Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Michael W Richards 6 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by NickB 8 minutes ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Michael W Richards 10 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Alfie 40 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Abby Normal 42 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (13 posts)
General Discussion: The Weapon - (4 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - (4 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report - (3 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (2 posts)
Ripper Notes: Status of Ripper Notes? - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Victims > Mary Jane Kelly

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #181  
Old 07-10-2018, 03:20 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Guy View Post
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 was under the impression that Bond (or Hebbert?) took the notes on Friday at the crime scene (for the annexed report), but the main report was dated 10th. So he only sent his report to Anderson after the official autopsy on Saturday morning.
At the beginning of his main report he mentions attending, "a Post-mortem Examination of the mutilated remains of a woman found yesterday...."

As the medical men c/w detectives returned to Millers Court Sat. afternoon to sieve the ashes, it seems obvious to me something was still missing after the autopsy was concluded.
So, something was still missing on the day Bond completed his report for Anderson.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 07-10-2018, 05:06 PM
DJA DJA is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Some Australian Mountain Range.
Posts: 1,587
Default

G'day!
How are things in North Kilttown?

Think the Maxwells lived at 14,next door to Mr Maxwell's employment which was Commercial Street Chambers,15-20.Same place Hutchinson stood outside earlier that morning.Owner came from Romford.

Think she was returning dishes or sumfin'.

Hope she wasn't after food,cause it's a long way to the shop if you want a sausage roll.

Dave,not Debs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert St Devil View Post
Maybe someone can clear the confusion. In the Pall Mall Gazette and Evening News Nov 10 editions, Mrs Maxwell claims to live at 26 Dorset Street:

"I assist my husband in his duties but we live next door, at No. 26 Dorset street."

So when she says:

"yesterday morning as I was going home, carrying my lantern and other things with me, I saw the woman Kelly standing at the entrance of the court."

In this case, wouldn't home indicate 26 Dorset Street, meaning Mrs Maxwell passed Mary Jane as she entered the court to reach her residence? Also meaning, she was detained with the other residents after the discovery of the body.

In the Times November 10th edition, Mrs Maxwell claims that she went for milk, which was verified with the milkshop. I don't know how many milkshops may have been in the immediate area; but, had Mary Jane had gone for milk (as suggested by Morris Lewis), wouldn't it have been more likely that Mary Jane would have gone to the same one as Mrs Maxwell and possibly seen/recognized/reported by someone working at the milkshop. My wonder is, did Morris Lewis mistake Caroline Maxwell for Mary Jane if Mrs Maxwell did in fact live at 26 Dorset St.?

* emphasis mine
** on a side riddle, how did McCarthy see that both her ears were cut off when he peered through her window?
__________________
My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 07-10-2018, 05:35 PM
DJA DJA is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Some Australian Mountain Range.
Posts: 1,587
Default

Think you are the guy who reckons mortuary visitors nicked bits and pieces from various Ripper victims.

Do you suspect someone might have taken Mary Kelly's heart from the Shoreditch mortuary before the autopsy?

It is a possibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
__________________
My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 07-10-2018, 11:51 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,041
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
I was under the impression that Bond (or Hebbert?) took the notes on Friday at the crime scene (for the annexed report), but the main report was dated 10th. So he only sent his report to Anderson after the official autopsy on Saturday morning.
At the beginning of his main report he mentions attending, "a Post-mortem Examination of the mutilated remains of a woman found yesterday...."

As the medical men c/w detectives returned to Millers Court Sat. afternoon to sieve the ashes, it seems obvious to me something was still missing after the autopsy was concluded.
So, something was still missing on the day Bond completed his report for Anderson.
Bonds report was completed by Hebbert who was working from notes he took down at the crime scene and at the post mortem. He was not involved in anything that took place thereafter.

As you continue to speculate consider this

How do we not know that the heart was not part of what is believed to have been organs in the pail sent to Phillips.

How do we not know that the contents of the pail were not disclosed to all those present at the post mortem, and that would be why no big deal was made of the heart because it was accounted for, and that what Bond states is correct that the heart was absent from the pericardium. If you read his report it is logical in the context of the examination he was discussing all the different parts of the body and what had happened to them as he went along.

The reality is that the evidence, and facts, to show that heart was not taken away by the killer far outweighs the ambiguous statements to suggest it was, and as such opens up a whole new ball game, and casts a major doubt about the old accepted theory of five and five only, and one killer, who removed the organs from his victims after murdering them

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 07-11-2018, 12:00 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,041
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJA View Post
Think you are the guy who reckons mortuary visitors nicked bits and pieces from various Ripper victims.

Do you suspect someone might have taken Mary Kelly's heart from the Shoreditch mortuary before the autopsy?

It is a possibility.
I dont think this at all in this case because there is so much evidence which tells us that all the body parts were accounted for.

Times Nov 12
“As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing.

At the first examination, which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case. The examination was most minutely made, and lasted upwards of 2 ½ hours after which the mutilated portions were sewn to the body, and therefore the coroner's jury will be spared the unpleasant duty of witnessing the horrible spectacle presented to those who discovered the murder. The ashes found in the fireplace of the room rented by the deceased woman were also submitted to a searching examination, but nothing likely to throw any light on this shocking case could be gleaned from them.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 07-11-2018, 12:34 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,645
Default

If, as was claimed, the body was complete at the autopsy Sat. morning, did they return to Millers Court in the afternoon to sift the ashes?
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 07-11-2018, 12:37 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

How do we not know that the heart was not part of what is believed to have been organs in the pail sent to Phillips.
It doesn't matter if it was, the contents of the pail are brought to the autopsy. Bond was at the autopsy Sat. morning. So he would have seen the heart produced by Phillips.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 07-11-2018, 12:48 PM
DJA DJA is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Some Australian Mountain Range.
Posts: 1,587
Default

Winner,winner! Chicken dinner!
__________________
My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 07-11-2018, 02:40 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,041
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
It doesn't matter if it was, the contents of the pail are brought to the autopsy. Bond was at the autopsy Sat. morning. So he would have seen the heart produced by Phillips.
They most probably were, and the heart was probably in the pail along with other organs and produced at the post mortem. But that doesn't change the terminology used by Bond when listing damage to the body organs during the post mortem, including the pericardium which he states the heart was absent from.

How can an inference be drawn from that ambiguous part of his report suggesting that the heart was missing from the room taken away by the killer, when that is not mentioned, or suggested at all by Bond or any other doctor at the time or in the years that followed? No police officials of any rank, or any other officials suggest the killer took away the heart. In fact we have evidence to suggest that was not the case.

You can argue, hypothesize, or speculate till the cows come home but it is not going to change the facts, the heart was not taken away by the killer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 07-11-2018, 02:44 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,041
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
If, as was claimed, the body was complete at the autopsy Sat. morning, did they return to Millers Court in the afternoon to sift the ashes?
Well we know they did because it is documented, but we do not know why, and it would be wrong to speculate.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.