Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[PaulB]

I have not ignored this at all I have pointed out that the heart may have been un accounted for at first but it was later accounted for.

That's irrelevant.

You wrote, "Dr Bond states the heart was missing from the pericardium. He does not state it was missing from the room and passes no comment ever about the heart being missing. On that basis, and that alone, you and others it would seem draw an inference and take that as meaning missing from the room. How you arrive at that is truly amazing."

You accused me of inferring something from Dr. Bond's statement and "On that basis, and that alone". I did not infer anything at all. I did not infer anything from Dr. Bond's statement. I referred to Dr. Bond's placement of the organs and I referred to a statement that Kelly's organs were found in the room, but that the heart wasn't, so had I inferred anything it would not have been from Dr. Bond's statement alone. That is what you ignored. You ignored everything I said, and accused me of inferring something from Dr. bond and Dr. Bond alone. At best this shows that you do not pay any attention to what people tell you, at worst you are attributing me conclusion that I have not reached.

But there is no source which states the heart was not located in the room

I didn't say there was. But there is a source that says that, namely the one I have cited earlier which stated that all the organs were found in the room, except the heart. The inference is that the heart was not in the room.

and they later changed to printing that no organs were missing

And the newspapers continued to cite informed sources that body parts were missing. I am not aware that the newspapers resolved the matter.

We can explain why the heart was not mentioned in the first list of organs so nothing sinister in that

Can we? Explain it then. But what about the other sources, specifically the one that says the organs could be found, but the heart couldn't?

I agree but at some point thereafter all the organs were accounted for

No they weren't. If all the organs were accounted for, you would have cited the soure a long time ago and we'd have switched off the lights and gone home.

The foundations in my opinion are rock solid

I admire your optimism, but from where I am sitting your opinion looks decidedly shaky. I have asked for your evidence and all you've told me is a load of absurd waffle and Reid.

I have supported my argument with evidence from one who was present and 8 years later is as clear and concise as he would have been 8 years previous

Yes, exactly. The man who said, "I think I know that gentleman [Abberline] better than to think he could have said that the series of murders was the work of an expert surgeon, when he knew that it was nothing more than a number of slashes all over the body of the victim, even after the murderer knew his victim was dead." (Morning Advertiser, 30 March 1903)

[PaulB]

It does and there are other articles

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 ˝ hours after which the mutilated portions were sewn to the body, and therefore the coroner's jury will be spared the unpleasant duty of witnessing the horrible spectacle presented to those who discovered the murder. The ashes found in the fireplace of the room rented by the deceased woman were also submitted to a searching examination, but nothing likely to throw any light on this shocking case could be gleaned from them.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"Notwithstanding reports to the contrary, it is still confidently asserted that some portions of the body of the deceased woman are missing." (The Times, 13 November 1888)

"The uturus, it seems, too, is not missing, as was once stated, but the heart is." (Dundee Evening Telegraph, 17 November 1888)

"According to one report published on Friday it seems that the assassin cut the woman's heart out and carried it away...” (The Observer, 18 November 1888)

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Pierre;398310]

Thank you Trevor. You write two things above:

1. I keep (continually) missing the ("the" = your) point. OK. I will try to get it.

2. No. Staff or personnel were not legally entitled to take organs from murder victims. OK. If you are correct, which I now assume, we all know this now.



Yes. If someone (anyone) saw it, they MIGHT have.

But the historical problem is that normative sources rule if there are no other sources. This means that

A) You must, if you care for the value of the sources and thereby the value of your OWN research, take into consideration that staff and personell knew the regulations and the law regulating their job.

B)You must also take into consideration that since they knew this, they did not go against the regulations or break the law, i.e.:

C) IF THERE ARE NO SOURCES (AT LEAST ONE) showing us they did go against the regulations or break the law or even, if that is your hypothesis, that they may have done that.

So: the normative sources rule IF, and only IF, there is no other source showing you that there was another event.

And, mind you, that event can NOT be established on non existing sources.

And it can NOT be established on sources lacking information.



And if the door to the vault in a bank was open - would there immediately have shown up bank robber to rob the bank?

And if a destitute woman was walking in Spitalfields ar night - would there immediately have been a serial killer showing up and cutting her throat?

You see, you look upon this from your own tautologic point of view: It is a positivistic view, telling you that the logic in your mind is the logic of things.

But the world does not work by logic.

Just because the door to your house is open, you will not immediately find a thief in your kitchen.

Yes, indeed, it is a view of suspicion. Everyone must be suspected. It is the logic of a police view. And that is fine. But it is not a good view on historical sources.

So even though the abdomens were open, there was not a group of people, or some sinister individual, standing around the corner waiting to take organs.

That is what must be considered as the past, since the past has left us no sources for the hypothesis constructed from the police logic.

Therefore, that is now history. And I would not mind if it changed, so that is not the problem. But there are standards and conditions for changing history. You see some of them above.



The police logic again. A good logic IRL but not for historical sources.



That is wrong. Kelly also had organs removed from her body. There was no staff or personell in the room who removed organs. The killer did this:

"The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus & Kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the Rt foot, the Liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side & the s pleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table."

(Bond´s post mortem report).


The idea of 12 victims is your own. There are explanations for Nichols and Stride - based on sources!

