Evidence left behind

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I've no personal suspect or preferred theory, but I do believe the killer knew what they were doing and how best to try and get away with it. When clearing away the fog of ripperology, it seems to straightforward to think - maybe he was never caught because he made sure not to get caught?
Either that or it was cover up.

[Abby Normal]

Unless the GSG was not by the killer, the letters were hoaxes and stride wasn't a C5?

hi al
even if all that is true, which I doubt, everything else would still point to a well organized and intelligent killer-planning before he went out hunting, rusing the victims, never leaving a clue and always getting away in the nick of time.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

hi FrankO
I respectfully disagree. the ripper was nothing if not well organized. He planned on the nights he was to go out hunting (having to bring his items-knife, something to carry his trophys in, perhaps a rag to wipe his hands), rused his victims to get them where he wanted them, perceptive enough to always get away in time undetected and the only clue he ever left behind was intentional (the GSG). Also, Probably wrote letters taunting what he did and was going to do (dear boss, from hell-either one). and besides no un organized killer could have pulled off what happened the night of the double event.

IMHO everything points to he was a well organized, intelligent killer.

Unless the GSG was not by the killer, the letters were hoaxes and stride wasn't a C5?

[Abby Normal]

Apart from leaving behind a photograph of him mutilating one of his victims, I don’t think there would have been anything that could have lead the police to the Ripper’s arrest. As long as he didn’t want to be found out and acted accordingly in the way that he did, only catching him in the act or fleeing the scene would get him hung and, possibly, but only possibly, an eyewitness.

My view is that he wasn't a well organized killer. One can say that some aspects of his MO was directed at minimizing the risk of being caught, but to call him 'well organized' would be well overrated as far as I'm concerned.

All the best,
Frank

hi FrankO
I respectfully disagree. the ripper was nothing if not well organized. He planned on the nights he was to go out hunting (having to bring his items-knife, something to carry his trophys in, perhaps a rag to wipe his hands), rused his victims to get them where he wanted them, perceptive enough to always get away in time undetected and the only clue he ever left behind was intentional (the GSG). Also, Probably wrote letters taunting what he did and was going to do (dear boss, from hell-either one). and besides no un organized killer could have pulled off what happened the night of the double event.

IMHO everything points to he was a well organized, intelligent killer.

[FrankO]

Whereas we tend to over think the situation, I believe JtR did not think about it at all. He had a simple MO that he stuck to, the rest be damned. I don't that he really thought about making sure he did not leave any clues, I don't think that he cared if he did. He just managed to get away with it. Of course his simple MO helped but the main thing was that he was so single minded on what he had to do, the prospect of consequences, being caught or even fear did not come into his head or cloud his approach.

Tristan

Hi Tristan,

I agree that he didn't really think much about making sure he did not leave any clues, simply because I believe he knew that there were no clues he could leave that could actually prove he was the culprit. Having said that, I don't think he got away in time on each and every occasion on account of sheer luck, though. In other words, I do think he was aware of the fact that what he was doing was wrong and, therefore, acted in such a way and saw to it that he raised no suspicion with anybody and got away in time.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

Here is my problem, considering 1888 police forensics I am hard press to understand what evidence he could have left behind.

Would someone like to offer an argument as to what kind of evidence a 19th Century serial killer could have left behind; maybe identify what kind of mistakes you believe Saucy Jacky avoided.

Apart from leaving behind a photograph of him mutilating one of his victims, I don’t think there would have been anything that could have lead the police to the Ripper’s arrest. As long as he didn’t want to be found out and acted accordingly in the way that he did, only catching him in the act or fleeing the scene would get him hung and, possibly, but only possibly, an eyewitness.

So the question is: the absence of what mistake makes you believe the Ripper a well organized serial killer?

My view is that he wasn't a well organized killer. One can say that some aspects of his MO was directed at minimizing the risk of being caught, but to call him 'well organized' would be well overrated as far as I'm concerned.

All the best,
Frank

[JeffHamm]

Well yet again the same old arguments again re appear with regards to newspaper reports with researchers wanting to accept a report which fits in with their own belief and then we see the opposite. Now where there is a conflict, which ones are right and which ones are wrong, who is right and who is wrong? Have the papers deliberately misled the public?

Clearly if you read and digest the contents of all the reports you will see that in the earlier reports it was suggested that organs were missing. However, these earlier editions were published before the full post mortem was conducted.

The later editions were published after the post mortems, and all the other medical activities as described had been carried out, and these stated that all the body parts were accounted for. Now that to me is continuity and a natural progression with newspaper reporting on this specific topic. Surely if the heart was found to be missing someone connected to the case be it medical or police would have said so at some point and would have been quoted, but we don't see that do we, and we see there are no reports that conclusively state that the heart was missing?

Now the inquest reports you seek to rely on. The wording is not concise.

"Telegraph & Echo
"By design, 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. We are "enabled" to state, on good authority, that notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, a portion of the bodily organs was missing. The police, and with them the divisional surgeon, have arrived at the conclusion that it is in the interest of justice not to disclose the details of the professional inquiry"

The use of the word enabled is the key to understanding this, should it be unable? and is it a badly constructed report ?
If it is correctly worded who was the good authority because we do not have anyone who has come forward and confirmed organs were missing, in fact we have the opposite with the later editions and Insp Reid.

Evening News & St James' Gazette & Star & Times

"SOME PORTIONS OF THE BODY ARE MISSING
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."

This report is of no value the wording does not confirm the heart was missing

Reid is without doubt the key to all of this, he was there, he was in charge of Whitechapel CID, he was at the crime scene and at the post mortem. Why would he lie ? read the interview he is not mistaken or confused as some suggest 8 years on. He corroborated the newspaper reports, which stated all the organs were accounted for, I have no more valuable time to devote to arguing an issue where there is clearly no argument to be had.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I agree there's is no argument. We've each presented our interpretations of the evidence and the logic behind our reasoning, which is the point of discussions like this. But yes, I think we've both done so fully, and we're just starting to cover the same ground again. The good thing about the boards is that people can always go back to re-read through posts and don't need us repeating ourselves. Always a pleasure.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

You have only shown two newspaper articles, both from the Times, one on the 10th and the other on the 12th that, suggest nothing was missing. The Echo artlcle, also on the 12th, clearly contradicts those (yet somehow you seem to be arguing it supports your case, but since what it says explictly includes the statement that some portions were missing, your conclusion that it supports the idea nothing was missing is incorrect).

that just leaves the two reports from the Times, on the 10th and 12th.

But on the 13th the Times retracts that claim, as shown by the articles from joshua's post #121:

"Telegraph & Echo
"By design, 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. We are enabled to state, on good authority, that notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, a portion of the bodily organs was missing. The police, and with them the divisional surgeon, have arrived at the conclusion that it is in the interest of justice not to disclose the details of the professional inquiry"

Evening News & St James' Gazette & Star & Times

"SOME PORTIONS OF THE BODY ARE MISSING
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."

So the Times, by your own standards, is changing it's story, and if that were a witness, like Cadosh, you would dismiss the Times as a wholle. That leaves you with no new paper reports. If you don't want to dismiss the Times, because you need those articles from the 10th and 12th, then you have to dismiss the one from teh 13th, which would be cherry picking. The alternative would be to view the stories as changing as new information becomes available, eventually clarifying that yes, indeed, something was missing from the body, and something significant enough that the police did not wish to divulge in "the interests of justice".

And we have the more authorative sources of the postmortem report and the crime scene detail of organ placement. No matter how often you try and say those are ambiguous, they are not, and they clearly indicate her heart was missing form the body, and not found at the crime scene.

I know you need to make the heart reappear because otherwise you have to say there's a third person stealing organs at the mortuary, and perhaps that's a theft too far.

- Jeff

Well yet again the same old arguments again re appear with regards to newspaper reports with researchers wanting to accept a report which fits in with their own belief and then we see the opposite. Now where there is a conflict, which ones are right and which ones are wrong, who is right and who is wrong? Have the papers deliberately misled the public?

Clearly if you read and digest the contents of all the reports you will see that in the earlier reports it was suggested that organs were missing. However, these earlier editions were published before the full post mortem was conducted.

The later editions were published after the post mortems, and all the other medical activities as described had been carried out, and these stated that all the body parts were accounted for. Now that to me is continuity and a natural progression with newspaper reporting on this specific topic. Surely if the heart was found to be missing someone connected to the case be it medical or police would have said so at some point and would have been quoted, but we don't see that do we, and we see there are no reports that conclusively state that the heart was missing?

Now the inquest reports you seek to rely on. The wording is not concise.

"Telegraph & Echo
"By design, 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. We are "enabled" to state, on good authority, that notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, a portion of the bodily organs was missing. The police, and with them the divisional surgeon, have arrived at the conclusion that it is in the interest of justice not to disclose the details of the professional inquiry"

The use of the word enabled is the key to understanding this, should it be unable? and is it a badly constructed report ?
If it is correctly worded who was the good authority because we do not have anyone who has come forward and confirmed organs were missing, in fact we have the opposite with the later editions and Insp Reid.

Evening News & St James' Gazette & Star & Times

"SOME PORTIONS OF THE BODY ARE MISSING
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."

This report is of no value the wording does not confirm the heart was missing

Reid is without doubt the key to all of this, he was there, he was in charge of Whitechapel CID, he was at the crime scene and at the post mortem. Why would he lie ? read the interview he is not mistaken or confused as some suggest 8 years on. He corroborated the newspaper reports, which stated all the organs were accounted for, I have no more valuable time to devote to arguing an issue where there is clearly no argument to be had.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

As to the newspaper reports there is continuity upwards from editions that initally printed the suspicion that organs were missing to the later editions which confirmed following the post mortem none were missing. I fail to see why these facts along with Reids interview are disputed, especially when there is no corroboration to back up Bonds ambiguous statement.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You have only shown two newspaper articles, both from the Times, one on the 10th and the other on the 12th that, suggest nothing was missing. The Echo artlcle, also on the 12th, clearly contradicts those (yet somehow you seem to be arguing it supports your case, but since what it says explictly includes the statement that some portions were missing, your conclusion that it supports the idea nothing was missing is incorrect).

that just leaves the two reports from the Times, on the 10th and 12th.

But on the 13th the Times retracts that claim, as shown by the articles from joshua's post #121:

"Telegraph & Echo
"By design, 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. We are enabled to state, on good authority, that notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, a portion of the bodily organs was missing. The police, and with them the divisional surgeon, have arrived at the conclusion that it is in the interest of justice not to disclose the details of the professional inquiry"

Evening News & St James' Gazette & Star & Times

"SOME PORTIONS OF THE BODY ARE MISSING
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."

So the Times, by your own standards, is changing it's story, and if that were a witness, like Cadosh, you would dismiss the Times as a wholle. That leaves you with no new paper reports. If you don't want to dismiss the Times, because you need those articles from the 10th and 12th, then you have to dismiss the one from teh 13th, which would be cherry picking. The alternative would be to view the stories as changing as new information becomes available, eventually clarifying that yes, indeed, something was missing from the body, and something significant enough that the police did not wish to divulge in "the interests of justice".

And we have the more authorative sources of the postmortem report and the crime scene detail of organ placement. No matter how often you try and say those are ambiguous, they are not, and they clearly indicate her heart was missing form the body, and not found at the crime scene.

I know you need to make the heart reappear because otherwise you have to say there's a third person stealing organs at the mortuary, and perhaps that's a theft too far.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well you keep believing that, and you have again totally ignored all the points raised in my previous post, which in addition to Reids statement, and the newspaper reports offers yet another plausible explanation for the heart not being mentioned in the report in the first instance, and in fact the newspapers reports tell us that eventually all the body parts were accounted for.

I think you have been living with the old accepted theories for far too long and clearly find it hard to accept the fact that they are not now as acceptable as they perhaps were years ago.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

These aren’t old accepted theories Trevor. The heart was absent. That means not there. In the room were listed: the uterus, the kidneys, the breasts, the liver, the spleen, the intestines. Even flaps of skin removed from the abdomen and thighs. This is quite an exhaustive list but no heart. If it was noticed that it was absent from the Pericardium don’t you think they’d have checked the room for it and mentioned if it wasn’t there? It’s hardly an insignificant organ. Do you think that they wouldn’t have noticed it was on a table?

[Trevor Marriott]

I think that mystery is being seen where none exists.



If there was a list of important organs which would we expect at the top of the list? I’d suggest the heart. And so why....



A pretty exhaustive list but no mention of the bodies major organ. Why? Because the killer took it away with him.

Well you keep believing that, and you have again totally ignored all the points raised in my previous post, which in addition to Reids statement, and the newspaper reports offers yet another plausible explanation for the heart not being mentioned in the report in the first instance, and in fact the newspapers reports tell us that eventually all the body parts were accounted for.

I think you have been living with the old accepted theories for far too long and clearly find it hard to accept the fact that they are not now as acceptable as they perhaps were years ago.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that mystery is being seen where none exists.

.The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent.

If there was a list of important organs which would we expect at the top of the list? I’d suggest the heart. And so why....

. The viscera 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

A pretty exhaustive list but no mention of the bodies major organ. Why? Because the killer took it away with him.

[packers stem]

No its not straightforward, following the post mortem a return visit was made to kellys room, clearly they were looking for something, We also do not know what the contents of the pail were which went to Phillips and whatever it was presumably didnt find its way back to the post mortem room for documentation.

True, and what we do know ,if the Bond report is accurate on this score, is that the stomach ,still attached, was in the report .
So it wasn't removed in the pail

[Trevor Marriott]

Bond’s statement isn’t ambiguous. The heart was absent and it wasn’t listed as being in the room along with other body parts. This is straightforward.

No its not straightforward, following the post mortem a return visit was made to kellys room, clearly they were looking for something, We also do not know what the contents of the pail were which went to Phillips and whatever it was presumably didnt find its way back to the post mortem room for documentation.

Bonds report was written up later by Dr Hebbert who attended the post mortem, but after the post mortem he left and did not take part in anything further. So if the heart was found when they went back, or it was in the pail, then he would not have needed to add it to the report that it was found, because it was never missing. So thats why it is not mentionbed in his report, and no one else refers to it being taken away by the killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Bond’s statement isn’t ambiguous. The heart was absent and it wasn’t listed as being in the room along with other body parts. This is straightforward.