Heartless?

[Lewis C]

Hi LC, I did consider that in the OP: Would it also suggest that he knew of her private lodgings as it seems taking a heart might need time undisturbed (indoors)? Or could it be that his next target was a heart and it just happened to be Kelly he found that night?

IMO Aman was most likely the killer and the meeting of Kelly and Aman described by Hutch doesn't sound like strangers to me.

You sure did. I didn't read that as carefully as I should have.

[Aethelwulf]

Hi Wulf,

How about the possibility that JtR intended to remove a heart, but had not yet decided who the victim would be?

Hi LC, I did consider that in the OP: Would it also suggest that he knew of her private lodgings as it seems taking a heart might need time undisturbed (indoors)? Or could it be that his next target was a heart and it just happened to be Kelly he found that night?

IMO Aman was most likely the killer and the meeting of Kelly and Aman described by Hutch doesn't sound like strangers to me.

[Lewis C]

On MJK's missing heart, was it planned?

Echo, 29th October 1888

The words "I shall do another murder, and will receive her heart," have been found written in chalk on the on the footway in Camplin-street, Deptford.

Although it seems an odd place to find a potential ripper message, Camplin Street is only a short ferry ride over the river and ~1 mile walk from Poplar High Street. If it is genuine, it may suggest the ripper was aquainted in some way with kelly (this is under two weeks from when Kelly was killed). Would it also suggest that he knew of her private lodgings as it seems taking a heart might need time undisturbed (indoors)? Or could it be that his next target was a heart and it just happened to be Kelly he found that night? I've always thought with this message the word recieve sounds rather creepy and in line with someone taking organs for some sort of fetish/pleasure.

When did Barnett move out compared to the 29th date?

Hi Wulf,

How about the possibility that JtR intended to remove a heart, but had not yet decided who the victim would be?

[Aethelwulf]

The words "I shall do another murder, and will receive her heart," have been found written in chalk on the on the footway in Camplin-street, Deptford.

Hello Wulf,

You are assuming that he means heart in a literal sense as opposed to figuratively. Probably so but "receive her heart" is a strange turn of phrase seeming to indicate some sort of romantic notion. Of course, someone giving their heart through being murdered is very bizarre but it could have made sense to the author. Just sayin'.

c.d.

Hi cd, that seems a very unlikely interpretation IMO. I think it is probably as simple as it sounds "I shall do another murder, and will receive her heart,". If the killer was taking the organs to eat for example (e.g the kidney) or some other necrophiliac ritual, 'recieve' would fit. I can't see this being a figurative message in all honesty.

[c.d.]

The words "I shall do another murder, and will receive her heart," have been found written in chalk on the on the footway in Camplin-street, Deptford.

Hello Wulf,

You are assuming that he means heart in a literal sense as opposed to figuratively. Probably so but "receive her heart" is a strange turn of phrase seeming to indicate some sort of romantic notion. Of course, someone giving their heart through being murdered is very bizarre but it could have made sense to the author. Just sayin'.

c.d.

[Aethelwulf]

Sorry if I have missed the relevant thread.

I have always thought that MJK's heart was removed from, or destroyed on, the scene of her murder. However, I'm reading a new book (which I'll talk about soon on the appropriate thread) that quotes The Daily News and The Times of November 10 and 12 as saying that all her body parts were accounted for during the postmortem exam. (I realise that The Times of the period isn't always the most reliable of sources for our topic.)

I know about Bond's report that states "the pericardium was open below and the heart absent", but the book's author maintains that Bond's statement doesn't mean that the heart was not somewhere in the room.

I know I've read theories that MJK's heart was taken away or even, perhaps, boiled in the spoutless kettle. So, my question is: are we certain that MJK's heart was actually missing?

On MJK's missing heart, was it planned?

Echo, 29th October 1888

The words "I shall do another murder, and will receive her heart," have been found written in chalk on the on the footway in Camplin-street, Deptford.

Although it seems an odd place to find a potential ripper message, Camplin Street is only a short ferry ride over the river and ~1 mile walk from Poplar High Street. If it is genuine, it may suggest the ripper was aquainted in some way with kelly (this is under two weeks from when Kelly was killed). Would it also suggest that he knew of her private lodgings as it seems taking a heart might need time undisturbed (indoors)? Or could it be that his next target was a heart and it just happened to be Kelly he found that night? I've always thought with this message the word recieve sounds rather creepy and in line with someone taking organs for some sort of fetish/pleasure.

When did Barnett move out compared to the 29th date?

