MJK1 and MJK3

[Monty]

Thanks for your input, Stewart. I'm sure there are some posters left here who value pertinent information and have the capacity for disseminating it. Unfortunately, as you obviously know, this subject has always drawn its share of the fringe element and snake oil salesmen. As Sugden said, "The whole subject is now a minefield to the unwary "

Spot on.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

What exactly are you trying to say here?

What relevance is there in Bond not mentioning the missing heart in his report to Anderson on November 10, 1888, when the fact is that Bond supplied Anderson with his seven pages of notes concerning his examination of the scene and notes of the post mortem examination in which he stated that the heart was absent? Hebbert's notes on the case indicated the same thing, of course.

Yes but the fact is that Bond and Hebberts notes relate to the post mortem where the heart was found to be missing along with what it seems were other body parts. This is not in dispute. Thats why the Doctors went back to look for these in comany with police officers. Hebberts notes stopped at the end of the post mortem, he did not go back to Millers Court.

Bonds report to Anderson was complied after the re visit now dont you think that, if after all of that the heart was missing, Bond would have mentioned it in his report, or did he forget ?

I say again there is nothing in writing after the initial post mortem which mentions the missing heart as being un accounted for. All the newspapers seem to have confirmed no body parts missing, and in the absence of anyone else coming forward at that time or since to negate those papers we may well have to accept that they may have been right.

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes but the fact is that Bond and Hebberts notes relate to the post mortem where the heart was found to be missing along with what it seems were other body parts. This is not in dispute. Thats why the Doctors went back to look for these in comany with police officers. Hebberts notes stopped at the end of the post mortem, he did not go back to Millers Court.
Bonds report to Anderson was complied after the re visit now dont you think that, if after all of that the heart was missing, Bond would have mentioned it in his report, or did he forget ?
I say again there is nothing in writing after the initial post mortem which mentions the missing heart as being un accounted for. All the newspapers seem to have confirmed no body parts missing, and in the absence of anyone else coming forward at that time or since to negate those papers we may well have to accept that they may have been right.

It is not surprising that things are not absolutely clear as not too much of the official written material on the Kelly murder survived.

However it is clear that Bond's notes were received, and read, at the time, by Anderson and that they clearly stated that the heart was absent. Also we know that as late as 1893 Hebbert was supplying notes on the case which stated that 'all the organs except the heart were found'. I don't note any mention of 'other body parts' being missing.

Newspapers are not noted for their accuracy and, it would seem, the police withheld much relevant information from them anyway. So you put whatever spin you wish on that and take the newspaper reports in preference to official sources if you wish. They also, as we know, all used syndicated press releases.

Your last sentence that 'we may well have to accept that may have been right' is a caveat that not all would agree with. You carry on believing what you wish to believe.

[mklhawley]

I say again there is nothing in writing after the initial post mortem which mentions the missing heart as being un accounted for.

This sounds like the "absence of evidence is evidence for absence" logical fallacy. It's not written down, therefore, it did not happen.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

I didn't intend...

...
I say again there is nothing in writing after the initial post mortem which mentions the missing heart as being un accounted for. All the newspapers seem to have confirmed no body parts missing, and in the absence of anyone else coming forward at that time or since to negate those papers we may well have to accept that they may have been right.

I didn't intend to waste too much time on this but I had a niggling feeling that some of the papers mentioned that the heart was missing.

I was right, an example is the Evening Telegraph of 17 November 1888 which stated - 'One of the doctors who assisted in the post-mortem examination of the body of Mary Jane Kelly, the last Whitechapel victim, has come to the conclusion that the murderer has no anatomical knowledge, since in taking the heart out he cut through the diaphragm instead of opening the sternum. The uterus it seems, too, was not missing, as was once stated, but the heart is'.

The doctor who leaked this information was not named but the information appears to have been good as he stated the method of removing the heart which is confirmed in Bond's notes.

[Garry Wroe]

A quick search of the newspaper archive turned up the following:-

The Daily Telegraph, 13 November, 1888.

‘Mr. George Bagster Phillips, divisional surgeon of police, said: I was called by the police on Friday morning at eleven o'clock, and on proceeding to Miller's-court, which I entered at 11.15, I found a room, the door of which led out of the passage at the side of 26, Dorset-street, photographs of which I produce.’

So, photographs, plural, of the external scene.

The Daily News, 10 November, 1888.

‘Dr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of police, soon arrived, and was followed by Dr. Bond, of Westminster, divisional surgeon of the A Division, and Dr. J.R. Gabe, of Mecklenburgh square, and two or three other surgeons. They made a preliminary examination of the body, and sent for a photographer, who took several photographs of the remains.’

Several photographs of the remains.

The Times, 10 November, 1888.

‘While this examination was being made a photographer, who, in the meantime, had been sent for, arrived and took photographs of the body, the organs, the room, and its contents.’

There are many similar reports from a variety of sources which support the contention that a series of photographs was taken at the Kelly crime scene, both outdoors and within the room itself.

