Evidence left behind

[Michael W Richards]

The Echo report clearly states a portion was missing, and there is no ambiguity in "hitherto", it can only refer to the previous cases, and also again states portions were taken from them.

And the Times article on the 12th, which states nothing was missing, was corrected on the 13th as Joshua Rogan points out, when they stated "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." negating that report.

That leaves only Reid's statement, 8 years after the fact, where he claims nothing was taken from any of the murders. And if that were true, then it means the police knew the organs were take by someone at the mortuary (because, those organs were, after all, reported as absent at the inquests - though if Reid then "knows" they were not missing that means the police at some point realized the organs were taken by someone at the mortuary), but there is nothing in any official record that even hints at such knowledge, nor is that something any other police force member ever suggests either. And given how human memory works, and I'm not suggesting any sort of medical condition here, it's just how normal human memory works, that is nothing to base overturning a postmortem report indicating the heart was not in the body coupled with the detailed crime scene information indicating where the organs were placed that also excludes the heart. In fact, it wasn't until his postmortem notes were found that the previously held long standing belief that Kelly was pregnant was overturned because this evidence disproved that in reporting her uterus was not taken and she was not pregnant.

The statements are clear and unambiguous, and they all point to only one rational conclusion, which is that her heart was taken away by the killer. Her uterus and kidneys were not, though they were removed from her body. That, in my view, puts to rest the notion that the uterus was intentionally sought by JtR in the Chapman and Eddowes cases. It appears he just took something he could carry away with him, but didn't have specific designs on the uterus. If one wants to see a pattern, then he was working his way up the body (uterus -> kidney -> heart), but I wouldn't put much stock in that myself.

And if the heart was taken, and I'm right, it goes to further support that it was the killer who took the organs from the other crimes as well. As you say, it can be difficult and unsettling to have to change a long standing belief.

- Jeff

That's a position that was not shared by the man who examined Annie and 4 of Five Canonicals personally. Annies killer sought her uterus, the fact that Marys killer extracted it and didn't take it doesn't then mean Annies killer didn't target it. It more probably means they were different men with different objectives.

You cant undo the determination made in Annies case by including later dissimilar actions as a comparative.

[Joshua Rogan]

if Reid then "knows" they were not missing that means the police at some point realized the organs were taken by someone at the mortuary

Or Reid knew that they weren't taken by the killer because....he was Jack!

[JeffHamm]

I would suggest that again we have an ambiguous wording in "hitherto" if it was first believed that an organ was missing, and clearly the papers refer to a missing organ, and then it was found might refer to the heart. Open to interpretation, but it still doesnt get away from the fact that there is overwhelming evidence both from Reid and the other newspapers stating that no organs were taken away, and absolutely no corroboration from anyone thereafter to back it up

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The Echo report clearly states a portion was missing, and there is no ambiguity in "hitherto", it can only refer to the previous cases, and also again states portions were taken from them.

And the Times article on the 12th, which states nothing was missing, was corrected on the 13th as Joshua Rogan points out, when they stated "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." negating that report.

That leaves only Reid's statement, 8 years after the fact, where he claims nothing was taken from any of the murders. And if that were true, then it means the police knew the organs were take by someone at the mortuary (because, those organs were, after all, reported as absent at the inquests - though if Reid then "knows" they were not missing that means the police at some point realized the organs were taken by someone at the mortuary), but there is nothing in any official record that even hints at such knowledge, nor is that something any other police force member ever suggests either. And given how human memory works, and I'm not suggesting any sort of medical condition here, it's just how normal human memory works, that is nothing to base overturning a postmortem report indicating the heart was not in the body coupled with the detailed crime scene information indicating where the organs were placed that also excludes the heart. In fact, it wasn't until his postmortem notes were found that the previously held long standing belief that Kelly was pregnant was overturned because this evidence disproved that in reporting her uterus was not taken and she was not pregnant.

The statements are clear and unambiguous, and they all point to only one rational conclusion, which is that her heart was taken away by the killer. Her uterus and kidneys were not, though they were removed from her body. That, in my view, puts to rest the notion that the uterus was intentionally sought by JtR in the Chapman and Eddowes cases. It appears he just took something he could carry away with him, but didn't have specific designs on the uterus. If one wants to see a pattern, then he was working his way up the body (uterus -> kidney -> heart), but I wouldn't put much stock in that myself.