[PaulB]

On another note this is being blown up out of all proportion. The purpose of the exercise was to show that there were other references which shows that the heart was not taken away.

The article you cite does not show that there were other references which show that the heart was not taken away. The newspaper gives the same detail as other newspapers reported on 10th November, which, as I keep pointing out, was before the speculation began that the heart was missing.

The purpose of the exercise as far as you are concerned may have been to add another source to the one you have that the heart was not taken away, but newspaper reports are not uncritically accepted as true. Your report was looked at and tested and it was found not to be what you claimed, either in its details or as evidence that the heart was present.

[PaulB]

I couldn't give a toss as to whether I am treated seriously on here.

Tell me, if you don't give a toss whether you are treated seriously on here or not, why do you keep posting to the forums? Nobody takes you seriously here or on the other site, so are you some kind of perv who enjoys being ridiculed?

I dont expect to be especially by you. Your posts make it quite clear that you are not my number one fan.

Being your fan or not has no bearing on anything. I try to evaluate theories, test them, see if there is any mileage in them. I do this as objectively as possible. It would be great if you actually came up with something new and original, but you never do. It's not just me who says this, pretty much everyone says it, on both forums.

That doesn't bother me because it is quite clear that you and others are so desperate to prop up the old theories and by belittling me you think that will make others sit up and take notice of your constant ramblings and desperate attempts to suppress new facts which clearly if true change the face of Ripperology and in doing so then make all your published books not worth the paper they a written on.

I see you are out of your depth again, unable to present a sensible answer to anything and resorting to the exhausted 'prop up the old theories' argument. I can't help but wonder why you think any of your nonsense would change the face of Ripperology or make the books worthless? But you don't really think that at all, do you? You like to represent yourself as an iconoclast challenging the cherished thinking. Let's look at the blurb for your book about mysteries; you claim that 'wild speculative theories' have been repeated by books and television programmes, that you 'set out to re examine all that has gone before' and the result of your investigations was to 'cast a major doubt' over these theories and 'caused new questions to be asked', those questions being answered in your book. Does that sound familiar? It's rubbish though, isn't it? All you did was trawl the internet, copy your material from various sites, change the wording (when you remembered). There was no re-examination, there's no discernible evidence that you'd read a single book on the subjects you cover, let alone done any original research. You didn't cast any doubts, cause any questions to be asked, or answer them.

The Ripper is the same thing for you. You present yourself as the iconoclast, you make extravagant claims, you profess original thinking, and you dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as them propping up the old theories.

You have found your niche now reviewing books

Yeah, but it involves reading books, so unfortunately it's not something you could do. By the way, not that it matters even a tiny bit, but my first book review was published in 1967. I have been a reviewer ever since then, and not just books, and not just Ripper.

take my advice stick to that and leave the investigative work to those who know what they are doing.

I appreciate the advice, but I will pass on taking it. I think I am pretty good at investigative work. I hope you find someone who knows what they are doing who can help you be the same.

On a final note how did Halloween go? I hope all those skeletons in your cupboard didn't manage to escape.

You know, if you searched the internet a little harder, you might find a joke that's actually amusing.

And now, with all this nonsense out of the way, how about trying to support the case you are trying to make. You cited Supt. Arnold as saying something he never said. You claimed that information was given by him in an interview, but it wasn't, it is derived from other press reports. You assert that the statement that the heart was on the bedside table is further evidence that the heart wasn't missing, but the same thing was said by other newspapers on the 10th, notably The Times, this being before the speculation about the heart being missing began in the press. On the face of it, you appear to be talking through your bottom, so maybe instead of being rude and silly, you might find it more profitable to either admit you were wrong or show why everyone else is.

[PaulB]

Thats you opinion for what its worth

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No it isn't. But I don't expect you to understand. History and research not being your forte.

[Elamarna]

Now you are being silly now. If I came into your house and I scattered 12 items around your living and then invited you in for a time to look at them, and then two days later asked you to remember them all, and where they were located would you be able to name all of them and remeber where each was. I would suggest you wouldn't. You might if you knew I was going to ask in 2 days time

Not at all, the only silly reply here is yours.

If you really think that is sensible answer to the issues raised in post #67 or the issue of the suggested memory lapse by Arnold, you are sadly mistaken.

You claim that Reid remembered it all 8 tears later; yet Arnold cannot after 2 days because some how he was not prepared.


We are not talking about my home but probably the worst sight arnold saw in his life. please be realistic


All of which misses the actual point:

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the article to say that Arnold says anything about what was in the room.
He says nothing about the body parts including the heart, that is what you will/do not understanding.

