John Richardson

[Fiver]

But the information and the facts surrounding these murders are not conclusive and in some case totally unsafe to rely on, and I think that as I have been assessing evidence in criminal cases for over 40 years...

That's impressive, considering you resigned from the force at age 34.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I did in fact spend some hours wading through reports to come up with those four. Some of the publications failed to even report on the information we are after and others duplicated all of parts of the reports that I posted. Of course, Murphy's Law dictates that I will have missed one, the one containing the definitive clues that we seek.

I see the coroner's questions as having two parts:

1. Were there body parts missing? The answer from Phillips is yes, without doubt there were body parts excised. I don't think this is a reference to the intestines as they were still attached.

2. Could those parts have been lost? Phillips saw the body at the crime scene and at the autopsy. They certainly were not lost when the autopsy began. The timeline shows that Phillips spent only about 10 minutes with the body at #29. I wonder if that included replacing the intestines and fastening the clothing. I would have expected that he would have, at a glance, seen that the uterus was missing, but I have not the qualifications of the experience to make that judgement. Logically, if Phillips noticed that the uterus was missing at the crime scene the qualification of "they might have been lost" would not have been an addition to "they (the missing portions) had been excised from the body without a doubt".

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Hmmm, that's an interesting idea. If Dr. Phillips did, as you say, spend something like 10 minutes examining the body, and put the intestines back in, closed it up, etc. then his confidence that the uterus had been excised would suggest he noted it had been cut out, but his cagey answer with regards to whether or not it may have been lost in transport could likewise refer to the fact he didn't search for it (say under other organs in the body, etc) at the scene, and it was only during the autopsy itself that he came to realise it wasn't present at all. Again, that points to the uterus being cut out by JtR, and barring it actually falling out and getting lost in transit, something I think not really worth considering beyond noting that doesn't violate the known principles of the universe and so is possible, that it was taken by JtR.

Obviously, we can't really know what Dr. Phillips thought at the time, but his testimony does indicate he noted the uterus has been extracted at the scene, but that he also has some reason for only verifying it was missing entirely after having performed the autopsy. I'm thinking that points to him not doing a complete inventory of organs at the scene, probably presuming the excised portion would be located upon closer inspection. That would fit with your suggestion that he may only have spent around 10 minutes or so examining the body.

- Jeff

[Fiver]

Thats the whole point the organs were removed by two different persons at two different mortuaries using two different methods, whats so hard for you to comprehend those simple facts?

Herlock's example was two different organs removed at the same mortuary.

"So, from the Eddowes murder. Two parts missing. The kidney ok, the uterus with a piece missing." - Herlock

[JeffHamm]

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

There is no evidence to suggest he was referring to the uterus you are making it up, there is no evidence that he examined the body at the crime scene and found the uterus missing, you are misinterpreting the evidence. He says portions were excised which I take to refer to the intestines.

The evidence are his words. I'm not making it up, I'm looking at what he said and using the actual definition of the words. Excised means cut out, the intestines were still attached (not excised), but the uterus was excised. Dr. Phillips, at that point in his testimony, has not yet been required to present the details and we know he is reluctant to do so. You are making up a definition for the word excised, or you do not know what its definition is, in order to make it correspond to the intestines, but you are not Shakespeare. As a result, it is you that is misinterpreting the evidence because you are not interpreting excised properly.

If it had been established that the uterus was found missing at the crime scene there would have been no need for the coroner to ask the question "Could it have fallen out in transit"

You approach things in a very black or white manner, which in a world of grey is not a great approach. The coroner has every reason to ask that question as they have to establish on record whether or not there is any other explanation for the missing organ.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi all,

With regards to Mary Kelly's heart, I came across an old post by Wolf Vanderlinden, in which he points out

…
Also, in Dr. Allan McLane Hamilton and Lawrence Godkin’s 1894 book, A System of Legal Medicine, Dr. Francis A. Harris wrote a section titled Death in its Medico-Legal Aspects in which was a segment titled Identity of the Dead Body. This segment was written with the aid of Dr. Charles A. Hebbert, Dr. Thomas Bonds assistant, and uses the murder of Mary Kelly as an example. Here it is stated “In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered about the room.”
…

This comes from a book written for professionals in the medical/legal field, published a mere 6 years after the crimes (and anyone who knows about writing and publishing a book, therefore written a year or two prior), it is specifically stated that the heart was not found in the room. That tallies with the list of organs and their placement in the room that we already know about. And since the autopsy clearly tells us the heart was not found in the body either. Combined the evidence tells us the heart was not found here, there, or anywhere. And if the heart was not found, then that leaves only the conclusion that JtR took her heart. And if he took an organ from Kelly, that further points to a serial killer who takes organs as trophies, consistent with JtR taking the two uterii and the kidney, previously missing.

