Evidence left behind

[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."

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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

[Sam Flynn]

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

[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

[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!

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

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

You are a naughty one Joshua! ha ha

- 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.