If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See?

[rjpalmer]

Hi Simon, you are well aware of the following, but let me toss it up anyway:

"The Times.
Saturday, 24 November 1888.

PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
FRIDAY, November 23.
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS.

Mr. HUNTER asked the Home Secretary whether he was prepared in the case of the Whitechapel murders, other than that of the woman Kelly, to offer a free pardon to any person not being the actual perpetrator of the crimes.

Mr. MATTHEWS. - I should be quite prepared to offer a pardon in the earlier Whitechapel murders if the information before me had suggested that such an offer would assist in the detection of the murderer.

In the case of Kelly there were certain circumstances which were wanting in the earlier cases, and which made it more probable that there were other persons who, at any rate, after the crime, had assisted the murderer."

"After the crime" suggests a laundress more than a look-out, you must surely admit. Guilty knowledge after-the-fact, not Hutchinson acting as a lookout.

I'm safe but not sound; the air is filthier than Manchester in the 1870s.

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

Hansard, 12th November 1888. Secretary of State (Mr. Matthews) —

“The failure of the police, so far, to detect the persons guilty of the Whitechapel murders is due, not to any new organization, or to any defect in the existing system, but to the extraordinary cunning and secrecy which characterize these atrocious crimes.”

Regards,

Simon

[spyglass]

Hi all,

About a year ago I formulated a far fetched theory concerning the whole Kelly affair.
Even I didn't actually believe it, but as I went along, things fell into place.
Too complicated to repeat again, but basically it was based on the idea that the case was already wrapped up shortly after the Eddowes murder and that the Kelly murder was something else. ...Something the Police had arranged, and with Kelly involved.
Only Kelly messed up by simply refurning to the scene of the crime and being seen.

Regards

[Trevor Marriott]

Dr. Phillips was a medical man and the information he shared would have been medical, and not investigative.

In fact, you've already answered your own question. All Phillips told the Home Office is what we already know from Bond's report: the victim's heart was missing and the murderer could not have escaped Millers Court without being heavily bloodstained.

Of course the medical information he shared if it were medical, could have been the fact that the heart was not missing and had been accounted for.

This would then make the Kelly murder different from what was known about the other murders at the time, would it not ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Why would you have Phillips throw Dr Bond under the bus?

[DJA]

Trevor is just pushing his usual barrow

[Trevor Marriott]

Why would you have Phillips throw Dr Bond under the bus?

I am not throwing him under the bus, but merely suggesting that if Phillips knew something as is being suggested, that he conversed privately with the coroner, it could have been that which I mentioned. After all it was Phillips that had to go before the coroner not Bond.

But of course no one knows what it really was, so my guess is as good as anyone else, bearing in mind Kelly`s heart was not found to be missing after all. Like it or not its an issue that is not going to go away, and Bond does not mention the missing heart in his report to Anderson. So an inference can easily be drawn from that which is a fact.

But I am sure as usual we will see all the individual researchers explanations re surfacing for this, the same as we have seen before propping up the old previously accepted theory.

To DJA
The theory has got to big for a barrow now I have had to move it to a juggerbaut with a big trailer to accomodate all those who now reject the old theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Ok Trevor, so given the fact several organs were removed from the body, none of them were identified as "absent", only the heart.
And we know all the other organs were found in the room, except the heart.

Yet you still refuse to accept "absent" as 'taken away'.

You have to start accepting the obvious Trevor.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

"And we know all the other organs were found in the room . . ."

This is interesting, because there are no bodily organs on the bedside table in the MJK1 photograph.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

Ok Trevor, so given the fact several organs were removed from the body, none of them were identified as "absent", only the heart.
And we know all the other organs were found in the room, except the heart.

Yet you still refuse to accept "absent" as 'taken away'.

You have to start accepting the obvious Trevor.

No I don't have to accept the obvious, because in this case the obvious which you refer to is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The term used is "Absent from the pericardium" which was recorded by another doctor whilst the post mortem was being conducted and from which Bonds report was prepared. At no point in his report, or thereafter, does he mention the heart was missing from the room. To suggest otherwise without foundation is wrong.

What you seek to rely on to prove your facts is not the same material that I seek to rely on to disprove, and I think mine is far more conclusive and far more reliable.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

"And we know all the other organs were found in the room . . ."

This is interesting, because there are no bodily organs on the bedside table in the MJK1 photograph.

Regards,

Simon

The table with flaps from the abdomen & thigh?
The organs were on the bed. I must be missing your point.
I don't see what you are getting at.

[Wickerman]

No I don't have to accept the obvious, because in this case the obvious which you refer to is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The term used is "Absent from the pericardium" which was recorded by another doctor whilst the post mortem was being conducted and from which Bonds report was prepared.

Ok, the actual wording was:
"The Pericardium was open below & the heart absent".
No mention of where the heart was located. Not like the other organs all described where found. Not the heart.

At no point in his report, or thereafter, does he mention the heart was missing from the room. To suggest otherwise without foundation is wrong.

It's a rose by any other name Trevor.
Yes, at no point does he say it is missing, so we cannot say it is?
Also, at no point does he say it is found, so we cannot say it was.
Deal?

What you seek to rely on to prove your facts is not the same material that I seek to rely on to disprove, and I think mine is far more conclusive and far more reliable.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It is required that when an organ is identified as removed, that it should be stated where found, if it is not missing. Otherwise the report is incomplete.
Otherwise, any superior (Anderson/Warren?) will ask, "if it was absent, then where was it found?"
That is an obvious point to be clarified by the report.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

What I am getting at is this—

In the photograph MJK1 there are no bodily organs on the bedside table.

Regards,

Simon

[Joshua Rogan]

Not to mention A System of Legal Medicine p.63;
"In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered about the room"

[Trevor Marriott]

The table with flaps from the abdomen & thigh?
The organs were on the bed. I must be missing your point.
I don't see what you are getting at.

Wrong again !!!!

Lloyds Weekly dated November 11th 1888 which the interviewee would appear to have been Superintendent Arnold who was in overall charge of Whitechapel policing, and visited the crime scene shortly after the discovery of the body. The relevant part of the article reads “The kidneys and heart had also been removed from the body, and placed on the table by the side of the breasts.

The New York Herald dated November 10th and is a quote from Dr Gabe who also attended the crime scene while the body was still in situ:

“The nose and ears were sliced away. The throat was cut from left to right, so that the vertebrae alone prevented a headsmanlike severance. Below the neck the trunk suggested a sheep's carcass in a slaughter house. Ribs and backbone were exposed and the stomach, entrails, heart and liver had been cut out and carefully placed beside the mutilated trunk”

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk