Ripperologist 147 December Mary Kelly

[CGP]

On Nov 10th as is known he was asked by Anderson to prepare a profile on the killer regarding all the murders. This report starts off where he writes about the Kelly murder. At no point in that report does he mention a missing heart.

Did he forget? Surely not, after only two days! Or did he deliberately leave out something like that as not being important. I doubt that, after all a killer taking away a heart, would be an important part of a criminal profile would it not.A profile he was asked to prepare.

As far as I can see, Bond doesn't mention missing organs for any of the murders in that report, so you can't make an argument from his silence about Kelly's heart.

[Trevor Marriott]

Sadly...Most of the accounts given the heaviest reliance upon are NOT eye witness accounts at all. They are interpretations and supposition. .In failing detail..of people who present worthless speculation. That's how it is.

And with respect. .you didn't answer my question re Kosminski either. .The Swanson Marginalia has been ridden to Lands End and back..and the plain fact of the matter is that Aaron Kosminski is an innocent man.
Not all the back up from tens of dozens of ex Scotland Yard museum workers, a few family accounts or s few valiant researchers can save the situation that has arisen. People have backed a losing horse...and are STILL trying to rectify the original mistakes. ..The mistakes being? ..yup...The comments of an ex policeman. Or two.

It really doesn't matter now if someone comes up with "he may have wrote "Kosminski" but he was unaware of/ignorant of/ forgotten/ deliberately misled".. ( insert any excuse) that the name was in fact Donald bleeding Duck. The damage is done. .to a crisp. And because the genre has allowed this nonsense to continue for so long, finding plausible reason to make good the obvious frailty of the original argument is useless.
No..It won't be in Dover (the Seaside Home) because there is no proof.
.
no..It can't be another person because Swanson named the man Kosminski. ..so did Macnaughten. And TWO high flyers can't be stupid enough to make the same mistake. ..years apart and independent of each other.

so whatever anyone is working on...unless they have official papers..Home Office or Scotland Yard. ...that we have never seen..then it looks more like trying to fill in potholes in roads.. again. No amount of smoothing over can cover this up. And it won't matter one iota how eloquently the argument is made for in word either.
There is only so much you can flog a dead horse.
Moving the goalposts is a teeny weeny bit obvious.

That won't be a popular view because the cart HAS to be pushed along the same route. .With or without wheels on.

Sorry Jon..that's how it is. Trying to back a horse that was left in the stable years ago.

"Must treat with caution"... The words of policemen?

Have you any idea how stupid that looks?

If you can't trust the words of a copper Jon....Who CAN you trust ffs?
Looks like..In your words..you can't. "Treat with caution" is a cop out. Not a cop in. Sorry.


Phil

Hi Phil
Happy new year to you.

You are correct in much of what you write.

As to the suggestion of memory loss levied against Reid. What about Dr Bond who carried out the initial post mortem and was responsible for the ambiguous statement, which has led to the missing heart forming an integral part of what I term as "the old previoulsy accepted facts"

On Nov 10th as is known he was asked by Anderson to prepare a profile on the killer regarding all the murders. This report starts off where he writes about the Kelly murder. At no point in that report does he mention a missing heart.

Did he forget? Surely not, after only two days! Or did he deliberately leave out something like that as not being important. I doubt that, after all a killer taking away a heart, would be an important part of a criminal profile would it not.A profile he was asked to prepare.

The aforementioned is just another piece of evidence which suggests the heart was not taken away and in my opinion far outweighs the evidence put forward to suggest it was.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Christer Holmgren]

If they can separate the remembered from the misremembered.

Ha! Yes, of course, Jon - but the real benefit is that you will get much more information to process, and you can compare what the witnesses say. The problems with misremembering is always there, no matter what the situation is.

[Phil Carter]

Unfortunately this will be my last post on the matter as I'm about to get on a bus to Disneyland Paris (I'm so disappointed about this as you can tell )

Recollections of police officers involved in the case are still a historical resource. If we removed eyewitness accounts from the history books then our knowledge of history would be very thin indeed. We must treat such with caution, certainly and be aware of bias, errors and second hand sources and independent verify as far as possible.