And if the heart was taken, and I'm right, it goes to further support that it was the killer who took the organs from the other crimes as well. As you say, it can be difficult and unsettling to have to change a long standing belief.

- Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

There's little doubt that "hitherto" is clearly referring to the previous cases and the missing uteri that characterised them.

[Trevor Marriott]

"the organ [singular] hitherto taken way at the mutilations [plural]" refers, not to the heart, but to the uterus, which was previously ("hitherto") taken away at the other murders ("mutilations") of Eddowes and Chapman.

What's interesting is that this very sentence begins by stating that "a small portion [singular] of the remains is [again, singular] missing". Now, apart from heart and pancreas, every organ was clearly accounted for in Dr Bond's notes, and the only one he described as missing ("absent") was the heart.

I would suggest that again we have an ambiguous wording in "hitherto" if it was first believed that an organ was missing, and clearly the papers refer to a missing organ, and then it was found might refer to the heart. Open to interpretation, but it still doesnt get away from the fact that there is overwhelming evidence both from Reid and the other newspapers stating that no organs were taken away, and absolutely no corroboration from anyone thereafter to back it up

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Final thoughts !!!!!!!!!!!

I have merely pointed out a clear ambiguity in Bonds post mortem report, and his description of the body from the crime scene, before carrying out the post mortem, which incidentally didn't take place until the next day, and we know that before his final report was drafted there was a lot of activity both at the crime scene, and at Dr Phillips house with organs being taken to him for whatever reason which I find highly unusual.

There was no additional corroboration to corroborate this ambiguity then, or in the years that followed. It has been wrongly accepted by researchers that Bond statement is positive proof than the killer took away the heart. This total acceptance if clearly wrong.[/B]

I also believe that recollections many years after the fact are less reliable than written notes made at the time of the event. (Anderson's confusion about the broke pipe is another example).

This old chestnut about memory loss has surfaced before in relation to what Reid said 8 years later, and I will again defend that statement as being accurate and that he was not suffering any memory loss, or any confusion. You need to read the full newspaper interview and you will see that the part relative to Mary Kelly is accurate in almost every detail. Why is that for a number of reasons. Firstly he was head of Whitechapel CID, he attended the crime scene, and was activley present at all the events that took place thereafter relative to the investigation and post mortem.

I should also at this point publish an extract from the interview

The News of the World journalist conducting the interview, justifiably described Inspector Reid as ‘one of the most remarkable men ever engaged in the business of detecting crime.’ They met at Reid’s home and when sat at the drawing-room table the journalist bluntly asked the Reid ‘Tell me all about the Ripper murders.’ Reid responded by opening a cabinet drawer that contained ‘assassin’s knives, portraits, and a thousand and one curiosities of criminal association.’ Among the criminological ephemera was ‘probably the most remarkable photographic chamber of horrors in existence.’ Reid owned a set of Jack the Ripper victim photographs which he spread out on the table before telling the tale of the Whitechapel murders.

As to Reids accuracy of the events relative to Kelly it is quite possible that among all the papers he had kept there were copies of case papers for him to refer back to.

I also believe that if organs were removed by two different people at two different mortuaries from two different crimes, and if that were known by the authorities (which would have to have been the case if they knew all organs were left behind originally, which you claim they did know) then there would be indications of that knowledge in the records. It would have been a big deal, particularly since that information was given as testimony at inquests.

There was no examination of the bodies at the crime scene to determine whether or not organs had been taken out. The first anyone knew was when the post mortems were carried out. Lets not forget that asied from Kelly the only other two victims who had organs removed were Edowes and Chapman, and their two bodies were the onlytwo bodies that had their abdomens ripped open sufficiently for someone to enter the abdomens at the mortuaries, and remove the organs, thus pushing the blame onto the killer, and this is where the anatomical knowledge first surfaced.

I have no axe to grind or suspect to push or book to sell. I'm happy to change my conclusions if a good argument, well backed by connections to the evidence (all the evidence, with minimal dismissals, and only then when those are based upon having to resolve conflicts in the evidence).

Maybe you should take a long rethink now based on what I have presented, Because If I am right and the killer of Kelly didnt take the heart, then is adds even more weight to the suggestion that the killer did not remove the organs from Eddowes and Chapman.

I know you have come to different conclusions, and weigh the evidence very differently, which is fine, but I'm not beholden to agree with it anymore than you are beholden to agree with me. How boring that would be after all?