1. Nichols: Lechmere saw a policeman at the murder site. The dress was pulled down. Interpretation: He was disturbed. There was also wounds on the abdomen of Nichols.

2: Stride: He killed and mutilated Eddowes. Stride only had her throat cut. Interpretation: He was disturbed by Diemshitz who arrived with the horse in the busy yard (that is not my own interpretation, but the interpretation of others).

Two victims were not mutilated and they were the only two where there are sources indicating the killer could have been disturbed.

Now you see the logic of history.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre
Forget the logic, the facts are that Eddowes and Chapman were found to have organs missing from their bodies when the post mortems on them were carried out some 12 hours after their bodies arrived at the mortuary. We do not know what happened to those bodies during that time period. We do not know how many other medical persons visited the mortuary during that time as part of their daily routines.

Research shows that it might have been almost impossible for the killer to have removed them at the crime scenes for any number of plausible reasons. So if that didnt happen, then there must be another plausible explanation. Someone took the organs, but who ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Round 2

So very funny

That would be scrutiny by yourself I take it?

No, I am sure that over the years many have and still do question the ambiguous statement of Dr Bond. The emergence of Reid's interview will hopefully allow them to come to a definite answer.

Given that you demonstrate an incapability to understand how to asses and conduct historical research, the reliability and accuracy of such scrutiny is serious brought into question.
Most of your scrutiny appears to be base on no more than your view, a gut feeling, not back by anything other than a belief that your must be correct, and not on any data.

There is more than enough data which i have provided which it would seem you are not fully au fait with, if you were you might not keep asking the same questions

Despite your protestations to the contrary, if one has no data to use one cannot formulate any ideas or theories which are based on reality, what you produce are Fantasy and fiction

There is much fantasy and fiction in Ripperlogy much of it surrounds the old accepted theories which you seem to support

Your claim that it is a cold case review, and not history is utterly preposterous:
,
There are no witnesses alive!

You only have the historical sources to work with, there is nothing else.

But many of these historial sources you keep on about are nothing more than secondary sources, and should be treated with caution. When are newspaper articles used in evidence in criminal cases?


It comes across, maybe wrongly that your see your interpretation of events somehow as fact:

There was not enough light in Mitre Square.

You have an ambiguous statement to show the contrary

Reid must have known the truth as he was head of Whitechapel CID.

Of course he must have if you dont believe that then you are showing your naivety

It was not possible to carry out all the mutilations in Mitre Square

I never said that, clearly thats where they were carried out another poster suggested that the murder could have taken place at another location


Those are not facts(other than Reid's position), those are opinions!

Well we have opinions by the doctors involved in all of these murders and thats all they are, so there is nothing wrong in putting forward other opinions from other experts.

Instead, you come up with a theory to challenge what is written, however this is often based on nothing but your own blue sky ideas, supported by no other evidence other than your gut feeling.

You are wrong again

Maybe you are talking about the external opinion mentioned in post 631, However you did not back up or give links for such, nor have you yet replied to the question asked about it.

The medical experiments were conducted in a mortuary on a cadaver and the results documented and photographed.

A master butcher gave his opinion in relation the suggestion that a butcher could have been the killer

If you were not bothered as you claim, why would you resort to the insults an attacks as above?

I give as good as I get thats fair play in my book

That contains two facts that Reid was head of CID and visited the site.

The suggestion that he was directly involved is open to both definition of the terms used and contrary view by other researchers.

That the organs were all accounted for is not fact, it is opinion.

So what does it take then for it to be accepted that the heart was not missing ?


I count 4 facts, maybe 5 depending on how one reads "directly involved".

Lets examine those in detail.

The first 2 confirm his position and the fact he attended the site, they do not show how involved he was, of how much of the detail he understood?

He didnt need to be heavily involved. All of this took place within a 24 hour period. He didnt go away on holiday after attending the crime scene on the first occasion. He went back a second time. In my book thats heavily involved which is what the head of any CID department would do.

How much understanding does it take to be told no organs are missing?

The view he was "directly involved" is questioned by other researchers, and to me it is not clear if you are correct or not.

Trust me I am correct

However his descriptions of the wounds to Kelly are far from accurate, which may, I only say may, hint to his actual level of involvement.

There are no issues with his description of the wounds read the article he get it spot on

Bond mentions the heart was removed from the body, there is no further mention of it at all. yes very interesting I must say.

Well at least we have some common ground

I cannot speak for others,
I personally reach that possible, indeed probably, conclusion that the heart was taken away, on the data available.

All the other body parts which are cut away and mentioned by Bond are described and given a position in the room, the heart is not mentioned at all , after Bond describes it s removal from the body. (fact 4).

Pray tell me where the heart is?

Home is where the heart is !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Two possible reasons for such:

1. Many of the records were lost, destroyed or were denied access to , as you know better than most.

To say there are now none, so there never were is wrong as you know, the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument.

Not this old chest nut again please. Even if the documents were missing there were more than enough people involved, who either gave press interviews or wrote books in later years, to highlight such an important issue. No one did, so it is right and proper to draw an inference from those facts.

Your use of Dew as a backup source on this issue, in post #618, using a book written many decades after the event is indicative of the research expertise shown.