As you mention it, let's take the Swanson Marginalia as a starting point - it does not tell us definitely who Jack the Ripper was, but it does tell us that a gentleman named Kosminski was of interest to some officers on the case. That is a starting point to further research. And yes, Swanson may be misremembering details but we can attempt to verify them as far as possible - which is what researchers such as Adam Wood and Rob House are attempting to do.

Sadly...Most of the accounts given the heaviest reliance upon are NOT eye witness accounts at all. They are interpretations and supposition. .In failing detail..of people who present worthless speculation. That's how it is.

And with respect. .you didn't answer my question re Kosminski either. .The Swanson Marginalia has been ridden to Lands End and back..and the plain fact of the matter is that Aaron Kosminski is an innocent man.
Not all the back up from tens of dozens of ex Scotland Yard museum workers, a few family accounts or s few valiant researchers can save the situation that has arisen. People have backed a losing horse...and are STILL trying to rectify the original mistakes. ..The mistakes being? ..yup...The comments of an ex policeman. Or two.

It really doesn't matter now if someone comes up with "he may have wrote "Kosminski" but he was unaware of/ignorant of/ forgotten/ deliberately misled".. ( insert any excuse) that the name was in fact Donald bleeding Duck. The damage is done. .to a crisp. And because the genre has allowed this nonsense to continue for so long, finding plausible reason to make good the obvious frailty of the original argument is useless.
No..It won't be in Dover (the Seaside Home) because there is no proof.
.
no..It can't be another person because Swanson named the man Kosminski. ..so did Macnaughten. And TWO high flyers can't be stupid enough to make the same mistake. ..years apart and independent of each other.

so whatever anyone is working on...unless they have official papers..Home Office or Scotland Yard. ...that we have never seen..then it looks more like trying to fill in potholes in roads.. again. No amount of smoothing over can cover this up. And it won't matter one iota how eloquently the argument is made for in word either.
There is only so much you can flog a dead horse.
Moving the goalposts is a teeny weeny bit obvious.

That won't be a popular view because the cart HAS to be pushed along the same route. .With or without wheels on.

Sorry Jon..that's how it is. Trying to back a horse that was left in the stable years ago.

"Must treat with caution"... The words of policemen?

Have you any idea how stupid that looks?

If you can't trust the words of a copper Jon....Who CAN you trust ffs?
Looks like..In your words..you can't. "Treat with caution" is a cop out. Not a cop in. Sorry.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil, trust you are well?
Happy New Year.

I'm another one who shows no faith in memoirs, especially of those who are relating what they read as opposed to what they did.
As an example, we have recollections from Hebbert about Mary Kelly's mutilations, so as he was present and actually involved in the post-mortem I would have more faith in his recollections concerning the mutilations.

Then there are others like Anderson, Macnaghten, Swanson, Major Smith etc., who obtained most of their information from reports, but sat behind a desk. Recollections of specific details from these officials I have little faith in.

I would expect the likes of Abberline, Reid & Dew to have more accurate recollections, sadly not much from Abberline and Reid's recollections have proved to be quite wrong. So we can see even those who had hands-on experience and should have the most trustworthy memories are still not reliable.

In my view, it's wise to leave recollections alone, not reliable enough to use as evidence to support an argument.

Hello Jon,
Thank you..and a Happy New Year to yourself and yours. I am fairly chipper..so not too many complaints from here. ☺
I hope all is well with you too.

Agreed. The LAST thing this genre needs are reliance on personal..After the sell-by date recollections. The memories of the desk jockeys are simply way too unreliable. As I stated elsewhere. .until I saw Reid's rather clumsy 1896 quotes..I felt he was on a sound ground. Not any more.

Like you...I long ago came to the conclusion that so much is un trustworthy and unreliable. Therefore I concluded that only official case papers and files up to this point missing, are the only viable alternative.

The VERY last thing this subject needs is more scribbling of thoughts X amount of years later in a dusty old book or on a scrap of paper.

But that blows against the wind..For it means that for the very greater part, the whole subject has been misused based on non fact. We actually haven't gotten very far at all. Not using the methods we have used up until now. Of course, changing the thought process takes time. But the blinking obvious is simple. What we have done simply does not butter any parsnips. A fools errand I'd dare to call it.

That will annoy some..who will continue to try and push the cart even though the wheels fell off ages ago. So be it. But after nearly 50 years of reading, writing and researching. ...I honestly believe that a time has come for a major rethink. This last year's book offerings..Simon Wood's book excepted, were more cart pushing without wheels. As was the miserable shawl rubbish the year before. It really is time to sink the boat called cashing in.


Phil

[Big Jon]

That's your opinion and you have a right to it..as I have mine.
Treat a policeman's words with caution.... I like that though.

The only way any of this mess will ever be sorted out is NOT with personal recollections.

It HAS to be official source copy. The turning up of the missing Home Office or Scotland Yard Files and papers on the case.

Everything else is supposition based on something that should be treated "with caution".

And Jon...respectfully..you cannot honestly be saying that the Swanson marginalia and end paper notes have..down the years been treated with caution?

The poor innocent wretch Kosminski has been ridden along like a thoroughbred horse on the back of it.

And still is...including moving the goalposts.

Caution? Yeah...With a bloomin' great bulldozer.



Phil

Unfortunately this will be my last post on the matter as I'm about to get on a bus to Disneyland Paris (I'm so disappointed about this as you can tell )

Recollections of police officers involved in the case are still a historical resource. If we removed eyewitness accounts from the history books then our knowledge of history would be very thin indeed. We must treat such with caution, certainly and be aware of bias, errors and second hand sources and independent verify as far as possible.

As you mention it, let's take the Swanson Marginalia as a starting point - it does not tell us definitely who Jack the Ripper was, but it does tell us that a gentleman named Kosminski was of interest to some officers on the case. That is a starting point to further research. And yes, Swanson may be misremembering details but we can attempt to verify them as far as possible - which is what researchers such as Adam Wood and Rob House are attempting to do.

[Wicker Man]

In which case..Every single theory written in the short or long term aftermath of the murders of 1888...by ALL of the policemen. .Macnaghten, Anderson, Abberline, Swanson, Littlechild, Reid...All of the doctors or physicians who looked back with claims.... .All of those who commented long after the fact...can all be very safely put in to the same dustcart.

In other words. They are ALL UNRELIABLE.

Hi Phil, trust you are well?
Happy New Year.

I'm another one who shows no faith in memoirs, especially of those who are relating what they read as opposed to what they did.
As an example, we have recollections from Hebbert about Mary Kelly's mutilations, so as he was present and actually involved in the post-mortem I would have more faith in his recollections concerning the mutilations.

Then there are others like Anderson, Macnaghten, Swanson, Major Smith etc., who obtained most of their information from reports, but sat behind a desk. Recollections of specific details from these officials I have little faith in.

I would expect the likes of Abberline, Reid & Dew to have more accurate recollections, sadly not much from Abberline and Reid's recollections have proved to be quite wrong. So we can see even those who had hands-on experience and should have the most trustworthy memories are still not reliable.

In my view, it's wise to leave recollections alone, not reliable enough to use as evidence to support an argument.

[Phil Carter]

No, it just means memories and recollections must be treated with caution - as I think most researchers in the field do treat them. They might be backed up with files or notes (official or personal) or corroborated by statements of others. They are a starting point and need verification by independent sources.

That's your opinion and you have a right to it..as I have mine.
Treat a policeman's words with caution.... I like that though.

The only way any of this mess will ever be sorted out is NOT with personal recollections.

It HAS to be official source copy. The turning up of the missing Home Office or Scotland Yard Files and papers on the case.

Everything else is supposition based on something that should be treated "with caution".

And Jon...respectfully..you cannot honestly be saying that the Swanson marginalia and end paper notes have..down the years been treated with caution?

The poor innocent wretch Kosminski has been ridden along like a thoroughbred horse on the back of it.

And still is...including moving the goalposts.

Caution? Yeah...With a bloomin' great bulldozer.



Phil

[Big Jon]

In which case..Every single theory written in the short or long term aftermath of the murders of 1888...by ALL of the policemen. .Macnaghten, Anderson, Abberline, Swanson, Littlechild, Reid...All of the doctors or physicians who looked back with claims.... .All of those who commented long after the fact...can all be very safely put in to the same dustcart.

In other words. They are ALL UNRELIABLE.

Which, if you have read Simon Wood's book, is very clearly shown to be a truism.

Throw that lot away and start again. .without basing anything on what anybody thought, claimed, remembered, misremembered, wrote, was quoted as saying or pronounced.

Otherwise it just becomes endless invented speculation based on very faulty acceptance of human memory.


