Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ripperologist 147 December Mary Kelly

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Everything should not be taken literally after all he was only human ...
    What is it we shouldn't be taking literally - what Reid is quoted as saying about the murders? What you're saying about Reid? Or both?

    As for trying to brush off the Maxwell error as desperation, the point is that you claimed there was "only one minor error" in the part of the News of the World article dealing with Kelly's murder. In fact there are two definite errors in those four paragraphs - the timing of the discovery and the number of witnesses who claimed to have seen her the following morning - and another claim about photographing the eyes which you're evidently doubtful about yourself. Reid's recollections as reported in that article are rife with errors, and the part dealing with Kelly's murder is no exception. By any objective standard, this is simply not a reliable source of information.

    Comment


    • The way this thread puts it, Mary Kelly's heart being absent (or not) is a simple choice to make: Bond versus Reid

      I choose Bond

      Roy

      Comment


      • Originally posted by CGP View Post
        What is it we shouldn't be taking literally - what Reid is quoted as saying about the murders? What you're saying about Reid? Or both?

        As for trying to brush off the Maxwell error as desperation, the point is that you claimed there was "only one minor error" in the part of the News of the World article dealing with Kelly's murder. In fact there are two definite errors in those four paragraphs - the timing of the discovery and the number of witnesses who claimed to have seen her the following morning - and another claim about photographing the eyes which you're evidently doubtful about yourself. Reid's recollections as reported in that article are rife with errors, and the part dealing with Kelly's murder is no exception. By any objective standard, this is simply not a reliable source of information.
        You are desperate, firstly you cannot prove or disprove that the eyes were not photographed, Dew corroborates Reid about the eyes was he wrong did he make it up? Secondly it is a known fact that Maxwell came forward and all she said was reported correctly, so that part is also correct, the only part that is a minor error is the word women instead of woman.

        So where does this prove Reid was totally mistaken about those two issues. Fact is they both happened.

        And even a blind man can see that the whole of that part of the article relates solely to the Kelly murder. So maybe you and Roy Corduroy ought to both go and sit in a quiet dark room and reconsider your positions on this topic

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
          So where does this prove Reid was totally mistaken about those two issues. Fact is they both happened.
          Finally a straight answer to the question I've been asking you.

          So, after all, on the evidence of Reid's and Dew's reminiscences, you are now saying that you consider it an established fact that the police had Kelly's eyes photographed in the hope they would be able to see an image of her killer.

          Is that correct?

          Comment


          • I choose Bond

            Stick with Reid, Trevor. Don't come over to Bond please. Promise you won't.

            Roy

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
              I suspect they learned a lesson from the missing kidney debacle of a month earlier. They didn't want boxes of bogus hearts showing up in the mail.
              Or if one did show up they would know it would likely not be bogus.
              Best Wishes,
              Cris Malone
              ______________________________________________
              "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by CGP View Post
                Finally a straight answer to the question I've been asking you.

                So, after all, on the evidence of Reid's and Dew's reminiscences, you are now saying that you consider it an established fact that the police had Kelly's eyes photographed in the hope they would be able to see an image of her killer.

                Is that correct?
                Can you prove that it did not happen ?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                  Can you prove that it did not happen ?
                  I'm saying anything about it either way.

                  You are the one saying Reid's memories of the Kelly case would have been infallible (except for the known errors!). Reid says the eyes were photographed. So you must accept that as an established fact. Mustn't you?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by CGP View Post
                    I'm saying anything about it either way.

                    You are the one saying Reid's memories of the Kelly case would have been infallible (except for the known errors!). Reid says the eyes were photographed. So you must accept that as an established fact. Mustn't you?
                    With any fact or piece of evidence corroboration is looked for. In the case of the eyes issue that comes in the form of Walter Dew another police officer and that`s good enough for me to accept that it did happen.

                    With regards to the Maxwell reference Maurice Lewis came forward with the same account so as to Reid being totally wrong that is not the case is it. Reid mentions women indicating more than one person, when in fact the only thing he got wrong was one was a male and one a female. hardly enough to discredit the article is it ?

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Trevor Marriott

                      So you do accept that it's proven that Kelly's eyes were photographed. That's quite clear. Thank you.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by CGP View Post
                        Trevor Marriott

                        So you do accept that it's proven that Kelly's eyes were photographed. That's quite clear. Thank you.
                        I never questioned that fact

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                          I never questioned that fact
                          Well, in one post you asked "who knows what he did photograph"? And when I asked about it again you said "Everything should not be taken literally". That's why I wasn't clear what your position was. But don't worry - you've made yourself quite clear now.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X