bond and the other Doctors have spotted it? So why is Reid more reliable than Bond? Even more to the point why are the Press more reliable?

Perhaps they should have asked Reid to have performed the Post Mortem assisted by Fred Smith, reporter from The Star?