Evidence left behind

[Trevor Marriott]

Sorry Trevor but that’s a bit rich coming from someone that dismisses as ‘unreliable’ Anderson and Macnaghten from the police and witnesses like Cadosch and Richardson. When we read that the heart was missing and it wasn’t counted amongst the other body parts in the room the conclusion should be inescapable. What you appear to be doing is indulging in conspiracy theorist thinking.

No conspiracy just assessing and evaluating the evidence along with the supporting facts and coming to a right and proper conclusion.

The only difference is that we can prove Anderson and MM were less that liberal with the truth, and I am being kind when I say that. As to Reid he would appear to have been one of the most reliable and honest out of all the police who were involved in these murders. So all that he says not just in relation to the Kelly murder but all the other quotes from him must be respected. Just look at how he challenges Anderson what Anderson says.

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

Michael, it's worth pointing out undiscovered murders were as rare then as they were throughout the entire time of well documented murders and subsequent hangings in the annals of British legal history. It is definitely rare for a convicted killer to be unknown to the victim. Pierrpoint faced this through his entire career.

I think that using information like Al really helps when assessing the circumstantial evidence. Which is, in some of these cases, the only real way to see some of the marked differences in context. I see the possibility that within the Canonical Group alone, 3 of the Five women might have known their killers, formally or informally. In one case, intimately. I also see the remaining 2 being the hardest of all murders to solve...seemingly motiveless. That's the Ripper there. Killing strangers. No ties, no regrets.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you are going to disregard Reids statement because it doesn't sit well with you. are you going to disregard all the other police officers statements of facts and quotes that they made over the years, which many rely heavily on?

Sorry Trevor but that’s a bit rich coming from someone that dismisses as ‘unreliable’ Anderson and Macnaghten from the police and witnesses like Cadosch and Richardson. When we read that the heart was missing and it wasn’t counted amongst the other body parts in the room the conclusion should be inescapable. What you appear to be doing is indulging in conspiracy theorist thinking.

[JeffHamm]

Jeff
Take the blinkers off, Reids statement, plus the newspaper reports, plus the absence of any corroboration thereafter of the heart being taken, overwhelming, against one ambiguous uncorroborated statement made by Bond, who makes no mention thereafter in his report to Anderson despite him taking charge, and no one after that making any mention of the heart being taken.

There is only the Times report on the 12th that states nothing was taken, that was corrected on the 13th. The Echo's report on the 12th specifically states a portion was missing, so how you can possibly interpret that as nothing was taken is beyond me. Regardless, the Times story on the 13th effectively retracts their story from the 12th, but if that story from the 12th suits your needs I can't stop you, but I can disagree with you. I'm looking at the entire set of evidence, and in combination the Times ends up clearly stating (on the 13th) a portion of the body was missing.

There is nothing about the postmortem report and crime scene recorded details of organ placement that is at all ambiguous.

Nobody ever makes mention of people stealing organs at the mortuary either, yet that seems of no concern to you. Nobody ever makes any mention that the testimony at the inquest was later found to be in error, or any other remote hint that Reid's assertion might have a foundation in actual fact. The only way that idea could have possibly be conceived by him is while he was at the crime scene. At that point, when the organ placements were detailed, and the uterus and kidneys were accounted for, and nothing was apparently missing, that point was noted among the police and medical professionals at the time. It would be beyond belief to think that would not happen. That would mean that Reid's personal involvement at the crime scene would include a conversation where it appeared nothing was taken away. Only after the autopsy examined her chest was it found that the heart was missing - but Reid would not have been at the autopsy, and his first memory would be of things being "all present". That is exactly the kind of thing that results in long term memory errors. Given Reid's claim has no support in the documentation, a simple normal error of recall is the only explanation of worth. He's not lying, he's mistaken.

If you are going to disregard Reids statement because it doesn't sit well with you. are you going to disregard all the other police officers statements of facts and quotes that they made over the years, which many rely heavily on?

I put very little weight on any of the memoirs or other "years-later statements", particularly when ever they conflict with information recorded at the time. In the case when those later statements are the only source for a new bit of information, they serve only as something to investigate further. In other words, I think they can be a source suggesting something that is worth investigating to see if it can be corroborated or refuted. But until more reliable contemporary information is found supporting or refuting it, then like Reid's statement, I consider it nothing more than a hypothesis, not evidence. Reid's statement is a hypothesis, the evidence refutes it. That doesn't mean everything in Reid's interview will be wrong, because it is an error to dismiss everything simply because one bit is shown to be incorrect; if I do 100 sums, and get 99 of them correct and 1 wrong, that one error doesn't mean I got the other questions incorrect true; nor does getting 99 correct mean the last question doesn't still need to be evaluated. In other words, I have no doubt his knowledge of the case was impressive, but that doesn't mean every statement of fact he utters is correct. Each statement must be evaluated, and that one comes out false.