- Jeff

[Dickere]

That's impressive, considering you resigned from the force at age 34.

You don't count male stripping as assessing the evidence then

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi all,

With regards to Mary Kelly's heart, I came across an old post by Wolf Vanderlinden, in which he points out

…
Also, in Dr. Allan McLane Hamilton and Lawrence Godkin’s 1894 book, A System of Legal Medicine, Dr. Francis A. Harris wrote a section titled Death in its Medico-Legal Aspects in which was a segment titled Identity of the Dead Body. This segment was written with the aid of Dr. Charles A. Hebbert, Dr. Thomas Bonds assistant, and uses the murder of Mary Kelly as an example. Here it is stated “In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered about the room.”
…

This comes from a book written for professionals in the medical/legal field, published a mere 6 years after the crimes (and anyone who knows about writing and publishing a book, therefore written a year or two prior), it is specifically stated that the heart was not found in the room. That tallies with the list of organs and their placement in the room that we already know about. And since the autopsy clearly tells us the heart was not found in the body either. Combined the evidence tells us the heart was not found here, there, or anywhere. And if the heart was not found, then that leaves only the conclusion that JtR took her heart. And if he took an organ from Kelly, that further points to a serial killer who takes organs as trophies, consistent with JtR taking the two uterii and the kidney, previously missing.

- Jeff

This is drifting off topic, but to add to the above, I believe it has been established that the doctor was asked to examine the ashes from the fire, and why would a doctor have to do that, if not to look for evidence of burned body parts?

[JeffHamm]

This is drifting off topic, but to add to the above, I believe it has been established that the doctor was asked to examine the ashes from the fire, and why would a doctor have to do that, if not to look for evidence of burned body parts?

Hi Doctored Whatsit,

Indeed, that is a fair inference. Clearly they were looking for something, and I believe it has been established that the search of the fireplace was made after the autopsy, which would make sense if they noted something was missing. Like most things, there are other possibilities left open since we are not told what they were looking for, but your suggestion is a fair inference.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi all,

With regards to Mary Kelly's heart, I came across an old post by Wolf Vanderlinden, in which he points out

…
Also, in Dr. Allan McLane Hamilton and Lawrence Godkin’s 1894 book, A System of Legal Medicine, Dr. Francis A. Harris wrote a section titled Death in its Medico-Legal Aspects in which was a segment titled Identity of the Dead Body. This segment was written with the aid of Dr. Charles A. Hebbert, Dr. Thomas Bonds assistant, and uses the murder of Mary Kelly as an example. Here it is stated “In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered about the room.”
…

This comes from a book written for professionals in the medical/legal field, published a mere 6 years after the crimes (and anyone who knows about writing and publishing a book, therefore written a year or two prior), it is specifically stated that the heart was not found in the room. That tallies with the list of organs and their placement in the room that we already know about. And since the autopsy clearly tells us the heart was not found in the body either. Combined the evidence tells us the heart was not found here, there, or anywhere. And if the heart was not found, then that leaves only the conclusion that JtR took her heart. And if he took an organ from Kelly, that further points to a serial killer who takes organs as trophies, consistent with JtR taking the two uterii and the kidney, previously missing.

- Jeff

Just to make you aware and dampen your excitement Dr Hebbert was Dr Bond's assistant he attended the initial post-mortem and prepared notes. It is also believed that he prepared Dr Bonds report to Andersons in which there is no mention of the missing heart. Following the initial post mortem as is documented he took no further involvement. But we do know that the police went back to Milllers Court following the post mortem and Dr Hebbert was not present what they were looking for or what they found is not specifically known.

So the article you refer to is hearsay from Hebbert in relation to the missing heart

I also refer to part of an article in the Morning Adverstiser dated Nov 10th "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 did the pail contain body parts, and why did they go to the home of Dr Phillips and not with the body to the mortuary? Was it later that Dr Phillips found the missing heart, or was it found during a later search of the room?

There is also mention in several newspaper articles of the day that no organs were found to be missing, also we have no other officials connected to this murder who can categorically state that the heart was taken away from direct involvement.

The key to answering his has to be Insp Reid he was head of Whitechapel; CID he attended the crime scene and post-mortem he would have been in charge of the whole investigation and would have been responsible for reporting direct to senior officers, Swanson by this time had returned to Scotland Yard. So I fail to see why you and others are questioning his statement to the press in which he says no organs were taken. I find it hypocritical when researchers are willing to accept without question the Marginalia, The Magnaghten Memo and all the other ramblings from officials who were not directly involved.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

There is no evidence to suggest he was referring to the uterus you are making it up, there is no evidence that he examined the body at the crime scene and found the uterus missing, you are misinterpreting the evidence. He says portions were excised which I take to refer to the intestines.