Dew was another who went to the crime scene so if any organs were missing I would have expcted him to have remembered and it would have been in his book

By the way do you count Dew as Primary or Secondary Source?

Here we go again. If Dew was present at an event and he writes about it later I would say that is a primary source. What he says stays a primary source until such time as it is proved to be wrong.Then it becomes an un reliable primary source. The same applies to Reid as far as The Kelly murder is concerned and The NOW article.

It certainly is not 99.9 % accurate as you have said your self he gets the information about Bowyer wrong, that means it is not nearly as perfect as you wish to portray it.

Now you are nit picking, a sign of desperation

I note that you do not like answering questions, so I will ask one again, which was asked before and to which you have not replied:

Do you accept Andersons book to be a primary or secondary source?

See my answer above with regards to Dew. I haven't read Andersons book in its entirety, so I cannot answer that question.The only difference is that Anderson has been found to have been less than truthful on many issues in his book. Issues which may have found their way into the book as hearsay.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

Interestingly, the Daily News (and probably other papers) on 10 Nov reports that the body was removed from no.13 in a shell and taken to the mortuary. A bucket thought to contain more remains was taken and sent to Dr Phillips' house. Is it possible that this contained the heart, and it couldn't be found because Phillips forgot to bring it with him in the morning?

"At four o'clock in the afternoon the body was removed from Dorset street to Shoreditch Mortuary, which stands at the back of Shoreditch Church. The mutilated remains were placed in a coarse coffin, which had apparently been used on many previous occasions for the conveyance of the dead, and which was partially covered with a coarse canvas cloth. The straps of the coffin were sealed. The coffin was conveyed in a one horse ordinary furniture van, and was escorted by several constables under Sergeant Betham. A large crowd followed. At the mortuary another throng was waiting to see the coffin transferred to the building. 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. The windows of the room where the crime was committed were boarded up and a padlock put on the door. The streets were patrolled by the police all last evening, and no one was allowed to loiter near the place. At night the neighbourhood was a scene of restless excitement and activity, the streets being filled with thousands of idlers, attracted doubtless by morbid curiosity.

O M G.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;398307]

Pierre
You keep missing the point, the answer is no,

Thank you Trevor. You write two things above:

1. I keep (continually) missing the ("the" = your) point. OK. I will try to get it.

2. No. Staff or personnel were not legally entitled to take organs from murder victims. OK. If you are correct, which I now assume, we all know this now.

but if someone saw the opportunity they might have seized it.

Yes. If someone (anyone) saw it, they MIGHT have.

But the historical problem is that normative sources rule if there are no other sources. This means that

A) You must, if you care for the value of the sources and thereby the value of your OWN research, take into consideration that staff and personell knew the regulations and the law regulating their job.

B)You must also take into consideration that since they knew this, they did not go against the regulations or break the law, i.e.:

C) IF THERE ARE NO SOURCES (AT LEAST ONE) showing us they did go against the regulations or break the law or even, if that is your hypothesis, that they may have done that.

So: the normative sources rule IF, and only IF, there is no other source showing you that there was another event.

And, mind you, that event can NOT be established on non existing sources.

And it can NOT be established on sources lacking information.

The abdomens of Chapman and Eddowes were ripped open to the point that it would have been relatively easy to remove these organs quickly and un-noticed,

And if the door to the vault in a bank was open - would there immediately have shown up bank robber to rob the bank?

And if a destitute woman was walking in Spitalfields ar night - would there immediately have been a serial killer showing up and cutting her throat?

You see, you look upon this from your own tautologic point of view: It is a positivistic view, telling you that the logic in your mind is the logic of things.

But the world does not work by logic.

Just because the door to your house is open, you will not immediately find a thief in your kitchen.

Yes, indeed, it is a view of suspicion. Everyone must be suspected. It is the logic of a police view. And that is fine. But it is not a good view on historical sources.

So even though the abdomens were open, there was not a group of people, or some sinister individual, standing around the corner waiting to take organs.

That is what must be considered as the past, since the past has left us no sources for the hypothesis constructed from the police logic.

Therefore, that is now history. And I would not mind if it changed, so that is not the problem. But there are standards and conditions for changing history. You see some of them above.

and for all we know the original abdominal wounds made by the killer may have been enhanced in order to do so. Who would then know? No one because the bodies of both were not examined in detail at the crime scenes.

The police logic again. A good logic IRL but not for historical sources.

If you believe in coincidences based on that, then that might explain why these two victims were the only ones who had organs removed purportedly by a killer who is supposed to have killed up to 12 victims.

That is wrong. Kelly also had organs removed from her body. There was no staff or personell in the room who removed organs. The killer did this:

"The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus & Kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the Rt foot, the Liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side & the s pleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table."

(Bond´s post mortem report).


The idea of 12 victims is your own. There are explanations for Nichols and Stride - based on sources!

1. Nichols: Lechmere saw a policeman at the murder site. The dress was pulled down. Interpretation: He was disturbed. There was also wounds on the abdomen of Nichols.

2: Stride: He killed and mutilated Eddowes. Stride only had her throat cut. Interpretation: He was disturbed by Diemshitz who arrived with the horse in the busy yard (that is not my own interpretation, but the interpretation of others).