There is only small part of that interview regarding Kelly he got wrong and that was in relation to the time her body was discovered. The rest is in such detail for it not to be correct, he has no reason to lie.

The truth of other statements does not make a false statement true.

Of course you and others have to try to negate it, because to accept it as fact kicks the arse out of the rest of the old accepted facts and we wouldn't want that would we ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don't have to try and negate it, the evidence does that for me. My job is just to make sure I don't dismiss evidence because it doesn't fit the theory I'm considering. I don't have an agenda to overturn accepted facts simply because they've been accepted for a while, which is clearly your mission. I actually applaud the push to re-evaluate accepted beliefs, to go back over the evidence and see if it does get us there. As you rightly point out, sometimes long held beliefs turn out to be erroneous, but what you seem to forget is that sometimes they turn out to be correct. A hypothesis does not refute anything, it only suggests new types of evidence to look for. Find and show me evidence that Kelly's heart was in the possession of the doctors rather than trying to make clear statements to the contrary sound like they are ambiguous just so the hypothesis remains open. Show me some evidence, that isn't retracted, that isn't based upon otherwise unsupported statements based upon memory of long past events, and I will happily change my view. But expecting me to ignore the recorded crime scene and medical evidence that straight forwardly states her heart was missing simply because a "What if..." story can be spun is a pipe dream.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

There are two theories being examined here, Kelly's heart was taken by the killer, and Kelly's heart was not taken by the killer. I don't care which of those ends up with the most support. But from everything we have, the vast bulk of it ends up on the side of her heart was taken, as only Reid's unofficial statement made 8 years later suggests otherwise. So while I do stand by the conclusion, it's because nothing has been presented that changes the weighting of the evidence or where it points. If, however, someone were to present a good argument that the evidence needs re-weighting, or even better presents a new source of evidence, that might very well change the balance and a new conclusion would be warranted. So far, nothing I've seen has done that for this particular question.

- Jeff

Jeff
Take the blinkers off, Reids statement, plus the newspaper reports, plus the absence of any corroboration thereafter of the heart being taken, overwhelming, against one ambiguous uncorroborated statement made by Bond, who makes no mention thereafter in his report to Anderson despite him taking charge, and no one after that making any mention of the heart being taken.

If you are going to disregard Reids statement because it doesn't sit well with you. are you going to disregard all the other police officers statements of facts and quotes that they made over the years, which many rely heavily on?

There is only small part of that interview regarding Kelly he got wrong and that was in relation to the time her body was discovered. The rest is in such detail for it not to be correct, he has no reason to lie.

Of course you and others have to try to negate it, because to accept it as fact kicks the arse out of the rest of the old accepted facts and we wouldn't want that would we ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Someone will accuse him eventually Joshua.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I think that the real problem here Jeff, we are trained to believe that those are the methods with which a determination of guilt could be made. What that negates is that for years before DNA, CCTV or even confessions, murders still got solved. Not all, but most. I don't recall who to attribute the quote to, but I believe it was Monro, about "undiscovered murders" being uncommon in London. We will never have that preponderance of evidence that makes a conclusive case for any one person, but again....people solved murders by interviews, research and their ability to read the evidence.

We can do all those things, granted, we have less evidence, but its all about what people think they see when they look at what we do have.

Michael, it's worth pointing out undiscovered murders were as rare then as they were throughout the entire time of well documented murders and subsequent hangings in the annals of British legal history. It is definitely rare for a convicted killer to be unknown to the victim. Pierrpoint faced this through his entire career.

[Michael W Richards]

Clearly we agree on that, although at times I'm not so sure that even if we had CCTV footage, DNA, and a confession that speculation would be eliminated.

- Jeff

I think that the real problem here Jeff, we are trained to believe that those are the methods with which a determination of guilt could be made. What that negates is that for years before DNA, CCTV or even confessions, murders still got solved. Not all, but most. I don't recall who to attribute the quote to, but I believe it was Monro, about "undiscovered murders" being uncommon in London. We will never have that preponderance of evidence that makes a conclusive case for any one person, but again....people solved murders by interviews, research and their ability to read the evidence.

We can do all those things, granted, we have less evidence, but its all about what people think they see when they look at what we do have.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Clearly we agree on that, although at times I'm not so sure that even if we had CCTV footage, DNA, and a confession that speculation would be eliminated.

- Jeff

Of course not. A cover up obviously.

[JeffHamm]

The minimalist nature is what makes it so malleable to different theories. If there were more facts we'd have less speculation. And a normal hobby.