I have come to my conclusion based on my experience at assessing and evaluation evidence in criminal cases, and with that in mind it is an excercise to prove or disprove those old accepted facts.

For those researchers who have grown up with these old accepted facts, it does come hard to accept something new. which dramatically effects their long standing beliefs. But history is there to be challenged, and if those challenges shatter someones longstanding belief then so be it, not my problem.

- Jeff

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

You would think that the uterus was looked for specifically

It certainly seems to have been asked about by journalists, presumably trying to establish a gruesome link with the previous murders.

hence it's noted that it was removed from the body but not the scene.

Along with the other organs whose locations at the scene were methodically noted by Dr Bond.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

"the organ [singular] hitherto taken way at the mutilations [plural]" refers, not to the heart, but to the uterus, which was previously ("hitherto") taken away at the other murders ("mutilations") of Eddowes and Chapman.

What's interesting is that this very sentence begins by stating that "a small portion [singular] of the remains is [again, singular] missing". Now, apart from heart and pancreas, every organ was clearly accounted for in Dr Bond's notes, and the only one he described as missing ("absent") was the heart.

You would think that the uterus was looked for specifically, hence it's noted that it was removed from the body but not the scene.
Here's a quick point. I don't know if anyone has had a coal fire, but if you threw a fresh bloody heart on it, it would not burn but fill the room with acrid smoke and an awful stench.

[Sam Flynn]

The Echo 12th November

“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 organ [singular] hitherto taken way at the mutilations [plural]" refers, not to the heart, but to the uterus, which was previously ("hitherto") taken away at the other murders ("mutilations") of Eddowes and Chapman.

What's interesting is that this very sentence begins by stating that "a small portion [singular] of the remains is [again, singular] missing". Now, apart from heart and pancreas, every organ was clearly accounted for in Dr Bond's notes, and the only one he described as missing ("absent") was the heart.

[Joshua Rogan]

Trevor,
perhaps you could explain exactly how Reid was so certain that the doctors - who examined the bodies, performed the autopsies and stood up in court and declared that organs were missing - were wrong? Are you perhaps suggesting that he had first-hand knowledge of what happened to the organs?


I notice that you missed one or two reports from your list, these from 13 Nov so by your own logic more authoritative;

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."

[JeffHamm]

Well you keep changing the goalposts to suit you own belief. I am sure you will not be alone

I don't think I've ever suggested the newspapers are more reliable than official documents. If I have, I suspect it was poor wording on my part, certainly not intentional. We know the newspaper reports are inaccurate in part because it was standard police policy to give them as little information as possible.

If, however, you're referring to my pointing to the Echo, I wasn't so much as saying the Echo is correct as pointing out that the Times report and the Echo report conflict. Given your willingness to call unsafe witness testimony when it conflicts, the only goalposts that are shifting here are at your end of the field I'm afraid. I'm sure that's not intentional though.

As for my beliefs, I just believe that 1) official postmortem reports over-ride newspapers claiming to report what the postmortem report found. I think that's pretty safe to assume, clearly you disagree as that appears to be the basis of your argument here. I guess the reporters were in the room during the autopsy and recorded things better than the doctors involved?

I also believe that recollections many years after the fact are less reliable than written notes made at the time of the event. (Anderson's confusion about the broke pipe is another example).

I also believe that if organs were removed by two different people at two different mortuaries from two different crimes, and if that were known by the authorities (which would have to have been the case if they knew all organs were left behind originally, which you claim they did know) then there would be indications of that knowledge in the records. It would have been a big deal, particularly since that information was given as testimony at inquests.

I have no axe to grind or suspect to push or book to sell. I'm happy to change my conclusions if a good argument, well backed by connections to the evidence (all the evidence, with minimal dismissals, and only then when those are based upon having to resolve conflicts in the evidence).

I have some ideas that I favor, as we all do, but some of those change from day to day, mostly because the evidence doesn't constrain things enough to point in one direction over another (Stride's inclusion, for example).

I know you have come to different conclusions, and weigh the evidence very differently, which is fine, but I'm not beholden to agree with it anymore than you are beholden to agree with me. How boring that would be after all?

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Reid's knowledge of the Kelly case would be based upon him being at the crime scene, at which point it was thought all organs were accounted for as the heart was not noticed to be missing until at the autopsy.

Wrong again, he was actively involved throughout dont forget he was head of Whitechapel CID

Given all other reports clearly indicate Chapman and Eddowes uterii were both missing, as was Eddowes' kidney, Reid's statement 8 years after the fact is hardly "safe".

