Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ripperologist 147 December Mary Kelly

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Good one, Jon
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact [email protected]

    Comment


    • Trevor

      The article as a whole is full of errors. Are they Reid's errors or the journalist's?
      Are some of them Reid's and some the journalist's?

      If you isolate the three or four Kelly paragraphs then it would undoubtedly be the case that Reid was talking solely about Kelly.

      But these paragraphs are in the middle of a more general discourse on all the murders, not just Kelly.

      Also who is to say where a paragraph break should be. Reid or the journalist?

      This...

      'I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation. The landlord was brought round to the house by his man, and the sight of the poor mutilated woman turned his brain. He became a perfect madman for weeks, and used to come at times and knock me up and cry out ‘Come on, come on, come out with me, we’ve got him, we’ve got the Ripper.’ Happily the man recovered his balance of mind in time, but the shock was terrible for him.'

      ...looks different to this...

      'I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation.

      'The landlord was brought round to the house by his man, and the sight of the poor mutilated woman turned his brain. He became a perfect madman for weeks, and used to come at times and knock me up and cry out ‘Come on, come on, come out with me, we’ve got him, we’ve got the Ripper.’ Happily the man recovered his balance of mind in time, but the shock was terrible for him.'


      I actually think that in this Reid instance probably was referring to Kelly only. But does that significantly add to the argument in favour of Kelly's heart being present? Scarcely as Reid's opinion on organ removal was known.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
        Trevor

        The article as a whole is full of errors. Are they Reid's errors or the journalist's?
        Are some of them Reid's and some the journalist's?

        If you isolate the three or four Kelly paragraphs then it would undoubtedly be the case that Reid was talking solely about Kelly.

        But these paragraphs are in the middle of a more general discourse on all the murders, not just Kelly.

        Also who is to say where a paragraph break should be. Reid or the journalist?

        This...

        'I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation. The landlord was brought round to the house by his man, and the sight of the poor mutilated woman turned his brain. He became a perfect madman for weeks, and used to come at times and knock me up and cry out ‘Come on, come on, come out with me, we’ve got him, we’ve got the Ripper.’ Happily the man recovered his balance of mind in time, but the shock was terrible for him.'

        ...looks different to this...

        'I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation.

        'The landlord was brought round to the house by his man, and the sight of the poor mutilated woman turned his brain. He became a perfect madman for weeks, and used to come at times and knock me up and cry out ‘Come on, come on, come out with me, we’ve got him, we’ve got the Ripper.’ Happily the man recovered his balance of mind in time, but the shock was terrible for him.'


        I actually think that in this Reid instance probably was referring to Kelly only. But does that significantly add to the argument in favour of Kelly's heart being present? Scarcely as Reid's opinion on organ removal was known.
        There is only one minor error in the Kelly article that being the time Bowyer went to Millers Court the rest is as accurate as you would expect it to be from someone who was present at the crime scene and was involved in the investigation.

        If you are referring to the other newspaper article from Reid in 1906 (10 years later than the original article) I have read it over again and I can understand the context that it was written in and it is not how some perceive it to read. But again as we have seen with regards to this article some interpret it that differently. I wonder why that is ?

        I think come summer some researchers on here should take jobs picking cherries, they have gained much experience from being on here.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • See my post #136 on this thread.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
            There is only one minor error in the Kelly article that being the time Bowyer went to Millers Court the rest is as accurate as you would expect it to be from someone who was present at the crime scene and was involved in the investigation.
            I'm beginning to wonder whether you've even read the article we're discussing. It isn't just about the Kelly murder - it covers the series of murders from Smith to Coles - and it contains a whole string of errors, some of them quite bizarre - such as a statement that after murdering Eddowes the killer went back to Berner Street and wrote a message on the wall there!

            Even in the four paragraphs about Kelly, there is one recounting how the police had her eyes photographed to try to find an image of the murderer. Are you now accepting that as an established fact?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by CGP View Post
              Even in the four paragraphs about Kelly, there is one recounting how the police had her eyes photographed to try to find an image of the murderer. Are you now accepting that as an established fact?
              Hello Chris,

              For the answer to that..I suggest you ask SPE, who has, according to his own words, both traced the owner of, and seen, the "other" MJK in situ photographs taken..from the "Sims collection"..which are..and I quote. ."the clearest examples I have ever seen".
              When I asked him why these photos were not presented for the benefit of the general public, I got the somewhat terse response. ." ..seeing the attitude on here (CB) I don't think the owner will ever decide to publish them".. (it was a discussion about the validity of MJK3)..to which I answered.."with all during respect..The owner has had over 20 YEARS to make that decision".

              It's that sort of thing that has done..and will continue to do..This genre no good at all. Because nobody can answer any question about photographs about eyes etc whilst apparent 1st hand evidence is being kept secret.
              It's no wonder people naturally believe that photos like MJK3 are fake..because more examples of the same thing knocking around but people will doubt their authenticity especially as..For no honest reason..They are being kept secret.

              This genre needs openness from top to bottom. "I know but I'm not telling" is a pathetic old line that people don't believe any more. The old world of the closed few..us and us only, gets the historical facts of the case twisted for the bettering of nobody except personal gain.

              That applies to all the nicked..as yet unseen documents too.
              It doesn't make people in possession more powerful. It holds the public to ransom. However much the owners paid to have them in their possession. .If anything.

              Photos of eyes? Ask someone who has or has seen the unseen photos.

              Ever get the feeling only the chosen few are "worthy"?

              I get the distinct feeling that Scotland Yard still think that this is "their" case. And if you aren't an accepted policeman. .you are not allowed to know sod all. And I don't mean Phil Carter interest..I mean every man's
              Because honest to goodness researchers..historians and enthusiasts. .trying like blimey to bring some light into all this..are hindered.

              Photos of eyes? Well...if a policeman said it...untrustworthy. but ask the photograph owner or their trusted ones


              Phil
              from 1905...to 19.05..it was written in the stars

              Comment


              • Originally posted by CGP View Post
                I'm beginning to wonder whether you've even read the article we're discussing. It isn't just about the Kelly murder - it covers the series of murders from Smith to Coles - and it contains a whole string of errors, some of them quite bizarre - such as a statement that after murdering Eddowes the killer went back to Berner Street and wrote a message on the wall there!

                Even in the four paragraphs about Kelly, there is one recounting how the police had her eyes photographed to try to find an image of the murderer. Are you now accepting that as an established fact?
                Each part of the full article has to be closely scrutinized, and I accept that there are other mistakes in the article but with the Kelly murder from an H Division perspective it was probably the most important and memorable for those directly involved, and Reid was directly involved. He was in charge of H Division CID, so if anybody knew the truth he is the one person you would expect to. Like I have said before and there lies the rub of the green he got everything else in the article about the murder spot even the minutest detail right.

                Yes it is right to highlight the discrepancies, but it is also right to highlight the non discrepancies, and in this case they are very important, ones which cannot be ignored, of fobbed off by saying he got it wrong, because he got other things wrong in the full article. The Kelly murder is the one murder and everything about the murder would stick in his mind till his dying day.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                  Yes it is right to highlight the discrepancies, but it is also right to highlight the non discrepancies, and in this case they are very important, ones which cannot be ignored, of fobbed off by saying he got it wrong, because he got other things wrong in the full article. The Kelly murder is the one murder and everything about the murder would stick in his mind till his dying day.
                  You mean except for the thing you admit he got wrong?

                  But anyway, you now accept as an established fact, on Reid's authority, that the police photographed Kelly's eyes to try to find an image of the murderer? On your argument, there's no way he would have misremembered that, is there?

                  Comment


                  • Trevor
                    In the article Reid said Bowyer went round at 8 am - it was at about 10.45 am.

                    He claimed McCarthy went mad for a few weeks. If this is true there is no substantiation for it.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                      Trevor
                      In the article Reid said Bowyer went round at 8 am - it was at about 10.45 am.

                      He claimed McCarthy went mad for a few weeks. If this is true there is no substantiation for it.
                      You clearly haven't been reading the posts. I said way back then that the timing of Bowyer was the only error. So does one time frame make the whole article in admissible you are clutching at straws !!!!!!!!!!!!

                      I notice you forgot to mention the other minute details that were correct I am sure if he remembered the rest which were no where near as important as the murder itself and the heart we have to accept the rest as being correct.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by CGP View Post
                        You mean except for the thing you admit he got wrong?

                        But anyway, you now accept as an established fact, on Reid's authority, that the police photographed Kelly's eyes to try to find an image of the murderer? On your argument, there's no way he would have misremembered that, is there?
                        I have never mentioned the eyes at all, but just for the record the photographer was at the crime scene that afternoon for some time before the body was taken away. So who knows what he did photograph.

                        You weak arguments are falling apart.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                          I have never mentioned the eyes at all, but just for the record the photographer was at the crime scene that afternoon for some time before the body was taken away. So who knows what he did photograph.
                          Surely you can understand the point I'm making. According to the article, Reid said Kelly's eyes were photographed. You say Reid would have remembered everything about the murder "till his dying day".

                          So do you accept that Kelly's eyes were photographed, on the basis that Reid couldn't be wrong? It sounds as though you're doubtful about it.

                          Comment


                          • Of course, another mistake Reid made about Kelly's murder was that he turned Caroline Maxwell, the sole witness who claimed to have seen her alive on Friday morning, into "women ... who swore that they saw Kelly ... at eight o'clock of the morning her body was found."

                            Wouldn't it have been rather important if Maxwell's story had been corroborated?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by CGP View Post
                              Surely you can understand the point I'm making. According to the article, Reid said Kelly's eyes were photographed. You say Reid would have remembered everything about the murder "till his dying day".

                              So do you accept that Kelly's eyes were photographed, on the basis that Reid couldn't be wrong? It sounds as though you're doubtful about it.
                              Everything should not be taken literally after all he was only human, and you know as well as I do that to remembered ever intricate details of any event would be phenomenal.

                              As to the eyes being photographed in Walter Dew's autobiography, he states that Mary's eyes had been photographed.Is he right or wrong ? But again corroboration perhaps of another police officer who was at the scene.

                              Again I say its what in the specific article that matters, not what isnt !

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by CGP View Post
                                Of course, another mistake Reid made about Kelly's murder was that he turned Caroline Maxwell, the sole witness who claimed to have seen her alive on Friday morning, into "women ... who swore that they saw Kelly ... at eight o'clock of the morning her body was found."

                                Wouldn't it have been rather important if Maxwell's story had been corroborated?
                                Now you are getting really desperate !

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X