Phil

No, it just means memories and recollections must be treated with caution - as I think most researchers in the field do treat them. They might be backed up with files or notes (official or personal) or corroborated by statements of others. They are a starting point and need verification by independent sources.

[Phil Carter]

I second this post by Mark. Memory can be highly unreliable. Recalling a memory isn't like looking through a photo album and picking out the memory you want, it's more akin to rummaging in a box of multiple disassembled jigsaw puzzles.

In which case..Every single theory written in the short or long term aftermath of the murders of 1888...by ALL of the policemen. .Macnaghten, Anderson, Abberline, Swanson, Littlechild, Reid...All of the doctors or physicians who looked back with claims.... .All of those who commented long after the fact...can all be very safely put in to the same dustcart.

In other words. They are ALL UNRELIABLE.

Which, if you have read Simon Wood's book, is very clearly shown to be a truism.

Throw that lot away and start again. .without basing anything on what anybody thought, claimed, remembered, misremembered, wrote, was quoted as saying or pronounced.

Otherwise it just becomes endless invented speculation based on very faulty acceptance of human memory.


Phil

[Big Jon]

But overall, in these situations, we take in MORE information than we ordinarily do. And that is normally helpful to those investigating the events.

If they can separate the remembered from the misremembered.

[Christer Holmgren]

Actually there has been some question in the scientific community as to whether or not that is true. People certainly feel they have clearer memories of traumatic events (known as "flashbulb memories"), but research has indicated that they might be just as likely to be subject to misremembering factors and any higher level of accuracy tends to be temporary only as the memories degrade over time.

In the studies that have found a higher level of accuracy to these events, it tends to be the peripheral details rather than the central event (but again, there is a high level of individual differences - younger adults tend to have more accurate ones, etc.).

The level of accuracy as such is not really the issue here; what witness psychologists are saying is that the level of perception is raised by suddenly occurring traumas. Just as you say - and as I tried to point out myself in my earlier post - the accuracy of the observations will differ from witness to witness. But overall, in these situations, we take in MORE information than we ordinarily do. And that is normally helpful to those investigating the events.

[Big Jon]

m_w_r:

We also have to take into account the vagaries of memory. I think I'm right in saying that some people remember traumatic events quite clearly - this is probably the effect of adrenaline, or something. But other people might not remember traumatic events all that well - again, this is probably the effect of something like adrenaline.

It deserves pointing out here that people normally are alerted by traumatic events to a higher perception degree, meaning that if there is a sudden shooting, a sudden car accident, a robbery or something such played out where we are, we tend to be very perceptive witnesses during the initial stages of these events. We sharpen up for a short period of time.
Sadly, that does not mean that everybody witnessing a robbery will remember things the same way. But it does mean that we will remember more details and be more observant, generally speaking.

Actually there has been some question in the scientific community as to whether or not that is true. People certainly feel they have clearer memories of traumatic events (known as "flashbulb memories"), but research has indicated that they might be just as likely to be subject to misremembering factors and any higher level of accuracy tends to be temporary only as the memories degrade over time.

In the studies that have found a higher level of accuracy to these events, it tends to be the peripheral details rather than the central event (but again, there is a high level of individual differences - younger adults tend to have more accurate ones, etc.).

[Edward Stow]

Memory of events over time is further confused by later second hand non eyewitness versions and retellings frequently get absorbed as if they were first hand - and other similar events often become conflated.

At times of stress - high adrenaline events - some people's memory is worse as their brain function focuses on flight or danger avoidance (as Mark implied). It is the fight or flight syndrome.
For some people reality slows down - seconds are as minutes and details are very clear.

[Christer Holmgren]

m_w_r:

We also have to take into account the vagaries of memory. I think I'm right in saying that some people remember traumatic events quite clearly - this is probably the effect of adrenaline, or something. But other people might not remember traumatic events all that well - again, this is probably the effect of something like adrenaline.

It deserves pointing out here that people normally are alerted by traumatic events to a higher perception degree, meaning that if there is a sudden shooting, a sudden car accident, a robbery or something such played out where we are, we tend to be very perceptive witnesses during the initial stages of these events. We sharpen up for a short period of time.
Sadly, that does not mean that everybody witnessing a robbery will remember things the same way. But it does mean that we will remember more details and be more observant, generally speaking.