Evidence left behind

[Trevor Marriott]

Which indicates it wasn't part of the viscera in the room. And if it wasn't in her chest, and wasn't in the room, it's pretty unambiguous that it was taken by her killer.

- Jeff

But there was not a full inventory made of the room, and its contents, because we do not know what was taken away later in the day in the pail that went to Dr Phillips. If whatever it was had been documented, then why the need to take it to Dr Phillips why not leave it with the rest of the body ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

Speaking of things left behind and Mary, why did Abberline feel the need to re-sieve the ashes Saturday morning after that was done Friday aft.? What did he think they "left behind"?.

[JeffHamm]

But there was not a full inventory made of the room, and its contents, because we do not know what was taken away later in the day in the pail that went to Dr Phillips. If whatever it was had been documented, then why the need to take it to Dr Phillips why not leave it with the rest of the body ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Dr. Bond listed the positions of the removed body parts, both breasts, both kidneys, liver, spleen, uterus, the strips of flesh from her belly and thighs, and made notes on the position of the body and blood splashes on the wall and bedding. If the heart was there, it too would have been listed, which only stands to reason. His job was to detail the victim and the details of her injuries, etc. The evidence we have indicates the heart was not found in the room, and it was not found in her body at autopsy, therefore we have evidence of absence.

And if MJK was killed by the same person as Chapman and Eddowes, we also have evidence that JtR had no specific designs on uterii or kidneys, as those were removed and left behind in her room. So he was just taking bits, not specific bits. And that leaves open the possibility that the other injuries at those crimes were not "designed to gain access" to uterii and/or kidneys per se, but happened to.

I haven't seen a report of anything taken to Dr. Phillips in a pail? Where is that located as I would like to read it?

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Speaking of things left behind and Mary, why did Abberline feel the need to re-sieve the ashes Saturday morning after that was done Friday aft.? What did he think they "left behind"?.

Some have speculated that they might have been looking to see if her heart had been burned in the fire, but we don't know for sure if that was their specific reason. It's possible they were just searching for evidence in general. It was possible, for example, the killer may have burned some of their own clothes that were blood stained, and if so, they might have found some remains of clothing that might provide a clue as to what sort of clothing he wore, etc. Without something that details their intentions, searching a crime scene is just a hunt for what is there, and then seeing what pieces of the puzzle they have to work with.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Some have speculated that they might have been looking to see if her heart had been burned in the fire, but we don't know for sure if that was their specific reason. It's possible they were just searching for evidence in general. It was possible, for example, the killer may have burned some of their own clothes that were blood stained, and if so, they might have found some remains of clothing that might provide a clue as to what sort of clothing he wore, etc. Without something that details their intentions, searching a crime scene is just a hunt for what is there, and then seeing what pieces of the puzzle they have to work with.

- Jeff

I have my own ideas about what they might have been looking for, but I was just baiting the discussion to see who brought up looking for the heart. I think they were looking for minute fragments of paper myself, something so small that it could have been missed the first sieving, yet something that could be identified even though a minute portion survived the heat. A small fragment of a stamp perhaps? I think Mary had a link to people who pulled the Post Office robbery the weekend of the so-called Double Event.

[Joshua Rogan]

I haven't seen a report of anything taken to Dr. Phillips in a pail? Where is that located as I would like to read it?

Daily News (and other papers) 10 Nov;

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

My feeling is that it was most likely the stomach, for analysis of the contents.

[Joshua Rogan]

Dr. Bond listed the positions of the removed body parts, both breasts, both kidneys, liver, spleen, uterus, the strips of flesh from her belly and thighs, and made notes on the position of the body and blood splashes on the wall and bedding. If the heart was there, it too would have been listed, which only stands to reason. His job was to detail the victim and the details of her injuries, etc. The evidence we have indicates the heart was not found in the room, and it was not found in her body at autopsy, therefore we have evidence of absence.

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"

[JeffHamm]

I have my own ideas about what they might have been looking for, but I was just baiting the discussion to see who brought up looking for the heart. I think they were looking for minute fragments of paper myself, something so small that it could have been missed the first sieving, yet something that could be identified even though a minute portion survived the heat. A small fragment of a stamp perhaps? I think Mary had a link to people who pulled the Post Office robbery the weekend of the so-called Double Event.

Anything that might have been burned might have left fragments, paper, clothes, and yes, even body parts. I would think, though, that if her heart had been burned in the fireplace, it would have left a fairly large charred remain, and so I tend to think that would have been found without a return and re-sift. But, of course, that all depends upon how hot the fire was, how long it burned, and so forth (the melted kettle does point in the direct it was actually quite hot, and long lasting, if it actually melted on that night and wasn't damaged on a previous occasion of being left to boil dry on the fire of course). I think the most we can safely say is they were searching for anything that might provide a clue, but we have nothing to indicate if they had anything specific in mind. Once we suggest specifics, we're speculating, which is fine as long as we recognize that's what we're doing.

If it were a search for evidence that the heart was burned, the rechecking of the fireplace would have to have occurred after the autopsy indicated the heart was missing. Knowing the relative times of those events could rule that idea out, or leave us in the current position of it being a possible motive for rechecking (wouldn't prove it was the reason, just leave it as something they might have been doing).

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Daily News (and other papers) 10 Nov;

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

My feeling is that it was most likely the stomach, for analysis of the contents.

Thanks for that. I don't recall seeing this before. I'll have a look through the references I have to see if there's any trace of comment from Dr. Phillips on the Kelly case that might suggest what it was. Have you already found something? Unfortunately, with the Kelly inquest so short, we don't have access to all of the evidence that would have been available, and if Dr. Phillips did do an analysis on a specific organ, that doesn't appear to have survived. I could see, for example, him being sent the uterus to examine if there was anything about it's removal that indicated a link with Chapman and/or Eddowes, since he had examined both of those. But again, there are so many possible intentions that can be proposed when one has so little actual information to draw upon.

- Jeff

[packers stem]

Daily News (and other papers) 10 Nov;

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

My feeling is that it was most likely the stomach, for analysis of the contents.

Not according to Bond
"In the abdominal cavity was some partly digested food of fish and potatoes and a similar food was found in the remains of the stomach attached to the intestines "

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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