Morris Lewis Revisited

[David Orsam]

you refer us to Macnaghten. He is using the word "probably" and the phrase "very usual".

What are his data for that statement? Do you actually know the data?

Or do you simply believe everything you read from 1888?

Well, Pierre, the book from which I quoted, "Days of My Years", was published in 1914 so what does 1888 have to do with anything?

I appreciate that you are having difficulty understanding the discussion in this thread but the purpose of me reproducing Macnaghten's statement was not to try and prove that Kelly's killer murdered her in the nude, or probably did so, but to demonstrate to Abby that such a notion is not "silly". So I don't need any data.

Macnaghten was the Assistant Commissioner of the C.I.D. for 10 years (and Chief Constable of that Department for over 10 years before that) so even if he had said that such murders might have been carried out in the nude that would have been good enough for my purposes. In fact, he says they usually were, thus showing that my suggestion of how Kelly might have been killed was not silly at all.

[David Orsam]

It has now been proven that the heart was not missing. I think you must have missed the lengthy debate on this topic.

You think wrong Trevor. I read the lengthy debate in JTR Forums in January in which, in the face of sustained opposition from other members, you repeatedly asserted that the heart was not missing and claimed that "many others" agreed with you, to which Howard Brown said:

"No offense, because I do my utmost to be objective, Trev, which I think you know....but lets face it...there are no 'many others' who follow your line of thinking on this issue."

Paul Begg also said:

"I'm sorry, Trevor, but what "many others" share your opinion about this? Nobody seems to be sharing your opinion here? And there are a lot of knowledgeable people arguing against you here, not theorists with some agenda to defend."

By that time you had got so upset that you said "I am not going to post anymore, or reply further on this topic and for the time being I do not intend to post further on any Ripper forums." But that didn't last long.

So, yes, it has been unconvincingly asserted by you that the heart was not missing but certainly not proven.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

“The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent.”

Whether Dr. Bond meant the heart was absent from the body or absent from the room is unclear from his report.

The matter was addressed in 1895.

In “A System of Legal Medicine,” Dr. Francis A. Harris, acknowledging the assistance of Dr. Charles Hebbert [Dr. Bond’s assistant], discussed aspects of the Millers Court murder. He wrote—

“In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered around the room . . .”

Regards,

Simon

[jerryd]

The heart WAS missing

It has now been proven that the heart was not missing. I think you must have missed the lengthy debate on this topic.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

For simplicity and not wanting to divert the attention of this thread, I will post this link of Stephen Ryan speaking of the missing pages out of the Bond post-mortem and then you can read up yourself on Mr. Ryan's great research on the real "proof" that the heart, was in fact, not present in the room.

You must have discounted this information for some reason, Trevor, as it has been around since 1997.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFiuf3SXnGw

[Trevor Marriott]

You think wrong Trevor. I read the lengthy debate in JTR Forums in January in which, in the face of sustained opposition from other members, you repeatedly asserted that the heart was not missing and claimed that "many others" agreed with you, to which Howard Brown said:

"No offense, because I do my utmost to be objective, Trev, which I think you know....but lets face it...there are no 'many others' who follow your line of thinking on this issue."

Paul Begg also said:

"I'm sorry, Trevor, but what "many others" share your opinion about this? Nobody seems to be sharing your opinion here? And there are a lot of knowledgeable people arguing against you here, not theorists with some agenda to defend."

By that time you had got so upset that you said "I am not going to post anymore, or reply further on this topic and for the time being I do not intend to post further on any Ripper forums." But that didn't last long.

So, yes, it has been unconvincingly asserted by you that the heart was not missing but certainly not proven.

I do not care what others have said they perhaps their own agendas for not accepting these facts

So what more proof do you need Insp Reid was head of Whitechapel CID. He attended the crime scene. He was directly involved in the case all the evidence gathered would have past over his desk, including all the medical evidence. so when writing his report thereafter from all that which was gathered I am sure he would have known if any organ was missing. In the interview he gives nothing but proven facts about the Kelly murder save for one time error.

The 1896 newspaper article is primary evidence it has to supersede all that was suggested prior to this.

Walter Dew also attended the crime scene there was no mention by him in his memoirs about an organ being taken by the killer.

So I am happy to accept what Reid says whether you or anyone else does is a matter for you and them.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

For simplicity and not wanting to divert the attention of this thread, I will post this link of Stephen Ryan speaking of the missing pages out of the Bond post-mortem and then you can read up yourself on Mr. Ryan's great research on the real "proof" that the heart, was in fact, not present in the room.

You must have discounted this information for some reason, Trevor, as it has been around since 1997.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFiuf3SXnGw

Well I suggest Mr Ryan is wrong in his research. I will stick with Insp Reids account, or is that to be dismissed by those who want the organ to have been taken away so as to prop up the old theory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

So I am happy to accept what Reid says whether you or anyone else does is a matter for you and them.

That's fine. Of course, what Reid says is demonstrably untrue in respect of Chapman and Eddowes. Their bodies were not complete when examined. That is the clear medical evidence. So there are good grounds to disbelieve what Reid was reported as saying in 1896. And that means that you cannot properly say that the claim has been "proven".

However, this is definitely not a thread about whether Kelly's heart was absent or not - I personally have no great interest in the subject - but perhaps anyone who is interested can start one.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi All,

“The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent.”