Two victims were not mutilated and they were the only two where there are sources indicating the killer could have been disturbed.

Now you see the logic of history.

Regards, Pierre

[Joshua Rogan]

Interestingly, the Daily News (and probably other papers) on 10 Nov reports that the body was removed from no.13 in a shell and taken to the mortuary. A bucket thought to contain more remains was taken and sent to Dr Phillips' house. Is it possible that this contained the heart, and it couldn't be found because Phillips forgot to bring it with him in the morning?

"At four o'clock in the afternoon the body was removed from Dorset street to Shoreditch Mortuary, which stands at the back of Shoreditch Church. The mutilated remains were placed in a coarse coffin, which had apparently been used on many previous occasions for the conveyance of the dead, and which was partially covered with a coarse canvas cloth. The straps of the coffin were sealed. The coffin was conveyed in a one horse ordinary furniture van, and was escorted by several constables under Sergeant Betham. A large crowd followed. At the mortuary another throng was waiting to see the coffin transferred to the building. 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. The windows of the room where the crime was committed were boarded up and a padlock put on the door. The streets were patrolled by the police all last evening, and no one was allowed to loiter near the place. At night the neighbourhood was a scene of restless excitement and activity, the streets being filled with thousands of idlers, attracted doubtless by morbid curiosity.

[Trevor Marriott]

Fine Trevor.

So was medical personnel legally entitled to obtain organs for medical research from murder victims?

And was staff legally entitled to do the same?

Regards, Pierre

Pierre
You keep missing the point, the answer is no, but if someone saw the opportunity they might have seized it. The abdomens of Chapman and Eddowes were ripped open to the point that it would have been relatively easy to remove these organs quickly and un-noticed, and for all we know the original abdominal wounds made by the killer may have been enhanced in order to do so. Who would then know? No one because the bodies of both were not examined in detail at the crime scenes.

If you believe in coincidences based on that, then that might explain why these two victims were the only ones who had organs removed purportedly by a killer who is supposed to have killed up to 12 victims.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Rest assured what I say is always important, perhaps not to you or your other egg headed historical bed mate on here, both of you seem to be suffering from severe bouts of historical factitis, or source poisoning, or even data inflicted injuries.

So very funny

Lets be very clear, we are researching An historic set of murders.

You may not like it but it is history, you somehow talk as if it is divorced form history, such a view as given in this post is both disingenuous and lacking in all substance.

But despite all your ramblings and constant references to historical facts, sources and data. many of the old accepted facts surrounding this mystery do not stand up to close scrutiny, and its time you accepted that, and got off the fence where you constantly sit, and perhaps write a post which contains something positive instead of all the negativity your posts contain.

That would be scrutiny by yourself I take it?

Given that you demonstrate an incapability to understand how to asses and conduct historical research, the reliability and accuracy of such scrutiny is serious brought into question.
Most of your scrutiny appears to be base on no more than your view, a gut feeling, not back by anything other than a belief that your must be correct, and not on any data.

Despite your protestations to the contrary, if one has no data to use one cannot formulate any ideas or theories which are based on reality, what you produce are Fantasy and fiction

One cannot write positive about something unless there actually something positive to say, otherwise it is make believe.

If you want to rely on history so be it. But my goal is to look at this as a cold case review, and not a historical exercise, which makes our roles totally different in the way we look at and interpret the evidence and facts which are before us and the conclusions we arrive at.

Such a confused statement, The case is history, to asses it seriously there is no other way other than to use historic research.

Your claim that it is a cold case review, and not history is utterly preposterous:
,
There are no witnesses alive!

You only have the historical sources to work with, there is nothing else.


It comes across, maybe wrongly that your see your interpretation of events somehow as fact:

There was not enough light in Mitre Square.

Reid must have known the truth as he was head of Whitechapel CID.

It was not possible to carry out all the mutilations in Mitre Square



Those are not facts(other than Reid's position), those are opinions!

I can question an historical document whereas you it would seem accept it without question, and you attitude towards anyone is prove its wrong, and when anyone does come up with something which points to something being wrong. you go on the defence of the issue in question.

Unfortunately that is not true, you have demonstrated time and time again that you do not analysis an historical document.

Instead, you come up with a theory to challenge what is written, however this is often based on nothing but your own blue sky ideas, supported by no other evidence other than your gut feeling.

Personally I dont give a monkey`s whether you or any others accept what I am suggesting or not. It is clear those on here who do not want to even consider the new facts, have their own agenda, that would seem to be propping up the old theories, and I cant for the life of me see why after 128 years everything from 1888 should be readily accepted without question.

Trevor what new facts?

Your interpretations are not facts? They are views.

Maybe you are talking about the external opinion mentioned in post 631, However you did not back up or give links for such, nor have you yet replied to the question asked about it.


I fully agree we should questions when needed, but not for the sake of it, which is what you are saying.


Make as many suggestions as you like, propose them as theories, to be debated; not as facts that you then resent people disagreeing with.

Its about how you suggest, not what you suggest.

When anyone comes here with plausible alternative explanations,the hit squad comes out with all guns blazing. Well it may frighten off new posters who come here with such theories and explanations but it doesn't wash with me. I am not going to be bullied, or intimidated by the likes of you. Insults dont bother me because, when that happens I know I am hitting the right nerves.