Its more safer than the ambiguous statement made by Bond

We know Kelly's uterus and kidneys were all found at the scene, and those details were well known public knowledge. Removal of her heart was new. Newspaper reports are, as we all know, to be taken with large portions of salt. Any reporter that asked if the uterus was taken would have been told no, and if they asked about kidneys, would also have been told no.

Thats just you opinion of what might have happened. I am sure the press didnt just make those accounts up

If they asked about "was anything missing", the police were known to hold back as much information as they could, and this new detail would be very useful to help weed out false confessions, for example.

Again conjecture on your part

When newspapers conflict with official documents, it is the newspapers that one has to suspect as being faulty. And anything told 8 years after the fact is a curiosity at best, requiring a careful comparison with more reliable information.

Where is the conflict with official documents, by document I presume you mean Bonds ambiguos statement !!!!!!!!!

Again, newspapers do not overturn the postmortem report (particularly when the paper is purporting to document the postmotem itself) - the postmortem report is the information, the newspaper account conflicts with the postmortem details, and therefore is just another case of the unreliablity of the newspaper accounts.

Yes I agree newspapers can be unreliable but there are more than one thats psrines the sane story and then Reid corroborates those articles

While this is another news report, so not something I put much stock in, it actually states that something was missing, and also states that the part taken from previous murders were accounted for (uterus). It's also from the same date as the Times article, which says nothing was missing.

Accept it or reject, it but the articles are there for all to see and read and form their own hopefully unbiased opinion

Comparing the Times' and the Echo's articles, suggests that the Times' claim that "no portion ... was taken away", is in referral to how the Echo reports "...hat the organ hitherto taken away at the mutilations was found in the room..." which is reference to the uterus (which was located in the room).

Thats also conjecture on your part the uterus was accounted for at the crime scene long before the actual post mortem took place

So, really, we only have The Times report conflicting with the postmortem itself, and it also conflicts with the Echo's report of the same day (the latter being consistent with the postmortem account).

all reports state that no organs were missing, so no conflict on that point

Indeed, but then, it was the removal of the uterii and kidney that got the most press, and with the suggestion that JtR was specifically harvesting uterii, that was the focus of most subsequent reports.

Not at all

Anyway, while there is one newspaper statements consistent with the no organs removed from the Kelly murder, there is also the Echo that does report something was missing. The official documents indicate the heart was not int he body, and it was not in the room.

Are you referring to this article
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.”

But the later reports supersede this one by reason of a more thorough examination was carried out and all the organs then accounted for.

How one chooses to weigh all of those sources of information is up to each of us, but it is certainly not overwhelming in favour of the idea her heart was not missing in my opinion (and I recognize it's not going to be convincing to you that it was as well).

I have no agenda, I have carefully assessed and evaluated all the facts and the evidence, which in my opinion shows that no organs were taken away from Mary Kelly by the killer.

- Jeff

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Reid's knowledge of the Kelly case would be based upon him being at the crime scene, at which point it was thought all organs were accounted for as the heart was not noticed to be missing until at the autopsy.

Given all other reports clearly indicate Chapman and Eddowes uterii were both missing, as was Eddowes' kidney, Reid's statement 8 years after the fact is hardly "safe".



We know Kelly's uterus and kidneys were all found at the scene, and those details were well known public knowledge. Removal of her heart was new. Newspaper reports are, as we all know, to be taken with large portions of salt. Any reporter that asked if the uterus was taken would have been told no, and if they asked about kidneys, would also have been told no.

If they asked about "was anything missing", the police were known to hold back as much information as they could, and this new detail would be very useful to help weed out false confessions, for example.

When newspapers conflict with official documents, it is the newspapers that one has to suspect as being faulty. And anything told 8 years after the fact is a curiosity at best, requiring a careful comparison with more reliable information.



Again, newspapers do not overturn the postmortem report (particularly when the paper is purporting to document the postmotem itself) - the postmortem report is the information, the newspaper account conflicts with the postmortem details, and therefore is just another case of the unreliablity of the newspaper accounts.


While this is another news report, so not something I put much stock in, it actually states that something was missing, and also states that the part taken from previous murders were accounted for (uterus). It's also from the same date as the Times article, which says nothing was missing.

Comparing the Times' and the Echo's articles, suggests that the Times' claim that "no portion ... was taken away", is in referral to how the Echo reports "...hat the organ hitherto taken away at the mutilations was found in the room..." which is reference to the uterus (which was located in the room).

