Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See?

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

  • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
    As we`re swimming against the premise of the thread, I`ll be brief on one last point.

    Dr Bond wrote the notes that included absent heart on the Fri, whilst the body was in situ.
    The ashes in the fire place were not sifted until the next day.
    So, at the time of writing, Bond could not account for the absent heart
    I was under the impression that Bond (or Hebbert?) took the notes on Friday at the crime scene (for the annexed report), but the main report was dated 10th. So he only sent his report to Anderson after the official autopsy on Saturday morning.
    At the beginning of his main report he mentions attending, "a Post-mortem Examination of the mutilated remains of a woman found yesterday...."

    As the medical men c/w detectives returned to Millers Court Sat. afternoon to sieve the ashes, it seems obvious to me something was still missing after the autopsy was concluded.
    So, something was still missing on the day Bond completed his report for Anderson.
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • G'day!
      How are things in North Kilttown?

      Think the Maxwells lived at 14,next door to Mr Maxwell's employment which was Commercial Street Chambers,15-20.Same place Hutchinson stood outside earlier that morning.Owner came from Romford.

      Think she was returning dishes or sumfin'.

      Hope she wasn't after food,cause it's a long way to the shop if you want a sausage roll.

      Dave,not Debs.

      Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
      Maybe someone can clear the confusion. In the Pall Mall Gazette and Evening News Nov 10 editions, Mrs Maxwell claims to live at 26 Dorset Street:

      "I assist my husband in his duties but we live next door, at No. 26 Dorset street."

      So when she says:

      "yesterday morning as I was going home, carrying my lantern and other things with me, I saw the woman Kelly standing at the entrance of the court."

      In this case, wouldn't home indicate 26 Dorset Street, meaning Mrs Maxwell passed Mary Jane as she entered the court to reach her residence? Also meaning, she was detained with the other residents after the discovery of the body.

      In the Times November 10th edition, Mrs Maxwell claims that she went for milk, which was verified with the milkshop. I don't know how many milkshops may have been in the immediate area; but, had Mary Jane had gone for milk (as suggested by Morris Lewis), wouldn't it have been more likely that Mary Jane would have gone to the same one as Mrs Maxwell and possibly seen/recognized/reported by someone working at the milkshop. My wonder is, did Morris Lewis mistake Caroline Maxwell for Mary Jane if Mrs Maxwell did in fact live at 26 Dorset St.?

      * emphasis mine
      ** on a side riddle, how did McCarthy see that both her ears were cut off when he peered through her window?
      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

      Comment


      • Think you are the guy who reckons mortuary visitors nicked bits and pieces from various Ripper victims.

        Do you suspect someone might have taken Mary Kelly's heart from the Shoreditch mortuary before the autopsy?

        It is a possibility.

        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
        But there is no evidence that it was destroyed in the fire, and if it were surely there would as likely as not been some residue left in the grate. Clearly that was examined and nothing came from it so we must conclude that no organs were burnt, because evidence tells us that all the body parts were accounted for.

        I would be quite happy to go along with the killer burning it because it adds even more weight to the theory that no organs were removed at the crime scenes from the previous victims if all were killed by the same hand, as is suggested with the old accepted theory.

        Besides not only do we have evidence from reliable witnesses to say that no organs were taken away we also have a number of newspaper reports that also confirm that.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
          I was under the impression that Bond (or Hebbert?) took the notes on Friday at the crime scene (for the annexed report), but the main report was dated 10th. So he only sent his report to Anderson after the official autopsy on Saturday morning.
          At the beginning of his main report he mentions attending, "a Post-mortem Examination of the mutilated remains of a woman found yesterday...."

          As the medical men c/w detectives returned to Millers Court Sat. afternoon to sieve the ashes, it seems obvious to me something was still missing after the autopsy was concluded.
          So, something was still missing on the day Bond completed his report for Anderson.
          Bonds report was completed by Hebbert who was working from notes he took down at the crime scene and at the post mortem. He was not involved in anything that took place thereafter.

          As you continue to speculate consider this

          How do we not know that the heart was not part of what is believed to have been organs in the pail sent to Phillips.