A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black,

If you were not bothered as you claim, why would you resort to the insults an attacks as above?

So lets just go over the evidence one more time for old times sake, so I can see you twist and squirm you way out of accepting the facts. If you do not concur with me on these issues free to come down off the fence and put me right.

I see no one twisting or squirming, the answers to these questions/statements are so very easy to produce.


Can one ask why you have not replied to the questions in post 631.

Lets count the facts

Insp Reid, head of Whitechapel CID visits the crime scene and was directly involved thereafter. In fact he visits the crime scene twice.So he was directly involved up until that point, and that point would have been when the organs were all accounted for as per the newspaper reports.

That contains two facts that Reid was head of CID and visited the site.

The suggestion that he was directly involved is open to both definition of the terms used and contrary view by other researchers.

That the organs were all accounted for is not fact, it is opinion.

Dr Bond states the heart was missing from the pericardium. He does not state it was missing from the room and passes no comment ever about the heart being missing.

Actually he say it had been removed from the pericardium via the bottom which was open, the pericardium is the membrane surrounding the heart, it is not itself a space, the heart was actually missing from the thoracic cavity but lets not split hairs, It is a fact.

There are no further comments about the heart, more on that soon, again a fact.

On that basis, and that alone, you and others it would seem draw an inference and take that as meaning missing from the room. How you arrive at that is truly amazing.

I count 4 facts, maybe 5 depending on how one reads "directly involved".

Lets examine those in detail.

The first 2 confirm his position and the fact he attended the site, they do not show how involved he was, of how much of the detail he understood?



The view he was "directly involved" is questioned by other researchers, and to me it is not clear if you are correct or not.

I would need to do more research myself to reach a conclusion.

However his descriptions of the wounds to Kelly are far from accurate, which may, I only say may, hint to his actual level of involvement.


Bond mentions the heart was removed from the body, there is no further mention of it at all. yes very interesting I must say.


I cannot speak for others,
I personally reach that possible, indeed probably, conclusion that the heart was taken away, on the data available.

All the other body parts which are cut away and mentioned by Bond are described and given a position in the room, the heart is not mentioned at all , after Bond describes it s removal from the body. (fact 4).

Pray tell me where the heart is?

There is no evidence to show that the heart was ever missing from the room.

see above

The newspapers of the day publish articles stating that no organs were missing from the room.

Not all as you well know, but you ignore that with does not fit- classic cherry picking

Thereafter there is nothing on record from any other official primary source to show the heart was missing from the room, which given the atrocity of the crime I would have expected it to have surfaced somewhere over the ensuing years.

Two possible reasons for such:

1. Many of the records were lost, destroyed or were denied access to , as you know better than most.

To say there are now none, so there never were is wrong as you know, the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument.


Paul pointed out quite well I think that there is even a question about if it would have been mentioned.

Your use of Dew as a backup source on this issue, in post #618, using a book written many decades after the event is indicative of the research expertise shown.

By the way do you count Dew as Primary or Secondary Source?

So up until this point where does the truth lie. With the balance of probability it lies in favour of the heart not being taken.

No

Fast forward
1896 Insp Reid recounts his knowledge of the Kelly murder which he was directly involved in. In that recount he states no organ was found to be missing. That recount was either from his direct recollection or perhaps notes he still had in his possession. Either way the content is 99.9% totally accurate.

It certainly is not 99.9 % accurate as you have said your self he gets the information about Bowyer wrong, that means it is not nearly as perfect as you wish to portray it.

That however is what one may expect from a source produced 8 years after the event- a Secondary Source!

I note that you do not like answering questions, so I will ask one again, which was asked before and to which you have not replied:

Do you accept Andersons book to be a primary or secondary source?

Where does the truth lie now, heart missing, or nothing taken? The balance of probability issue in my mind doesn't even come into play. If you dont believe Reid then prove conclusively that what he says in relation to the Kelly murder is wrong and that he was mistaken, and produce other evidence to show the organ was taken away by the killer.

That is not how probability works Trevor, again showing a lack of understanding.

And despite the attempt to downgrade and belittle others views in this post, there are very few Facts or evidence presented in the argument, it is 95 percent opinion.


Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

Yes, you posted those two Times articles earlier. I, and then Jerryd think posted the slightly later quote from the Daily Telegraph 13th Nov;

"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."

If the autopsy on Saturday morning found that nothing was missing from the body, what portion were the doctors and police subsequently searching for (but not finding) in the ashes, according to the Echo?

[Trevor Marriott]

Ah, insults. It's funny how you accuse others of insulting you when insults are always your first post of call when you can't support your arguments.

You write, "If you want to rely on history so be it..." and then you say that because you are treating this as a cold case review you look at the evidence differently and interpret it differently and reach different conclusions. This nonsense presumably makes sense to you because your ignorance of what history is and what historians do is so great that you don't realise you're talking utter twaddle. Jack the Ripper committed his crimes nearly 130 years ago. That makes them history, just like the Boer War, the life of Gladstone, the Industrial Revolution, the Battle of Hastings, or the reign of Egbert. There is no difference between Jack the Ripper and the Battle of Hastings. Both are events in the past which we know about because of what the sources tell us, and the sources are treated in exactly the same way. If you imagine in your wildest dreams that having been a copper and calling 1066 a cold case enables you to treat the sources for the Battle of Hastings differently, you are sadly mistaken. 1066 or 1888, it makes not a tittle of difference. It's history.

ou can also trot out your short litany of favourite accusations, but again they only serve to demonstrate the depth of your ignorance. According to you, people don't want to consider "new facts", people have their own agendas, people prop up the old theories, sources are accepted without question, people want to keep the "old accepted facts", people don't want to accept that the old thinking "doesn't stand up to close scrutiny", people reject "plausible alternative explanations", people have closed minds. Perhaps most baffling of all, people want to rely on the sources...!

Just a glance at the forum threads shows that people are always questioning the old ideas, looking at the sources in different ways, advancing new theories. All that is the very life-blood of Ripperology. But you spin your old, cracked record so often because you can't support your ideas when called upon to do so. It is beyond your comprehension that a "plausible alternative explanation" has to be supported by the sources. You don't understand because you haven't even the most basic understanding of how to conduct an historical investigation.

In post 634 I wrote that there is "Dr Bond's official report in which he said the heart was missing". I went on to say that Dr Bond "located the position of other bodily organs but not the heart". I also told you that I had another source which specifically stated that whilst the other organs were scattered around the room, the heart was missing. And I concluded by saying that I was "aware of potential problems with both these sources." You have ignored all of this.

I have not ignored this at all I have pointed out that the heart may have been un accounted for at first but it was later accounted for.

I'll spell it out for you, On the basis of Dr Bond's statement that the heart was absent and on that statement alone, according to you, I have inferred that the heart was missing from the room. I haven't inferred that or inferred anything else from Dr Bond's statement. Nor have I relied on Dr Bond's statement alone, but have pointed out that he stated the location of the body parts, but not the heart, I cited a medical source that stated the heart was not located in the room. And still I drew no inferences. And I added that I knew the sources presented problems.

But there is no source which states the heart was not located in the room

The newspapers also continued to claim that an organ was missing.

and they later changed to printing that no organs were missing

The balance of probability may indeed lie in favour of the heart not being taken, but does it? On the one hand we have Dr Bond's observation that the heart was absent, we have the heart not included in Dr Bonds location of other bodily organs, and we have a statement that other organs were found in the room, but the heart was not found.

We can explain why the heart was not mentioned in the first list of organs so nothing sinister in that

We also have a bunch of newspaper reports claiming that an organ was missing, and I was pleased to note that you drew attention to the fact that police and doctors investigated the ashes in the fire, obviously looking for something which the medical men were more likely to recognise than a policeman, from which it seems fair to infer that something was missing.

I agree but at some point thereafter all the organs were accounted for

Reid said that the mutilations amounted to nothing more that a few post-mortem scratches.

That is not correct see a full transcript of his interview at the end of this post

It also raises serious questions about why you want to restrict evaluation of Reid strictly to what he said about Kelly.

Because he was directly involved in that murder. You also question his memory, to that I sugested he might have had aide-de memoirs which he in fact did have if you read the first part of the interview the reporter states that he was surrounded by photos etc relative to the murders.


Anyway, I don't have to prove anything. I'm not claiming that the heart was taken or was present. You are the one trying to make a case for something, not me. I'll tell you what I am doing, I am interested in the evidence/arguments for both sides. I'm on the fence because it's bad history to come down on either side, because once you do that you lose your objectivity. Anyway, a book I am working on will hopefully present readers with a scrupulously fair account of the arguments both for and against. Unfortunately, in your case it isn't clear what foundations your arguments are built on, if they are built on any at all.

The foundations in my opinion are rock solid

I don't disbelieve Reid. What I disagree with is your certainty that he is right. You haven't made your case. You haven't supported your argument. You just fall back on you stock routines about people being blinkered, preserving the status quo, and such-like nonsense. But I suppose cold case investigators don't have to worry about evidence.

I have supported my argument with evidence from one who was present and 8 years later is as clear and concise as he would have been 8 years previous

Reids article I have highlighted the points he gets right

“This was a case in which a pretty, fair-haired, blue-eyed, youthful girl was murdered. She rented a room in a house in Dorset-street, or which she paid 4s 6d a week rent. The room was badly furnished for the reason that her class of people always pawn or sell anything decent they ever get into their places. The curtains to the windows were torn and one of the panes of glass was broken.

Kelly was in arrears with her rent and one morning a man known as ‘The Indian’ who was in the employment of the landlord of the house, went round about eight o’clock to see the woman about the money. Receiving no answer to his knock at the door, he peered through the window, and through the torn curtain saw the horrible sight of the woman lying on her bed hacked to pieces and pieces of her flesh placed upon the table.

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. The landlord was brought round to the house by his man, and the sight of the poor mutilated woman turned his brain.

The suggestion having been made that in the eyes of a murdered person a reflection of the murderer might be retained, we had the eyes of Kelly photographed and the photographs magnified, but the effort was fruitless. We tried every possible means of tracing if the woman had been seen with a man, but without avail. An example of the difficulty we had may be found in that women came forward who swore that they saw Kelly standing at the corner of the court at eight o’clock of the morning her body was found, but the evidence of the doctors proved this to be impossibility. By that hour the woman had been dead not less than four hours.”

