From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[Wickerman]

It makes all sense as far as Reid is concerned with regard to the Kelly murder you only have to read the report and see all the detail he describes about the murder, which is 99.9% correct apart from one small error.

"Despite having his hands full with the Whitechapel murders in the autumn of 1888, Reid was able to leave the direction of the inquiry to Scotland Yard, represented by the more-than-able Abberline. He himself gave his attention to some of the other major crimes that were still being committed in the East End."
The Man who Hunted Jack the Ripper, Connell & Evans, 1999, p.64.

Reid was only the local inspector, the mutilation murders were above his station and their investigation was controlled by Scotland Yard.

and I beg to differ but Reid did attend the Kelly crime scene

I know, Connell & Evans mention Reid showing up at Millers Court with Thicke to conduct investigations "on the spot". The quote is not referenced and could mean a number of things. Regardless, Reid was at the inquest but there is no surviving paperwork to clarify his involvement in the case.

You clearly don't know how the chain of command works as far as police investigations are concerned.

In 1888?, yes I would agree, but neither do you.
Being in police today does not mean you know the procedures back in 1888.

Reid as head of Whitechapel CID would have had all the relevant paperwork on the case sent to him for him to read and then forward it on to his immediate superior and then down the line to Anderson.

I do know that Warren had dictated that Swanson was to be the hub where every paper, memo or report was to go across his desk. That nothing is to bypass his eyes. So
lets not over-egg the pudding, Reid had been transferred from J Div. to be the Local Inspector of H Div. CID, replacing Abberline who had moved up to Scotland Yard.
Reid was not in a key position to know everything about the investigation.

There is more than enough corroboration of what Reid says that no organs were missing

Reid's memory is just as deficient as all the other officers who reflect back on the case, and there is plenty of evidence of missing organs in the cases of Chapman, Eddowes & Kelly, regardless of your preference to cherry-pick what suits your theory.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But Dr Bond didn't write the report Dr Hebbert did at a later date. Dr Hebbert was not involved any more after the initial post-mortem he left.

So we have another Doctor along with another senior police officer who all corroborate Reid's statement from 1896

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Can you please clarify whether you are saying that the postmortem report attributed to Dr Bond was written by Dr Hebbert.

Whoever wrote that report, it contradicts the Lloyds Weekly report you quoted about the heart being found with the breasts on the table.

The post-mortem report has the breasts in different locations and no mention of the heart being found at all.

[Trevor Marriott]

But Trevor you are only making assumptions. "He would have (this)" or "would have (that)", you have no proof of Reid's personal involvement in any other cases. Being head of a department doesn't mean you see all the evidence, you delegate others to deal with the day-to-day activities. Heads of departments are only decision-makers.
I have pointed out which murders Reid was involved in because we have written evidence of his involvement.



If another poster quoted the above you would say it can't be trusted, it's just hearsay.
You have not indicated Arnold's opinion was verbatim, it could have been the reporters assumption (I'm not subscribed to the BNA at the moment), and anything published in the New York Herald would be at best third-hand commentary.
I do recall the American press also reported Kelly's head had been removed, yet I'll bet you don't accept that detail.



Attending a crime scene after the body & organs have all been taken away does not suggest Reid had firsthand (visual) knowledge of the extent of the mutilations.
Was Reid at Millers Court on the Friday? - No.
Was Reid at the autopsy on Sat. morning? - No.
Your argument is that Reid knows the organs were not removed because he attended the crime scene after the fact.
how does that make any sense?

It makes all sense as far as Reid is concerned with regard to the Kelly murder you only have to read the report and see all the detail he describes about the murder, which is 99.9% correct apart from one small error.

and I beg to differ but Reid did attend the Kelly crime scene

You clearly don't know how the chain of command works as far as police investigations are concerned. Reid as head of Whitechapel CID would have had all the relevant paperwork on the case sent to him for him to read and then forward it on to his immediate superior and then down the line to Anderson.

There is more than enough corroboration of what Reid says that no organs were missing

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

I think you are mistaken on that point firstly Reid was head of Whitechapel CID and would have had a hands on approach to the Kelly murder and all the paperwork would have first gone through him in the chain of command. He attended the crime scene. I think you are confusing his involvement or lack of direct involvement in some of the other murders...

But Trevor you are only making assumptions. "He would have (this)" or "would have (that)", you have no proof of Reid's personal involvement in any other cases. Being head of a department doesn't mean you see all the evidence, you delegate others to deal with the day-to-day activities. Heads of departments are only decision-makers.
I have pointed out which murders Reid was involved in because we have written evidence of his involvement.

Further corroboration on the missing heart would later come to prove that the heart was not taken away comes in the form of two newspaper articles, the first published in Lloyds Weekly dated November 11th 1888 which the interviewee would appear to have been Superintendent Arnold who was in overall charge of Whitechapel policing, and visited the crime scene shortly after the discovery of the body. The relevant part of the article reads “The kidneys and heart had also been removed from the body, and placed on the table by the side of the breasts.

The second piece of corroboration comes from The New York Herald dated November 10th and is a quote from Dr Gabe who also attended the crime scene while the body was still in situ: “The nose and ears were sliced away. The throat was cut from left to right, so that the vertebrae alone prevented a heads manlike severance. Below the neck the trunk suggested a sheep's carcass in a slaughter house. Ribs and backbone were exposed and the stomach, entrails, heart and liver had been cut out and carefully placed beside the mutilated trunk”

If another poster quoted the above you would say it can't be trusted, it's just hearsay.
You have not indicated Arnold's opinion was verbatim, it could have been the reporters assumption (I'm not subscribed to the BNA at the moment), and anything published in the New York Herald would be at best third-hand commentary.
I do recall the American press also reported Kelly's head had been removed, yet I'll bet you don't accept that detail.

As to Reid attending the crime scene

The Echo, 10th November 1888...

“The investigation made by the doctors yesterday was not the final one, mainly because the room was ill-adapted for the purpose of carrying out a complete autopsy. The post-mortem examination-in-chief was only commenced this morning, at the early hour of half-past seven, when Dr. Phillips, Dr. Bond, Dr. Hibbert, and other experts attended. Some portions of the body are missing, and, says an Echo reporter, writing at two o'clock this afternoon, Dr. Phillips and Dr. Bond, accompanied by Inspector Moore, Inspector Abberline, and Inspector Reid, are again paying a visit to Miller's-court, in order to examine the ashes found in the grate, as it is thought small parts of the body may have been burnt.”

Attending a crime scene after the body & organs have all been taken away does not suggest Reid had firsthand (visual) knowledge of the extent of the mutilations.
Was Reid at Millers Court on the Friday? - No.
Was Reid at the autopsy on Sat. morning? - No.
Your argument is that Reid knows the organs were not removed because he attended the crime scene after the fact.
how does that make any sense?

[Trevor Marriott]

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 ...

(Doctor Bond)

But Dr Bond didn't write the report Dr Hebbert did at a later date. Dr Hebbert was not involved any more after the initial post-mortem he left.

So we have another Doctor along with another senior police officer who all corroborate Reid's statement from 1896

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Further corroboration on the missing heart would later come to prove that the heart was not taken away comes in the form of two newspaper articles, the first published in Lloyds Weekly dated November 11th 1888 which the interviewee would appear to have been Superintendent Arnold who was in overall charge of Whitechapel policing, and visited the crime scene shortly after the discovery of the body. The relevant part of the article reads “The kidneys and heart had also been removed from the body, and placed on the table by the side of the breasts.

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 ...

(Doctor Bond)

[Trevor Marriott]

That is a familiar enough quote Trevor, but what Reid doesn't tell the reporter is he was only personally involved in the cases of Tabram, Stride, & McKenzie, all of which were simple murder & mutilation cases which did not include organ removal.
Insp. Reid is therefore speaking of his own personal experience.

I think you are mistaken on that point firstly Reid was head of Whitechapel CID and would have had a hands on approach to the Kelly murder and all the paperwork would have first gone through him in the chain of command. He attended the crime scene. I think you are confusing his involvement or lack of direct involvement in some of the other murders

Further corroboration on the missing heart would later come to prove that the heart was not taken away comes in the form of two newspaper articles, the first published in Lloyds Weekly dated November 11th 1888 which the interviewee would appear to have been Superintendent Arnold who was in overall charge of Whitechapel policing, and visited the crime scene shortly after the discovery of the body. The relevant part of the article reads “The kidneys and heart had also been removed from the body, and placed on the table by the side of the breasts.

The second piece of corroboration comes from The New York Herald dated November 10th and is a quote from Dr Gabe who also attended the crime scene while the body was still in situ: “The nose and ears were sliced away. The throat was cut from left to right, so that the vertebrae alone prevented a heads manlike severance. Below the neck the trunk suggested a sheep's carcass in a slaughter house. Ribs and backbone were exposed and the stomach, entrails, heart and liver had been cut out and carefully placed beside the mutilated trunk”

As to Reid attending the crime scene

The Echo, 10th November 1888...

“The investigation made by the doctors yesterday was not the final one, mainly because the room was ill-adapted for the purpose of carrying out a complete autopsy. The post-mortem examination-in-chief was only commenced this morning, at the early hour of half-past seven, when Dr. Phillips, Dr. Bond, Dr. Hibbert, and other experts attended. Some portions of the body are missing, and, says an Echo reporter, writing at two o'clock this afternoon, Dr. Phillips and Dr. Bond, accompanied by Inspector Moore, Inspector Abberline, and Inspector Reid, are again paying a visit to Miller's-court, in order to examine the ashes found in the grate, as it is thought small parts of the body may have been burnt.”

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

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

That is a familiar enough quote Trevor, but what Reid doesn't tell the reporter is he was only personally involved in the cases of Tabram, Stride, & McKenzie, all of which were simple murder & mutilation cases which did not include organ removal.
Insp. Reid is therefore speaking of his own personal experience.

[Trevor Marriott]

I suppose you are familiar with the following statement made about a murder scene by Dr Francis A. Harris, citing Dr C.A. Hebbert, an associate of Dr Bond, as his source?

He wrote:

In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered about the room

That statement is hearsay !!!!!!!!!!!!

It should also be noted that following the post mortem as has previously been mentioned several Doctors and Police officers revisited the crime scene, for what purpose is unclear. It is suggested that this was to examine the contents of the fire grate, as it was believed that perhaps body parts had been burnt by the killer. However, Dr Hebbert was not one of those and so what if anything was found during that visit must remain a mystery, because all he does is corroborate Bonds ambiguous post mortem report.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[spyglass]

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

Hi,
I have thought this for a long time, Heart aside, I think the murder of MJK was treated differently from the other victims, and that quite a few things were held back from the press .....and all probably lost now.

Regards

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

I suppose you are familiar with the following statement made about a murder scene by Dr Francis A. Harris, citing Dr C.A. Hebbert, an associate of Dr Bond, as his source?

He wrote:

In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered about the room

[Sunny Delight]

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

Yes it is an interesting thought and something very much in keeping with modern day techniques of withholding information that only the killer would know.

[JeffHamm]

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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

[JeffHamm]

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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