How many victims?

[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]

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

[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]

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

[Observer]

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.

Neither is the gall bladder, the pancreas, the womb. Were these also taken by the killer? Dr Bond stated that the abdominal cavity was

" emptied of its viscera."

he says of the heart

"The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent."

The heart absent from the body, he does not say it was missing from the room.

With regard to the press reports, in this instance, I would take them with a pinch of salt. If all they are drawing on is Dr Bonds post mortem report, and this is all that any of us can draw any conclusions from, then I'd say they are taking liberties with the truth.

[JeffHamm]

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.”

Just pointing out, this comes before the Times article on the 13th where they effectively retract this, and report that a portion was indeed missing. So this is an outdated article that the paper itself over-rides.

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...”

So, correctly, the underlined portion indicates it is not the uterus that was missing (or the kidney for that matter)

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.”

Again, the Times on the 13th corrects this, and states that something was taken. Hence, this article was effectively retracted.

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.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The articles where they say nothing was missing come before the articles that later retract those statements. Therefore, you can't use them because the paper itself even tells you they were incorrect.

Also, the Echo and other bits you posted clearly state that a small portion was indeed missing. And they even point out it wasn't burnt in the fire.

I'll leave it at that.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Neither is the gall bladder, the pancreas, the womb. Were these also taken by the killer? Dr Bond stated that the abdominal cavity was

" emptied of its viscera."

he says of the heart

"The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent."

The heart absent from the body, he does not say it was missing from the room.

With regard to the press reports, in this instance, I would take them with a pinch of salt. If all they are drawing on is Dr Bonds post mortem report, and this is all that any of us can draw any conclusions from, then I'd say they are taking liberties with the truth.

The womb is the uterus, which was found in the room (and it was the finding of the PM notes that refuted an old theory in the 70s that Kelly was pregnant at the time as examination of the uterus showed she wasn't). I would think the gall bladder was probably attached to the liver, and pancreas to the stomach? But, in the end, I suppose it doesn't matter if it's the heart, gall bladder, or pancreas that was taken, the main thing would be that an organ was taken. All indications are it was the heart as it is described as absent, and it is not listed as being placed anywhere in the room. Being a fairly noticeable organ, requiring specific removal, it's location would have been noted had it been found in the room.

- Jeff

[Joshua Rogan]

Just pointing out, this comes before the Times article on the 13th where they effectively retract this, and report that a portion was indeed missing. So this is an outdated article that the paper itself over-rides.

So, correctly, the underlined portion indicates it is not the uterus that was missing (or the kidney for that matter)

Again, the Times on the 13th corrects this, and states that something was taken. Hence, this article was effectively retracted.


The articles where they say nothing was missing come before the articles that later retract those statements. Therefore, you can't use them because the paper itself even tells you they were incorrect.

Also, the Echo and other bits you posted clearly state that a small portion was indeed missing. And they even point out it wasn't burnt in the fire.

I'll leave it at that.

- Jeff

Like the Times, the Echo also contradicts it's statement of the 12th dramatically;

Echo 13th Nov;

"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."

[JeffHamm]

Like the Times, the Echo also contradicts it's statement of the 12th dramatically;

Echo 13th Nov;

"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."

Yes, and it is important to note that these are retractions of their earlier reports when they say "...notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, ...". They are clearly saying "ignore what we said before", otherwise known as a retraction.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

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?

re brown-i posted on thison the hermans thread but interesting to note brown was murdered in NY april 24 1891 and hermans arrived in NY on april 8 of that year, as Astatine found! hmmm. but were getting off topic on this thread so well keep the hermans stuff to the other thread.

[Abby Normal]

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?

thanks los. but with the recent findings on Hermans, we may need to re-asses lol! but ill leave that to the Hermans thread from here on out.

ps-kellys heart was missing, and taken away by the ripper. dont get caught up in trevors nonsense theory that the ripper didnt take away organs.

[Observer]

The womb is the uterus, which was found in the room (and it was the finding of the PM notes that refuted an old theory in the 70s that Kelly was pregnant at the time as examination of the uterus showed she wasn't). I would think the gall bladder was probably attached to the liver, and pancreas to the stomach? But, in the end, I suppose it doesn't matter if it's the heart, gall bladder, or pancreas that was taken, the main thing would be that an organ was taken. All indications are it was the heart as it is described as absent, and it is not listed as being placed anywhere in the room. Being a fairly noticeable organ, requiring specific removal, it's location would have been noted had it been found in the room.

- Jeff

My bad re the womb it is indeed the uterus. Wouldn't Bond have said that the gall bladder was attached to the liver, the pancreas attached to the stomach? My point is that it was such a bloody disjointed mess that Bond does not reveal the whereabouts of all the internal organs, including the heart. There is no indication that he specifically said the heart had been taken from the room, and I believe you are jumping to conclusions with regard to this assumption.

[JeffHamm]

My bad re the womb it is indeed the uterus. Wouldn't Bond have said that the gall bladder was attached to the liver, the pancreas attached to the stomach? My point is that it was such a bloody disjointed mess that Bond does not reveal the whereabouts of all the internal organs, including the heart. There is no indication that he specifically said the heart had been taken from the room, and I believe you are jumping to conclusions with regard to this assumption.

Well, that's fine. I read the heart missing from the body, it's absence of being listed in the room (and it's a major self isolated organ which would be noted, while the gall bladder and pancreas, despite their critical functions are smaller and likely attached to other organs), as indicating it was not in the room. Also, there are press reports that tell us it was eventually determined that something was indeed missing (despite earlier reports to the contrary), and even one that specifically tells us the heart was missing. I'm not sure I would call that jumping to conclusions, but our criterions could be different.

- Jeff

[Observer]

Yes, and it is important to note that these are retractions of their earlier reports when they say "...notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, ...". They are clearly saying "ignore what we said before", otherwise known as a retraction.

- Jeff

Isn't it police procedure to withhold certain information to sort the wheat from the chaff, when interviewing suspects? It's possible they were creating a smoke screen with regard to whether any of Kelly's organs had been taken from the room. The murderer would have known exactly what was or was not taken from Kelly's room.

[JeffHamm]

Isn't it police procedure to withhold certain information to sort the wheat from the chaff, when interviewing suspects? It's possible they were creating a smoke screen with regard to whether any of Kelly's organs had been taken from the room. The murderer would have known exactly what was or was not taken from Kelly's room.

The police of 1888 were very tight lipped, and were not happy with the medical testimony being given at the previous inquests. They were much happier with the more limited inquest for Kelly. They were more likely to withhold the information that the heart was missing than to put out fake information (i.e. to say it was when it wasn't), and can't think of another example where we know they did that. There's nothing in the police files, or communication with HO, to suggest they engaged in such deception, though there is mention of their desire not to release information.

- Jeff