Hardly an account given by someone with a failing memory or someone who just got the facts wrong

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

I did not mention staff. I cited medical personnel, who were legally entitled to go and freely obtain organs for medical research. I wish people would get the facts right and listen to what I say.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Fine Trevor.

So was medical personnel legally entitled to obtain organs for medical research from murder victims?

And was staff legally entitled to do the same?

Regards, Pierre

[Trevor Marriott]

But there's no mention of it being located either. The Echo article doesn't seem to say this.

It does and there are other articles

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 ˝ hours after which the mutilated portions were sewn to the body, and therefore the coroner's jury will be spared the unpleasant duty of witnessing the horrible spectacle presented to those who discovered the murder. The ashes found in the fireplace of the room rented by the deceased woman were also submitted to a searching examination, but nothing likely to throw any light on this shocking case could be gleaned from them.”

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

Rest assured what I say is always important, perhaps not to you or your other egg headed historical bed mate on here, both of you seem to be suffering from severe bouts of historical factitis, or source poisoning, or even data inflicted injuries.

But despite all your ramblings and constant references to historical facts, sources and data. many of the old accepted facts surrounding this mystery do not stand up to close scrutiny, and its time you accepted that, and got off the fence where you constantly sit, and perhaps write a post which contains something positive instead of all the negativity your posts contain.

If you want to rely on history so be it. But my goal is to look at this as a cold case review, and not a historical exercise, which makes our roles totally different in the way we look at and interpret the evidence and facts which are before us and the conclusions we arrive at.

I can question an historical document whereas you it would seem accept it without question, and you attitude towards anyone is prove its wrong, and when anyone does come up with something which points to something being wrong. you go on the defence of the issue in question.

Personally I dont give a monkey`s whether you or any others accept what I am suggesting or not. It is clear those on here who do not want to even consider the new facts, have their own agenda, that would seem to be propping up the old theories, and I cant for the life of me see why after 128 years everything from 1888 should be readily accepted without question.

When anyone comes here with plausible alternative explanations, the hit squad comes out with all guns blazing. Well it may frighten off new posters who come here with such theories and explanations but it doesn't wash with me. I am not going to be bullied, or intimidated by the likes of you. Insults dont bother me because, when that happens I know I am hitting the right nerves.

Ah, insults. It's funny how you accuse others of insulting you when insults are always your first post of call when you can't support your arguments.

You write, "If you want to rely on history so be it..." and then you say that because you are treating this as a cold case review you look at the evidence differently and interpret it differently and reach different conclusions. This nonsense presumably makes sense to you because your ignorance of what history is and what historians do is so great that you don't realise you're talking utter twaddle. Jack the Ripper committed his crimes nearly 130 years ago. That makes them history, just like the Boer War, the life of Gladstone, the Industrial Revolution, the Battle of Hastings, or the reign of Egbert. There is no difference between Jack the Ripper and the Battle of Hastings. Both are events in the past which we know about because of what the sources tell us, and the sources are treated in exactly the same way. If you imagine in your wildest dreams that having been a copper and calling 1066 a cold case enables you to treat the sources for the Battle of Hastings differently, you are sadly mistaken. 1066 or 1888, it makes not a tittle of difference. It's history.

ou can also trot out your short litany of favourite accusations, but again they only serve to demonstrate the depth of your ignorance. According to you, people don't want to consider "new facts", people have their own agendas, people prop up the old theories, sources are accepted without question, people want to keep the "old accepted facts", people don't want to accept that the old thinking "doesn't stand up to close scrutiny", people reject "plausible alternative explanations", people have closed minds. Perhaps most baffling of all, people want to rely on the sources...!

Just a glance at the forum threads shows that people are always questioning the old ideas, looking at the sources in different ways, advancing new theories. All that is the very life-blood of Ripperology. But you spin your old, cracked record so often because you can't support your ideas when called upon to do so. It is beyond your comprehension that a "plausible alternative explanation" has to be supported by the sources. You don't understand because you haven't even the most basic understanding of how to conduct an historical investigation.

So lets just go over the evidence one more time for old times sake, so I can see you twist and squirm you way out of accepting the facts. If you do not concur with me on these issues free to come down off the fence and put me right.

Insp Reid, head of Whitechapel CID visits the crime scene and was directly involved thereafter. In fact he visits the crime scene twice.So he was directly involved up until that point, and that point would have been when the organs were all accounted for as per the newspaper reports.

Dr Bond states the heart was missing from the pericardium. He does not state it was missing from the room and passes no comment ever about the heart being missing.

On that basis, and that alone, you and others it would seem draw an inference and take that as meaning missing from the room. How you arrive at that is truly amazing.

There is no evidence to show that the heart was ever missing from the room.

In post 634 I wrote that there is "Dr Bond's official report in which he said the heart was missing". I went on to say that Dr Bond "located the position of other bodily organs but not the heart". I also told you that I had another source which specifically stated that whilst the other organs were scattered around the room, the heart was missing. And I concluded by saying that I was "aware of potential problems with both these sources." You have ignored all of this.