The evidence are his words. I'm not making it up, I'm looking at what he said and using the actual definition of the words. Excised means cut out, the intestines were still attached (not excised), but the uterus was excised. Dr. Phillips, at that point in his testimony, has not yet been required to present the details and we know he is reluctant to do so. You are making up a definition for the word excised, or you do not know what its definition is, in order to make it correspond to the intestines, but you are not Shakespeare. As a result, it is you that is misinterpreting the evidence because you are not interpreting excised properly.

Play on words which you want to interpret in your way, to me excised in this context means the intestines had been excised from the body which the evidence clearly shows

If it had been established that the uterus was found missing at the crime scene there would have been no need for the coroner to ask the question "Could it have fallen out in transit"

You approach things in a very black or white manner, which in a world of grey is not a great approach. The coroner has every reason to ask that question as they have to establish on record whether or not there is any other explanation for the missing organ. Jeff

Why would the coroner ask that question if the doctor has said in his testimony that he found the uterus missing at the crime scene its not rocket science.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

-

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thats the whole point the organs were removed by two different persons at two different mortuaries using two different methods, whats so hard for you to comprehend those simple facts?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But the kidney and the uterus with a piece missing were taken from the same body at the same mortuary!

So I’ll repeat it……according to you’re thinking…..because of the two different standards of workmanship…..there must have been two body part thieves at the same mortuary stealing parts from the same body.

And then of course there’s this


“[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised” as George has pointed out along with other quotes.

Now you can use semantics as much as you want to but he’s clearly talking about organs. He wasn’t talking about intestines because the coroner is clearly asking about the organs that were missing. This disproves your theory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock's example was two different organs removed at the same mortuary.

"So, from the Eddowes murder. Two parts missing. The kidney ok, the uterus with a piece missing." - Herlock

Nice to see someone else can read Fiver. I kept re-reading my post to see if I’d done some kind of typo or missed something obvious that would explain why Trevor didn’t get the point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just to make you aware and dampen your excitement Dr Hebbert was Dr Bond's assistant he attended the initial post-mortem and prepared notes. It is also believed that he prepared Dr Bonds report to Andersons in which there is no mention of the missing heart. Following the initial post mortem as is documented he took no further involvement. But we do know that the police went back to Milllers Court following the post mortem and Dr Hebbert was not present what they were looking for or what they found is not specifically known.

So the article you refer to is hearsay from Hebbert in relation to the missing heart

I also refer to part of an article in the Morning Adverstiser dated Nov 10th "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 did the pail contain body parts, and why did they go to the home of Dr Phillips and not with the body to the mortuary? Was it later that Dr Phillips found the missing heart, or was it found during a later search of the room?

There is also mention in several newspaper articles of the day that no organs were found to be missing, also we have no other officials connected to this murder who can categorically state that the heart was taken away from direct involvement.

The key to answering his has to be Insp Reid he was head of Whitechapel; CID he attended the crime scene and post-mortem he would have been in charge of the whole investigation and would have been responsible for reporting direct to senior officers, Swanson by this time had returned to Scotland Yard. So I fail to see why you and others are questioning his statement to the press in which he says no organs were taken. I find it hypocritical when researchers are willing to accept without question the Marginalia, The Magnaghten Memo and all the other ramblings from officials who were not directly involved.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Unbelievable. I knew that you’d mention Reid. When there’s a medical issue who do we go to….a Doctor or a police officer. True to firm Trevor opts for the police officer because it suits his argument. Kelly’s heart was missing but according to you the doctor went around the room cataloguing organs and body parts but he just forgot to mention the hear and he didn’t mention the heart because it wasn’t in the room.

[Trevor Marriott]

Unbelievable. I knew that you’d mention Reid. When there’s a medical issue who do we go to….a Doctor or a police officer. True to firm Trevor opts for the police officer because it suits his argument. Kelly’s heart was missing but according to you the doctor went around the room cataloguing organs and body parts but he just forgot to mention the hear and he didn’t mention the heart because it wasn’t in the room.

Reid would have been privy to the medical reports

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

But the kidney and the uterus with a piece missing were taken from the same body at the same mortuary!

So I’ll repeat it……according to you’re thinking…..because of the two different standards of workmanship…..there must have been two body part thieves at the same mortuary stealing parts from the same body.

And then of course there’s this


“[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised” as George has pointed out along with other quotes.

Now you can use semantics as much as you want to but he’s clearly talking about organs. He wasn’t talking about intestines because the coroner is clearly asking about the organs that were missing. This disproves your theory.

See post #395

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk