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

[Sam Flynn]

The notes that began ... "The body was lying naked in the middle of the bed,

Bond was nothing if not thorough

[Jon Guy]

I stand to be corrected but the notes relative to this were taken down at the post mortem not at the crime scene.

The notes that began ... "The body was lying naked in the middle of the bed,

[Bridewell]

She had slept since the sighting - she went to bed straight afterwards, having been working all night.

So she woke to find that a woman she had seen just before she went to bed had been killed shortly thereafter. Why would she be mistaken about that - and if she was why was her recollection as to the day apparently corroborated by the shopkeeper?

[Bridewell]

You say "people believed". The police certainly preferred to believe medical opinion, but that recent fiasco with Phillips giving a ToD for Chapman which clearly conflicted with witness statements had to make Scotland Yard more cautious over the Kelly ToD.
They were not giving any opinions on this time of death , and I'm sure Phillips didn't either - once bitten - twice shy, so to speak.

This is a great point, Jon. In the cases of both Chapman and Kelly we have medical opinion giving an early TOD and eye witnesses suggesting a TOD several hours later. Mrs Long/Darrell's account is (bar 15 minutes or so) consistent with Cadosch; both Maurice Lewis and Mrs Maxwell claim to have seen MJK in daylight hours. Why is their evidence so easily discarded? I find it hard to accept the 19th century medical opinion as to TOD (based as it was on an onset time for rigor mortis now seen as questionable) if it means arguing that 4 witnesses are all mistaken. Bond thought that the injuries to MJK would have taken at least 2 hours but a butcher who took that long to do something similar to the carcass of a pig wouldn't stay in business for very long. (That's perhaps a distasteful analogy but I think it has to be made). Bond was a doctor; JtR almost certainly was not.

[Trevor Marriott]

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 stand to be corrected but the notes relative to this were taken down at the post mortem not at the crime scene.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Last time Mary's missing heart was debated,there was a very good theory that Phillips took it away in a pail.

If the killer absconded with it,there would have been a reason.
Might be helpful in further tracking her history.

The Morning Advertiser dated Nov 10,

“At four o’clock yesterday 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 police-constables, under Sergeant Betham. A large mob followed the van to the mortuary, where a crowd was waiting to see the coffin transferred to the building. The photographer who had been called in to photograph the room, and the body 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 it was stated that it contained portions of the woman’s body. It was taken to the house of Dr. Phillips, 2 Spital-square.”

So is it not beyond the realms of possibility that when the post mortem was conducted it had already been established that all the organs were accounted for, and we get back to the interpretation of Absent from the pericardium which is what is says and nothing more can be read into this statement.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

If the killer absconded with it,there would have been a reason.
Might be helpful in further tracking her history.

Can't see how her killer's having taken away her heart would get us past the seemingly intractable puzzle of her true identity.

[rjpalmer]

I see Carrie Maxwell as just grabbing her 15 minutes.

“If Mrs. Maxwell had been a sensation-seeker--one of those women who live for the limelight--it would have been easy to discredit her story. She was not.”

--H Division Police Sergeant Walter Dew.


Meanwhile, how on earth could the 'fact'(?) that the heart wasn't missing have suggested the presence of an accomplice?

Please recall that THAT was the original question, or rather, enigma: what medical evidence could Dr. Phillips have revealed to Stuart-Wortley that led to the offering of a pardon to an accomplice?

It certainly makes no sense to me that a 'non-missing' heart could have been the 'circumstance' that suggested an accomplice. How exactly would that work?

[Jon Guy]

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.

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

[DJA]

Last time Mary's missing heart was debated,there was a very good theory that Phillips took it away in a pail.

If the killer absconded with it,there would have been a reason.
Might be helpful in further tracking her history.

[Joshua Rogan]

Well quite. Most people are going to remember if they've slept since they last saw someone.

She had slept since the sighting - she went to bed straight afterwards, having been working all night.

[Bridewell]

How did Mrs Maxwell get the day wrong?

She was first interviewed by the police on the afternoon of 9th November, the day of the murder.

Well quite. Most people are going to remember if they've slept since they last saw someone.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why would Bond write that the killer took it away, when it could have been destroyed in the fire ?

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

A much overlooked post.

a simple case of mistaken identity

[Abby Normal]

Cheers Dave

I can only think of 5 options for the whereabouts of the absent heart.

1. It was burnt
2. It was concealed somewhere in the room
3. The medics missed it
4. It was eaten
5. Taken away by the killer

exactly. if the heart was found in the room it would have been noted.