Whether Dr. Bond meant the heart was absent from the body or absent from the room is unclear from his report.

The matter was addressed in 1895.

In “A System of Legal Medicine,” Dr. Francis A. Harris, acknowledging the assistance of Dr. Charles Hebbert [Dr. Bond’s assistant], discussed aspects of the Millers Court murder. He wrote—

“In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered around the room . . .”

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon
Thank you for posting that, but as you know there seems to have been some confusion at the time as to whether or not any organs had been removed by the killer.

Dr Harris was not involved in this murder and Dr Hebbert comments are hearsay in as much that he did not go back to the crime scene later with the other doctors and was not involved in anything thereafter.

The thereafter may have resulted in all the organs being accounted for

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

That's fine. Of course, what Reid says is demonstrably untrue in respect of Chapman and Eddowes. Their bodies were not complete when examined. That is the clear medical evidence. So there are good grounds to disbelieve what Reid was reported as saying in 1896. And that means that you cannot properly say that the claim has been "proven".

However, this is definitely not a thread about whether Kelly's heart was absent or not - I personally have no great interest in the subject - but perhaps anyone who is interested can start one.

Yes you are right this is not the right thread and I will vacate this topic by saying that the article is about other murders also, but everything he says about the Kelly murder is spot on. there is your proof he cant have been wrong about everything in that article. Its cherry picking time for those who are looking to negate the damaging content re Mary Kelly.

If you never ever going to believe someone as credible as Reid who was there who had first hand knowledge then there is no hope for you or anyone else for that matter.

The quote absent from the pericardium has always been an ambiguous term which suits those who want to prop up the theory that the killer took away the heart, and always will be but dismiss Reids interview comments at your peril.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[jerryd]

Yes you are right this is not the right thread and I will vacate this topic by saying that the article is about other murders also, but everything he says about the Kelly murder is spot on. there is your proof he cant have been wrong about everything in that article. Its cherry picking time for those who are looking to negate the damaging content re Mary Kelly.

If you never ever going to believe someone as credible as Reid who was there who had first hand knowledge then there is no hope for you or anyone else for that matter.

The quote absent from the pericardium has always been an ambiguous term which suits those who want to prop up the theory that the killer took away the heart, and always will be but dismiss Reids interview comments at your peril.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ok Trevor,

I'll also dismiss the fact he said Eddowes was killed in September of 1889 or 1890. He couldn't remember which.

By the way, I personally have no theory that the missing heart would help me with.

[Trevor Marriott]

Ok Trevor,

I'll also dismiss the fact he said Eddowes was killed in September of 1889 or 1890. He couldn't remember which.

By the way, I personally have no theory that the missing heart would help me with.

The time line error is with regards to what time the Indian (Thomas Bowyer) who went to Miller Court to collect the rent money

"Kelly was in arrears with her rent and one morning a man known as ‘The Indian’ who was in the employment of the landlord of the house, went round about eight o’clock to see the woman about the money"

It was in fact 10.45am wow are we going to disregard all of what he says about this murder on that one minor error? Look at the rest of what he says great detail.

At the time he gave that interview he had just retired he was still compus mentus before anyone suggests he had lost the plot.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Simon Wood]

Hi Trevor,

I thought I'd throw that in for a bit of added perspective.

Like JerryD, I have no dog in this race. It means not a jot to me whether the heart was taken away or fell down behind the bed.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

If you never ever going to believe someone as credible as Reid who was there who had first hand knowledge then there is no hope for you or anyone else for that matter.

I see. So when Reid says in the same interview about Eddowes that:

"This woman’s nose and ears had been cut off"

we must believe that too?

And when he says that the killer wrote these words on a wall:

‘The Jews shall not be blamed for this.’

we must believe that too?

And when he says that Stride was murdered:

"One Sunday night"

we must believe that too?

And when he says that Bowyer went round to Kelly's room:

"about eight o'clock"

we must believe that too?

[Trevor Marriott]

I see. So when Reid says in the same interview about Eddowes that:

"This woman’s nose and ears had been cut off"

we must believe that too?

And when he says that the killer wrote these words on a wall:

‘The Jews shall not be blamed for this.’

we must believe that too?

And when he says that Stride was murdered:

"One Sunday night"

we must believe that too?

And when he says that Bowyer went round to Kelly's room:

"about eight o'clock"

we must believe that too?

Well you can believe what you want, but it doesn't detract from the fact that he says no organs were taken from Kelly.Could he have been so wrong about such an important part of that murder, when he was one of the senior officers investigating the case ?

I notice you have failed to mention all the facts that he did get right they far outweigh the ones he got wrong.

I wonder how good your memory is going back 8 years detailing specific memorable events in your life? or perhaps you have never had any.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Well you can believe what you want, but it doesn't detract from the fact that he says no organs were taken from Kelly.Could he have been so wrong about such an important part of that murder, when he was one of the senior officers investigating the case ?

I notice you have failed to mention all the facts that he did get right they far outweigh the ones he got wrong.

I wonder how good your memory is going back 8 years detailing specific memorable events in your life? or perhaps you have never had any.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

well isn't that part of the point? hes working from faulty memory.

and first in with the uneccessary personal attacks again, per usual, Trevor.