          How do we not know that the contents of the pail were not disclosed to all those present at the post mortem, and that would be why no big deal was made of the heart because it was accounted for, and that what Bond states is correct that the heart was absent from the pericardium. If you read his report it is logical in the context of the examination he was discussing all the different parts of the body and what had happened to them as he went along.

          The reality is that the evidence, and facts, to show that heart was not taken away by the killer far outweighs the ambiguous statements to suggest it was, and as such opens up a whole new ball game, and casts a major doubt about the old accepted theory of five and five only, and one killer, who removed the organs from his victims after murdering them

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DJA View Post
            Think you are the guy who reckons mortuary visitors nicked bits and pieces from various Ripper victims.

            Do you suspect someone might have taken Mary Kelly's heart from the Shoreditch mortuary before the autopsy?

            It is a possibility.
            I dont think this at all in this case because there is so much evidence which tells us that all the body parts were accounted for.

            Times Nov 12
            “As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing.

            At the first examination, which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case. The examination was most minutely made, and lasted upwards of 2 ½ hours after which the mutilated portions were sewn to the body, 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

            Comment


            • If, as was claimed, the body was complete at the autopsy Sat. morning, did they return to Millers Court in the afternoon to sift the ashes?
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                How do we not know that the heart was not part of what is believed to have been organs in the pail sent to Phillips.
                It doesn't matter if it was, the contents of the pail are brought to the autopsy. Bond was at the autopsy Sat. morning. So he would have seen the heart produced by Phillips.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Winner,winner! Chicken dinner!
                  My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                    It doesn't matter if it was, the contents of the pail are brought to the autopsy. Bond was at the autopsy Sat. morning. So he would have seen the heart produced by Phillips.
                    They most probably were, and the heart was probably in the pail along with other organs and produced at the post mortem. But that doesn't change the terminology used by Bond when listing damage to the body organs during the post mortem, including the pericardium which he states the heart was absent from.

                    How can an inference be drawn from that ambiguous part of his report suggesting that the heart was missing from the room taken away by the killer, when that is not mentioned, or suggested at all by Bond or any other doctor at the time or in the years that followed? No police officials of any rank, or any other officials suggest the killer took away the heart. In fact we have evidence to suggest that was not the case.

                    You can argue, hypothesize, or speculate till the cows come home but it is not going to change the facts, the heart was not taken away by the killer.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                      If, as was claimed, the body was complete at the autopsy Sat. morning, did they return to Millers Court in the afternoon to sift the ashes?
                      Well we know they did because it is documented, but we do not know why, and it would be wrong to speculate.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                        You can argue, hypothesize, or speculate till the cows come home but it is not going to change the facts, the heart was not taken away by the killer.
                        One can no more say that the heart "was not taken away by the killer" than that it was. Neither are facts, and the evidence is scant and ambiguous.
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                          One can no more say that the heart "was not taken away by the killer" than that it was. Neither are facts, and the evidence is scant and ambiguous.
                          Sam

                          The evidence of Bond is scant, and ambiguous, the other evidence against is far from ambiguous and certainly not scant.

                          For years it has been generally accepted that the heart was taken away by the killer, based solely on the statement of Bond, and the "now" tenuous link to the removal of the organs from Chapman and Eddowes as part of the same series of murders.

                          Now we have much more at our disposal, to question not only that general acceptance, but also to bring into question the removal of the organs from Eddowes and Chapman by supposedly the same killer.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 07-11-2018, 03:20 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                            Well we know they did because it is documented, but we do not know why, and it would be wrong to speculate.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Would they be looking for something that was deemed to be missing?

                            Were the doctors required because whatever was missing was 'medical' and under their purview, not that of the police?

                            Who best able to identify burned tissue, a policeman or a doctor?

                            This is not rocket science Trevor.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              You can argue, hypothesize, or speculate till the cows come home but it is not going to change the facts, the heart was not taken away by the killer.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              But that in bold IS speculation.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                They most probably were, and the heart was probably in the pail along with other organs and produced at the post mortem. But that doesn't change the terminology used by Bond when listing damage to the body organs during the post mortem, including the pericardium which he states the heart was absent from.
                                If you sent an inaccurate report to your superior on the flimsy excuse of "well, it was already written so I couldn't change it" - you'd be kicked out on yer ass!

                                The sad part is, you know this.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X