[Bridewell]

The simple fact is that Bond does not mention the missing heart in his report to Anderson that is fact. Those that want to believe the killer took it away will say because he forgot. How could he forget such an important issue. The missing organs from Kelly and Chapman were well publicized what reason was there for keeping this quiet-none.

No official following the initial post mortem mentions the heart being missing, why ? No one in later years mentions the heart missing, why?

You do have a wonderfully selective way of interpreting things. Is it not more likely that nobody makes further mention of the missing heart because it is still missing? I would expect its discovery to be mentioned (which it isn't) but not the fact that it is still missing - because that is still the case.

Because as is stated in all the newspapers all the body parts were later accounted for.

Trevor, isn't it you who keeps exhorting others not to rely on newspaper reports because they're unreliable? Yet here you rely on them to make a point of your own. Make your mind up. Do you consider them to be a reliable source or don't you?

[Garry Wroe]

... we know that as late as 1893 Hebbert was supplying notes on the case which stated that 'all the organs except the heart were found'.

Thanks, Stewart. I was unaware of this little gem. Fascinating.

[Trevor Marriott]

It is not surprising that things are not absolutely clear as not too much of the official written material on the Kelly murder survived.

However it is clear that Bond's notes were received, and read, at the time, by Anderson and that they clearly stated that the heart was absent. Also we know that as late as 1893 Hebbert was supplying notes on the case which stated that 'all the organs except the heart were found'. I don't note any mention of 'other body parts' being missing.

Newspapers are not noted for their accuracy and, it would seem, the police withheld much relevant information from them anyway. So you put whatever spin you wish on that and take the newspaper reports in preference to official sources if you wish. They also, as we know, all used syndicated press releases.

Your last sentence that 'we may well have to accept that may have been right' is a caveat that not all would agree with. You carry on believing what you wish to believe.

Ii can only believe the facts as they are presented.

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.


So that confirms that the heart and possibly other parts were missing does it not, and is in line with what we know from the initial post mortem. That is why they went back. So the press haven't made that up have they ?

Then the later press reports state that all parts are accounted for did they all make that up?

Hebbert in later years must have been referring to his post mortem notes relative to the post mortem only, How could he refer to anyhting else when he wasn't present. His post mortem notes are not in dispute.

As to Bonds notes again they are not in dispute with regards to the heart being found missing at the post mortem. Whether he prepared the notes himself or used Hibberts we may never know.

But it still doesn't detract from the fact that after the initial post mortem report stating the heart was absent there is nothing else to prove that it was never found and Bond does not mention it in his report in fact he mentions nothing about any organ removals from any of the victims which I find strange.

I am sure people will look closely at all aspects of this and come to whatever conclusion they think is right.

[Trevor Marriott]

You do have a wonderfully selective way of interpreting things. Is it not more likely that nobody makes further mention of the missing heart because it is still missing? I would expect its discovery to be mentioned (which it isn't) but not the fact that it is still missing - because that is still the case.

Thats an inference you are entitled to draw but the distinct lack of corroboration and anyone else then or in later years mentioning this lead me to draw my own inferenece

Trevor, isn't it you who keeps exhorting others not to rely on newspaper reports because they're unreliable? Yet here you rely on them to make a point of your own. Make your mind up. Do you consider them to be a reliable source or don't you?

In this case you have several newspapers all corroborating each other all posting different versions of the same story are they all wrong. And again there is nothing anyhere from anyone that contradicts those reports

[Stewart P Evans]

Understand

Ii can only believe the facts as they are presented.
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.

So that confirms that the heart and possibly other parts were missing does it not, and is in line with what we know from the initial post mortem. That is why they went back. So the press haven't made that up have they ?
Then the later press reports state that all parts are accounted for did they all make that up?
...

You really don't understand, do you? You are out of your depth, aren't you?

Here you are totally relying on the accuracy of a press report. And a press report that appeared on the 10th November. Whatever makes you think that this is so accurate? The report I showed has its accuracy verified by the fact that it got the method of removal of the heart correct (as Bond's notes show) and it states that the heart 'is missing.' Not only that it appeared a week after the report you quote. A review of press reports published on 10 November, the day after the murder, contain numerous errors that were later corrected.

There are many discrepancies in the various press reports - reports that you claim confirm 'facts' - and this is because you can cherry pick these reports to support various ideas that you have.

Most people see right through you.

[Stewart P Evans]

Press Reports

In this case you have several newspapers all corroborating each other all posting different versions of the same story are they all wrong. And again there is nothing anyhere from anyone that contradicts those reports

Can't you get it through your head that most press reports were syndicated and therefore do not corroborate each other, they merely print the same story, sometimes re-worded, they have all been given?

[Rob Clack]

'From the City to Fleet Street' J. Hall Richardson, Stanley Paul 1927.

[Phil Carter]

'From the City to Fleet Street' J. Hall Richardson, Stanley Paul 1927.

[ATTACH]16176[/ATTACH]

Could be MJK1 and MJK2

Proves nothing

[Rob Clack]

Could be MJK1 and MJK2

Proves nothing

"I did find in the police records photographs of the last victim"

It says 'Photographs' Learn to read or stick me back on ignore. I don't care which.