I'll spell it out for you, On the basis of Dr Bond's statement that the heart was absent and on that statement alone, according to you, I have inferred that the heart was missing from the room. I haven't inferred that or inferred anything else from Dr Bond's statement. Nor have I relied on Dr Bond's statement alone, but have pointed out that he stated the location of the body parts, but not the heart, I cited a medical source that stated the heart was not located in the room. And still I drew no inferences. And I added that I knew the sources presented problems.

No offence, Trevor, but there is a very clear statement in front of you, yet you ignore two pieces of crucial evidence, ignore a stated awareness of source problems, and attribute to me a inference that I never drew.

The newspapers of the day publish articles stating that no organs were missing from the room.

Thereafter there is nothing on record from any other official primary source to show the heart was missing from the room, which given the atrocity of the crime I would have expected it to have surfaced somewhere over the ensuing years.

So up until this point where does the truth lie. With the balance of probability it lies in favour of the heart not being taken.

The newspapers also continued to claim that an organ was missing.

I, too, would expect references to the heart being missing to have cropped up in later commentaries, and when I get chance I've meant to compile a list of similar things and to check to see if they are mentioned by later commentators. If they're not then could conclude that there was nothing odd about the heart not being mentioned. As it is, what we think should have happened doesn't constitute evidence for anything.

The balance of probability may indeed lie in favour of the heart not being taken, but does it? On the one hand we have Dr Bond's observation that the heart was absent, we have the heart not included in Dr Bonds location of other bodily organs, and we have a statement that other organs were found in the room, but the heart was not found. We also have a bunch of newspaper reports claiming that an organ was missing, and I was pleased to note that you drew attention to the fact that police and doctors investigated the ashes in the fire, obviously looking for something which the medical men were more likely to recognise than a policeman, from which it seems fair to infer that something was missing. I think the balance of probability if tipped way over to the heart being missing side. The only thing on the scales on the other side are newspaper reports to the effect that no organ was missing.

I don't think I'm wriggling and squirming so far, am I? I'm just putting you right, fairly and sensibly.

Fast forward
1896 Insp Reid recounts his knowledge of the Kelly murder which he was directly involved in. In that recount he states no organ was found to be missing. That recount was either from his direct recollection or perhaps notes he still had in his possession. Either way the content is 99.9% totally accurate.

Reid said that the mutilations amounted to nothing more that a few post-mortem scratches. If that is what Reid really thought, what value do we put on anything he said? And if he didn't mean it, can we be sure he meant what he said when he said the heart wasn't missing? You have consistently ignored this point. I'd say that these questions certainly cast doubt on your 99% and for the moment place a big question mark over Reid's credibility. It also raises serious questions about why you want to restrict evaluation of Reid strictly to what he said about Kelly.

Where does the truth lie now, heart missing, or nothing taken? The balance of probability issue in my mind doesn't even come into play. If you dont believe Reid then prove conclusively that what he says in relation to the Kelly murder is wrong and that he was mistaken, and produce other evidence to show the organ was taken away by the killer.

Hang on a second, Trevor. All you'd said is that Dr. Bond doesn't say the heart was taken from the room, and you've argued in favour of Reid by not allowing all Reid's errors to be considered when assessing his reliability. And you have totally ignored all the other points I've made. You haven't proven anything yet, there is absolutely no reason to assume that you've demonstrated that the heart was accounted for, and you are a million miles from conclusively showing that Reid was correct, so where do you get off demanding that I "conclusively" prove that Reid is wrong and produce other evidence that the heart was taken? You need a reality check.

Anyway, I don't have to prove anything. I'm not claiming that the heart was taken or was present. You are the one trying to make a case for something, not me. I'll tell you what I am doing, I am interested in the evidence/arguments for both sides. I'm on the fence because it's bad history to come down on either side, because once you do that you lose your objectivity. Anyway, a book I am working on will hopefully present readers with a scrupulously fair account of the arguments both for and against. Unfortunately, in your case it isn't clear what foundations your arguments are built on, if they are built on any at all.

I don't disbelieve Reid. What I disagree with is your certainty that he is right. You haven't made your case. You haven't supported your argument. You just fall back on you stock routines about people being blinkered, preserving the status quo, and such-like nonsense. But I suppose cold case investigators don't have to worry about evidence.

So, let's take a very quick review: you have ignored evidence and arguments put to you, you have accused me of drawing inferences when I have drawn none, and you have tried to restrict the evaluation of Reid's reliability to his comments on Kelly alone. You have ignored the fact that he denied the victims were mutilated beyond a few post-mortem scratches. And your argument rests on a clearly flawed and questionable source. You want to prove that Kelly's heart wasn't taken by the murderer and therefore want Reid to be correct, I don't care either way, but am simply interested in assessing the evidence for and against. Overall, I have your massively biased interpretation of the evidence, based upon no understanding of history, and I have a pile of admittedly questionable sources and interpetations which overall stack against you. So, I want to hear your evidence, but instead you find my insistence on evidence very strange, you think that treating the Ripper as a cold case allowes tou to treat the source material differently, and you insult me.

[Joshua Rogan]

But there's no mention of it being located either. The Echo article doesn't seem to say this.