Clearly we agree on that, although at times I'm not so sure that even if we had CCTV footage, DNA, and a confession that speculation would be eliminated.

- Jeff

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

If opinions counted for nothing, there would be nothing to discuss and these boards would just be a listing of the contents of the home office files, a collection of newspaper clippings, and census reports. Mention what you think that information means, and you're just expressing your opinion. It's either rational and sound, a complete flight of fancy, or somewhere in between.

Every interpretation and theory is just someone's opinion. We evaluate an opinion's worth by how logically sound and consistent it is constructed, and that includes how well and how much of the evidence it accounts for. The problem with the JtR case is the minimalist nature of the constraining evidence set. Hence, your opinion differs from mine.

- Jeff

The minimalist nature is what makes it so malleable to different theories. If there were more facts we'd have less speculation. And a normal hobby.

[JeffHamm]

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

You are a naughty one Joshua! ha ha

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I am afraid personal opinions counts for nothing in Ripperology !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If opinions counted for nothing, there would be nothing to discuss and these boards would just be a listing of the contents of the home office files, a collection of newspaper clippings, and census reports. Mention what you think that information means, and you're just expressing your opinion. It's either rational and sound, a complete flight of fancy, or somewhere in between.

Every interpretation and theory is just someone's opinion. We evaluate an opinion's worth by how logically sound and consistent it is constructed, and that includes how well and how much of the evidence it accounts for. The problem with the JtR case is the minimalist nature of the constraining evidence set. Hence, your opinion differs from mine.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

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.

Opinions were divided even at the time as to whether or not particular organs were targeted, and also as to the degree of anatomical knowledge required or skills shown. It wasn't even universally agreed that all the victims were by the same killer, or even that the C5 were all the victims. Unless something comes to light that solves the case, there is always the possibility that more than one killer was involved, there are good arguments for both the inclusion and exclusion of Stride, for example). Of the remaining C5, various combinations have been suggested, so we're all left to decide what we think is most probable. I view the remaining C4 as by the same killer, as arguments for the exclusion of Kelly tend to be around her being indoors, but given it appears JtR went with the victims to secluded locations posing as a client, Kelly's indoor crime scene looks like the same pattern rather than a different one (and that's one of the things that seems different about Stride - if Schwartz did see her suddenly attacked, that seems a fairly different situation). Those who do not think Kelly took her killer back thinking he was a client see significance in the fact it was no longer indoors and that points to someone she knew. The medical reports that suggest more skill in Chapman's case than in Eddowes see that as evidence of different people, but to me that seems the difference between a crime committed in the morning light and one in the dark corner of the square, and the fact that no two crimes are exactly alike and no two repetitions of the same actions will be without variation.

So, if one thinks Annie and Kelly were killed by different people, then I agree, information gleaned from the Kelly case sheds no light on Annie's, but if one thinks two cases were committed by the same person, then the information combines into a common picture of the proposed shared killer, in which case inferences can be made. Like all theories, whether something holds or not depends upon the starting premises. Theories are logical constructs, and have to be internally consistent. They also have to account for the evidence. The evidence, however, does not have to account for the theory. We cannot test the validity of any of the evidence, we cannot go back and re-interview witnesses, or re-examine crime scenes, or perform new tests on evidence, etc. We are left only with the written records of events, incomplete as they are. Those records come from various sources, some official in nature (inquest testimonies, police interviews, letters between police and home office, etc), some not, newspapers, memoirs, personal letters. Some records were recorded at the time, others at various later dates. Effectively, all we have are eye-witness testimonies, and if you ask for a description from two people who saw the same event you will get two different views, which will often conflict in places. Weeding through conflicting data requires one to decide what to do with those conflicts - do you dismiss one view because it is a lone minority view? Do you go with the minority view because it comes from a more reliable source? Do you find there is a middle ground position, allowing all views to be considered reasonable descriptions with only different directions of bias? Those decisions require rational choices to be made, and those choices must not be influenced by the theory being tested in order to "get there".

There are two theories being examined here, Kelly's heart was taken by the killer, and Kelly's heart was not taken by the killer. I don't care which of those ends up with the most support. But from everything we have, the vast bulk of it ends up on the side of her heart was taken, as only Reid's unofficial statement made 8 years later suggests otherwise. So while I do stand by the conclusion, it's because nothing has been presented that changes the weighting of the evidence or where it points. If, however, someone were to present a good argument that the evidence needs re-weighting, or even better presents a new source of evidence, that might very well change the balance and a new conclusion would be warranted. So far, nothing I've seen has done that for this particular question.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

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

I am afraid personal opinions counts for nothing in Ripperology !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk