Ripperologist 147 December Mary Kelly

[CGP]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

[Trevor Marriott]

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

[Edward Stow]

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.

[CGP]

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?

[Trevor Marriott]

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

[Phil Carter]

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

[CGP]

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?

[Robert Linford]

See my post #136 on this thread.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

[Edward Stow]

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.

[Howard Brown]

Good one, Jon

[Wicker Man]

Thank you for the explanation, Phil.
You're correct, of course, about the reticence of the authorities to divulge much information...and in this case, they undoubtedly wondered what the effect would be if news of the missing heart got out.

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

Policemen - like newspaper reporters - are fallible human beings, subject to lapses in memory, getting different events mixed up together and their own preconceived notions (prejudices) reinforced on occasion by conformation bias - as no doubt we all are.

We have to use the sources available to us and judge their reliability against others and no doubt against our own preconceived notions. This goes for the study of all historical events and is hardy unique to 'Ripperology'.

But I think Trevor's main beef was that 'Ripperology' had a fixed position on Mary Kelly's heart - which 'it' obviously hasn't.
The Reid wording in that article is a bit ambiguous and can be read in different ways, but Reid's general opinion on organ removal is known anyway.

However Trevor usually rails against the reliability of newspaper reports, so shouldn't he be questioning whether or not the reporter misquoted Reid?

Did he misquote him in relation the rest of the Kelly piece ? No he didn't

There is nothing in that specific piece that relates to anything other than the Kelly murder so where you get an ambiguity from I just dont know.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Edward Stow]

Policemen - like newspaper reporters - are fallible human beings, subject to lapses in memory, getting different events mixed up together and their own preconceived notions (prejudices) reinforced on occasion by confirmation bias - as no doubt we all are.

We have to use the sources available to us and judge their reliability against others and no doubt against our own preconceived notions. This goes for the study of all historical events and is hardy unique to 'Ripperology'.

But I think Trevor's main beef was that 'Ripperology' had a fixed position on Mary Kelly's heart - which 'it' obviously hasn't.
The Reid wording in that article is a bit ambiguous and can be read in different ways, but Reid's general opinion on organ removal is known anyway.

However Trevor usually rails against the reliability of newspaper reports, so shouldn't he be questioning whether or not the reporter misquoted Reid?