Well the article reveals many aspects of the crime scene that were not readily known, so the source if not Arnold must have been close to the crime scene. I am sure the press man didnt just invent it.

Which aspects?

Be specific ?

Vague generalizations such as that, do not answer the question:

"What information suggests to you that Arnold was specifically the source of any information at all in this article?"

Which it seems you do not wish to do.

On another note this is being blown up out of all proportion. The purpose of the exercise was to show that there were other references which shows that the heart was not taken away.

That is just what you have not done!

It is completely baffling that you cannot see that.

The article has nothing to do with Arnold other than erroneously claiming he went in by a window and correctly that he ordered the door forced. [B]Absolutely nothing else.

Al these references have now all mounted up, as I said before they cant all be wrong can they?

Lets just be logical about this, number as no effect on the truth.

So it does not matter how many we have saying one thing, it does not mean they must be right, and certainly not when one of them is demonstrably wrong.

This article is.


Of course no response to the issues raised by Kattrup and Joshua

And yet one more item you are ignoring

In post #74, you posted a question which you answered yourself, prematurely it seems.


"Is there any direct evidence from anyone who was directly involved to corroborate the inference being drawn by researchers from Bonds statement to show that the heart wad taken away by the killer. The answer is no, end of story"


You got a reply in post#86 and of course no response at all.



Steve

[Debra A]

Does there have to be a specific statement? It is obvious that the article as stated was from an interview, as was the article in The NOW Reid interview. Where are you going to get a statement from ? There was no need for him to make an official statement at the time.

The full content of that article cannot be rejected just because there are mistakes, especially as those mistakes which have been highlighted are being used to suggest that some of what might be true is unsafe also. It doesn't work that way in the real world, each part has to be analysed and judged on its merits.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I note that in the article Supt Arnold states that the heart was found in the room

To state is to make a statement. It doesn't only have a legal definition.You said in your posts that Arnold 'states.'

Not that this will make any difference as everyone else participating here has already told you this but in for a penny..; the article was made up from different sources and none of the comments directly attributable to Arnold. You could just check back through the newspapers yourself to see what McCarthy and others said to the newspapers those early account the 9th November and come back with proof if you still don't agree that those early accounts are the source.

To take only what you want from a source without taking into account the errors made or not doing your own research to find out exactly how the source stacks up against other similar material is cherry picking, Trevor. Plain and simple. Every single person with an interest in the case could make the sources agree with any half-baked theory they could dream up if that were an acceptable way to go about things.

[Trevor Marriott]

Keep going

Simply he is never quoted as saying anything at all.

At no point in the article does it claim he has said something(in case they missed the quotation marks).


Everyone else who makes a statement or interview is given either verbal recognition in the text of the article and or quotation marks

Now that I have answered you, why not give me your reasons for?

While you are about it, why not answer Kattrup, and Joshua?

And the points in post#67?

And lest we forget, please explain how Arnold may have had a memory lapse 2 days after the event, and how this squares to you view on Reid's memory not failing because he was there, like Arnold?
Steve

Now you are being silly now. If I came into your house and I scattered 12 items around your living and then invited you in for a time to look at them, and then two days later asked you to remember them all, and where they were located would you be able to name all of them and remeber where each was. I would suggest you wouldn't. You might if you knew I was going to ask in 2 days time

Well the article reveals many aspects of the crime scene that were not readily known, so the source if not Arnold must have been close to the crime scene. I am sure the press man didnt just invent it.

On another note this is being blown up out of all proportion. The purpose of the exercise was to show that there were other references which shows that the heart was not taken away.

Al these references have now all mounted up, as I said before they cant all be wrong can they?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

What do you have to suggest he wasn't ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Simply he is never quoted as saying anything at all.

At no point in the article does it claim he has said something(in case they missed the quotation marks).


Everyone else who makes a statement or interview is given either verbal recognition in the text of the article and or quotation marks

Now that I have answered you, why not give me your reasons for?

While you are about it, why not answer Kattrup, and Joshua?

And the points in post#67?

And lest we forget, please explain how Arnold may have had a memory lapse 2 days after the event, and how this squares to you view on Reid's memory not failing because he was there, like Arnold?



Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

What information suggests to you that Arnold was specifically the source of any information at all in this article?


steve

.

What do you have to suggest he wasn't ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Well where did the newspaper reporter get the information from which is in sufficient detail to suggest that Arnold was the source.

Trevor,

What information suggests to you that Arnold was specifically the source of any information at all in this article?


steve

.