Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    The uterus was a valuable organ to acquire for teaching hospitals.

    And the uteri were removed from Chapman and Eddowes using two different methods from two different mortuaries, indicating two different persons who carried out the removals hardly consistent with a killer removing them.

    No organs were taken away from Millers Court

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Dr Bond stated that the heart was absent and that the other major organs were present in the room.

    That means that the heart was not in the room.


    The uterus, it seems, too, is not missing, as was once stated, but the heart is.

    (Dundee Evening Telegraph, 17 November 1888).

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      The uterus was a valuable organ to acquire for teaching hospitals.


      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      Are you suggesting Henry Gawen Sutton at the London Hospital?
      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DJA View Post

        Are you suggesting Henry Gawen Sutton at the London Hospital?
        No, I am suggesting the organs from Eddowes and Chapman were acquired from corrupt mortuary attendants who allowed body dealers to take the organs and sell them to the teaching hospitals.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


          Dr Bond stated that the heart was absent and that the other major organs were present in the room.

          That means that the heart was not in the room.

          That comment is ambiguous it means it was taken out from within the pericardium there is no specific mention of it being taken away by the killer


          The uterus, it seems, too, is not missing, as was once stated, but the heart is.

          (Dundee Evening Telegraph, 17 November 1888).
          I refer you to the News of the World article date 1896 which carried an interview with Detective Insp Reid who was head of Whitechapel CID and visited the Kelly crime scene

          "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.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

            blinkered that a man who murdered, cut off external body parts, ripped open abdomans, pulled out internal organs like intestines, wasnt the same man who took the internal organs away? lol

            yeah.. real blinkered.
            and that same man after doing all of those things at the crime scenes in a frenzied attack is able to then sufficiently calm himself down to be able to then with anatomical knowledge be able to then remove two of the most difficult organs in the body to first locate and remove them in almost total darkness. You need a reality check

            and as to you questioning the murder and mutilation angle you need to revisit the murders

            Martha Tabram stabbed 39 times no attempt made to take organs
            Polly Nichols throat cut, abdomen stabbed no attempt to take organs
            Liz Stride Throat cut no abdominal wounds no attempt made to take organs
            Annie Chapman throat cut abdomen stabbed and ripped open -body left for 12 hours at mortuary before post mortem when organs found missing
            Catherine Eddowes throat cut abdomen stabbed and ripped open body left for 12 hours before post mortem when organs found missing
            Mary Kelly murdered and mutilated no organs taken

            The only two victims who were found to be missing organs at the post mortem stage were Chapman and Eddowes whose abdomens had been ripped open sufficiently to enable organs to be removed at the mortuaries, and it should be noted that if the killer was seeking to harvest organs then why do we see no evidence of any attempts to do so with any of the other victims?

            So what scenarios are we left to consider

            All of these victims were not killed by the same killer
            They were all killed by the same killer who only murdered and mutilated

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              I refer you to the News of the World article date 1896 which carried an interview with Detective Insp Reid who was head of Whitechapel CID and visited the Kelly crime scene

              "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.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Anderson thought McKenzie's pipe was in Kelly's fireplace and that Abberline was looking exclusively for a Jewish murderer, Swanson had his seaside fantasy with a suspect dying 30 years early, and Smith thought Lawende was a hybrid German.

              Reid made mistakes too.

              I'm not saying he got it wrong when he pointed out to Anderson that Scotland Yard never decided that the murderer was a Jew, because that is obviously correct, but to say that no organs were taken away is not supportable.

              Who else said so at the time?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                Anderson thought McKenzie's pipe was in Kelly's fireplace and that Abberline was looking exclusively for a Jewish murderer, Swanson had his seaside fantasy with a suspect dying 30 years early, and Smith thought Lawende was a hybrid German.

                Reid made mistakes too.

                I'm not saying he got it wrong when he pointed out to Anderson that Scotland Yard never decided that the murderer was a Jew, because that is obviously correct, but to say that no organs were taken away is not supportable.

                Who else said so at the time?
                Its more supportable than the ambiguous post mortem report you quote from

                and if researchers are prepared to accept the writings of Anderson, Swanson and Magnaghetn without question, why not Reid? and out of all of the officers involved in these murders he actually physically investigated the murder so if anyone knew the full facts surrounding the murder then it would have been him.

                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,


                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment





                • The whole of the surface of the abdomen and thighs was removed and the abdominal cavity emptied of its viscera. The breasts were cut off, the arms mutilated by several jagged wounds and the face hacked beyond recognition of the features. The tissues of the neck were severed all round down to the bone.

                  The viscera were found in various parts viz:
                  the uterus and kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right foot, the liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side and the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.

                  The pericardium was open below and the heart absent.




                  It is clear, I suggest, that the reason Bond did not state where the heart was to be found is that, unlike the viscera, it was never found.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    Its more supportable than the ambiguous post mortem report you quote from

                    and if researchers are prepared to accept the writings of Anderson, Swanson and Magnaghetn without question, why not Reid? and out of all of the officers involved in these murders he actually physically investigated the murder so if anyone knew the full facts surrounding the murder then it would have been him.

                    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,


                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    The Times 13th November:

                    "...Notwithstanding reports to the contrary, it is still confidently asserted that some portions of the body of the deceased woman are missing...."

                    In short, the Times retracted the statement from the 12th that no portion was missing, and asserted that indeed, some portions were in fact missing. As such, one cannot use the Times report of the 12th as support for the argument that no portion was missing because they themselves declare that claim to be an error.

                    - Jeff

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                      The Times 13th November:

                      "...Notwithstanding reports to the contrary, it is still confidently asserted that some portions of the body of the deceased woman are missing...."

                      In short, the Times retracted the statement from the 12th that no portion was missing, and asserted that indeed, some portions were in fact missing. As such, one cannot use the Times report of the 12th as support for the argument that no portion was missing because they themselves declare that claim to be an error.

                      - Jeff
                      Nevertheless, I will still go with what Reid states in the article. There is no evidence from any other police officer who was involved in the investigation to support the belief that the heart had been taken away by the killer, not even in Bonds report to Anderson. In fact, there is no other evidence from any other police official to support the belief that the killer took away Kellys heart and Bonds post mortem report is ambiguous.

                      And not forgetting the fact that the killer who in my opinion did not remove the organs from the 2 other victims at the crime scenes adds corroboration to show that if Kelly was murdered by the same killer then he did not remove the heart and take it away from the Kelly crime scene.

                      Reid has to be a credible witness he was head of Whitechapel CID and attended the crime scene and for those who still suggest that in 1896 his memory had failed I refer them to the article in which he discusses the murders and in particular the part relative to the Kelly murder when he even recalls the nickname of the man who found the body. Now that proves his memory was still as good as ever or he had retained police documents and was using them as an aide memoire



                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                        The Times 13th November:

                        "...Notwithstanding reports to the contrary, it is still confidently asserted that some portions of the body of the deceased woman are missing...."

                        In short, the Times retracted the statement from the 12th that no portion was missing, and asserted that indeed, some portions were in fact missing. As such, one cannot use the Times report of the 12th as support for the argument that no portion was missing because they themselves declare that claim to be an error.

                        - Jeff
                        "it is still confidently asserted" = Not conclusive

                        Comment


                        • I have often wondered if the police tried keeping the removal of Mary's heart back from the press/public. We know it was widely reported that Kate's kidney had been removed and not found, and of course we have the Lusk letter from mid Oct on which we are still debating if it was a hoax or not today. If the police where not sure themselves and Mary's heart was later posted with a message, the police could determine with a fair amount of certainty that correspondence would be genuine. Plus they could compare the writing to the Lusk letter and other mail, thus possibly obtaining vital clues.

                          Just a thought Darryl

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            Nevertheless, I will still go with what Reid states in the article. There is no evidence from any other police officer who was involved in the investigation to support the belief that the heart had been taken away by the killer, not even in Bonds report to Anderson. In fact, there is no other evidence from any other police official to support the belief that the killer took away Kellys heart and Bonds post mortem report is ambiguous.

                            And not forgetting the fact that the killer who in my opinion did not remove the organs from the 2 other victims at the crime scenes adds corroboration to show that if Kelly was murdered by the same killer then he did not remove the heart and take it away from the Kelly crime scene.

                            Reid has to be a credible witness he was head of Whitechapel CID and attended the crime scene and for those who still suggest that in 1896 his memory had failed I refer them to the article in which he discusses the murders and in particular the part relative to the Kelly murder when he even recalls the nickname of the man who found the body. Now that proves his memory was still as good as ever or he had retained police documents and was using them as an aide memoire



                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Hi Trevor,

                            That's all fine. My only point was much more modest in scope, simply pointing out that the Times article of the 12th cannot be put forth as support for your opinion. You can still rely on Reid's 1896 memoirs if you wish, but the Times article of Nov 12th, 1888, was retracted on Nov 13th, 1888.

                            Of course, because my opinion with regards to the taking of organs from Chapman's and Eddowes' crime scenes is the opposite of yours, the notion that he took Kelly's heart this time is not something I see as out of character. But that's tangential to the above point I was making.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • Let us not forget that according to Dr Bond:

                              the abdominal cavity [was] emptied of its viscera ... The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus and kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right foot, the liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side and the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.

                              The pericardium was open below and the heart absent.


                              ​Dr Bond did not report that the heart was found, nor state where it was found.

                              I suggest that, contrary to Trevor Marriott's assertion, what Bond wrote about the heart's absence was not ambiguous at all.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post
                                Let us not forget that according to Dr Bond:

                                the abdominal cavity [was] emptied of its viscera ... The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus and kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right foot, the liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side and the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.

                                The pericardium was open below and the heart absent.


                                ​Dr Bond did not report that the heart was found, nor state where it was found.

                                I suggest that, contrary to Trevor Marriott's assertion, what Bond wrote about the heart's absence was not ambiguous at all.
                                Hi PI,

                                While I'm of the same opinion, Trevor's opinion differs and he sees the report as only indicating that the heart was absent from the chest cavity, not absent from the room. While I think that is contrary to the context, where the placement of the organs is being listed (they are all "absent from the body" after all), Trevor's of a different mind. When people diverge at such a fundamental level there is little point to debating interpretations that follow because the evidence itself is not agreed upon and so both are working from different starting points making it hardly surprising when both parties end up at different conclusions.

                                - Jeff

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X