So, really, we only have The Times report conflicting with the postmortem itself, and it also conflicts with the Echo's report of the same day (the latter being consistent with the postmortem account).



Indeed, but then, it was the removal of the uterii and kidney that got the most press, and with the suggestion that JtR was specifically harvesting uterii, that was the focus of most subsequent reports.

Anyway, while there is one newspaper statements consistent with the no organs removed from the Kelly murder, there is also the Echo that does report something was missing. The official documents indicate the heart was not int he body, and it was not in the room.

How one chooses to weigh all of those sources of information is up to each of us, but it is certainly not overwhelming in favour of the idea her heart was not missing in my opinion (and I recognize it's not going to be convincing to you that it was as well).

- Jeff

Well you keep changing the goalposts to suit you own belief. I am sure you will not be alone

[JeffHamm]

Lets not forget one important witness, and what they say about whether or not any organs were taken away by the killer. That witness being Detective Insp Reid head of Whitechapel CID when interviewed in 1896 by the News of The World !

"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"

Reid's knowledge of the Kelly case would be based upon him being at the crime scene, at which point it was thought all organs were accounted for as the heart was not noticed to be missing until at the autopsy.

Given all other reports clearly indicate Chapman and Eddowes uterii were both missing, as was Eddowes' kidney, Reid's statement 8 years after the fact is hardly "safe".

If thats not convincing enough lets look at what the papers say !!!!!!!!!!!

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.”

We know Kelly's uterus and kidneys were all found at the scene, and those details were well known public knowledge. Removal of her heart was new. Newspaper reports are, as we all know, to be taken with large portions of salt. Any reporter that asked if the uterus was taken would have been told no, and if they asked about kidneys, would also have been told no.

If they asked about "was anything missing", the police were known to hold back as much information as they could, and this new detail would be very useful to help weed out false confessions, for example.

When newspapers conflict with official documents, it is the newspapers that one has to suspect as being faulty. And anything told 8 years after the fact is a curiosity at best, requiring a careful comparison with more reliable information.

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,"

Again, newspapers do not overturn the postmortem report (particularly when the paper is purporting to document the postmotem itself) - the postmortem report is the information, the newspaper account conflicts with the postmortem details, and therefore is just another case of the unreliablity of the newspaper accounts.

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...”

While this is another news report, so not something I put much stock in, it actually states that something was missing, and also states that the part taken from previous murders were accounted for (uterus). It's also from the same date as the Times article, which says nothing was missing.

Comparing the Times' and the Echo's articles, suggests that the Times' claim that "no portion ... was taken away", is in referral to how the Echo reports "...hat the organ hitherto taken away at the mutilations was found in the room..." which is reference to the uterus (which was located in the room).

So, really, we only have The Times report conflicting with the postmortem itself, and it also conflicts with the Echo's report of the same day (the latter being consistent with the postmortem account).

The facts and evidence is overwhelming in favousr of the killer not taking away the heart

Then add to that in later years no one in any official office makes any reference to the heart being taken away, not even Dr Bond how strange is that when he was directly involved in the post mortem.

I rest my case !!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Indeed, but then, it was the removal of the uterii and kidney that got the most press, and with the suggestion that JtR was specifically harvesting uterii, that was the focus of most subsequent reports.

Anyway, while there is one newspaper statements consistent with the no organs removed from the Kelly murder, there is also the Echo that does report something was missing. The official documents indicate the heart was not int he body, and it was not in the room.

How one chooses to weigh all of those sources of information is up to each of us, but it is certainly not overwhelming in favour of the idea her heart was not missing in my opinion (and I recognize it's not going to be convincing to you that it was as well).

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

We also have a section from A System of Legal Medicine (p.63) in which the Kelly murder is discussed, albeit not by name, which says pretty clearly;
"In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered about the room"

Lets not forget one important witness, and what they say about whether or not any organs were taken away by the killer. That witness being Detective Insp Reid head of Whitechapel CID when interviewed in 1896 by the News of The World !

"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"

If thats not convincing enough lets look at what the papers say !!!!!!!!!!!

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 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,"

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 facts and evidence is overweheming in favousr of the killer not taking away the heart

Then add to that in later years no one in any official office makes any reference to the heart being taken away, not even Dr Bond how strange is that when he was directly involved in the post mortem.

I rest my case !!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk