Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ripperologist 147 December Mary Kelly

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

  • CGP
    replied
    Phil

    Indeed. I'd class "police reminiscences" in general as the least reliable category of information that we have.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phil Carter
    replied
    Originally posted by CGP View Post
    When you say "In this instance", I assume you're using the phrase with its usual meaning of "On this occasion"?

    But unintended irony aside, is it really so hard to understand that people can make more general comments while they are talking about a particular subject? There had been reports that there were missing organs in the Kelly case. Reid not only contradicts those stories, he also says there were no missing organs on any occasion ("instance"), and that the murderer was "exclusively" interested in mutilation (rather than taking away organs). That would make absolutely no sense if Reid was aware that organs had been taken on other occasions.

    But of course, as I keep saying, we know anyway from Reid's letter to the Morning Advertiser that he mistakenly believed that no organs had been taken from any of the victims. It's pointless to argue over the wording of the News of the World article. No one is suggesting Reid did think Kelly's heart was missing. The point is that he thought all the other bodies were complete too, and he was certainly wrong about that, which means his opinion about Kelly cannot be relied on.
    Hello Chris,

    I see..If Reid a opinion cannot be relied upon..We have one heck of a problem..because that gives all and sundry the excuse to use his later quotes..that nobody had any idea who the killer was..etc..as unreliable too.

    Which would be great..If it wasn't for the fact that his later comments are regarded as reliable by the majority of the genre. The weight afforded them certainly makes the backbone of the book about him, written by SPE AND NC.

    Anderson words have been clearly shown to be unreliable. Macnagthens written words too. Abberline too. Swanson too. Smith too. The list goes on and on ..even down to Spicer. .and his words. .unreliable.

    So let's just some up exactly what Hunt the Ripper is about shall we?

    A genre..nay..an industry..has been created..and is STILL being created..on the words of a load of policemen whose comments..written or spoken..are unreliable. Because..not one single one of those intrepid policemen..However much you dress them up as heroes..have told us a clean story. We cannot rely on any one single individual.

    And that throws out every single suspect..Their stories ..One step away from the horses mouths..are even more unreliable. That includes any firm of Pole.. Jewish or otherwise..aren't barrister..stable or not..aren't doctor..capable of mind or not..anyone.

    It means that the "famous five" victim terminology is hogwash..It means. .In a nutshell..NOTHING is a trueism..and yet people in their dozens are still pumping and pimping the public out of their money based on something that is..In effect..more and more of a myth than historical fact.

    So anybody without anything substantially factual to put forward and basing their latest product on any of the above..like poor old Kosminski or Druitt. .Sickert or Lechmere...Maybrick or Maybrick. .PAV or Gull.. They are all jumping on a bandwagon based..In effect..on UNRELIABLE comment.

    Brilliant.

    Like Simon Wood wrote in his book. It is high time to stop this nonsense and start again. I share that opinion.
    It seems to me that some people are more interested in keeping the status quo going..ignore the unreliability..The falsehoods..The lies..The invention..The moving of the goalposts and the deception shown to the public year in year out..In order to keep the wheels on the bandwagon turning in THEIR direction. Just for the sake of????? What exactly?

    Now..I have answered your point with facts. Pure facts.
    Simon Woods book was pure fact..backed up by examples to show them. It shows the weakness of the whole experience extravaganza manipulated down the years by all and sundry. Especially..The police force. .then and since.

    You can't trust the word of a policeman it seems.
    Not in this game. But however unreliable it is..those words will be used as a basis for countless more products.

    Neil Bells excellent book told us the inner rules for policemen. Sadly..something is becoming very very obvious. They may have been the rules and the guidelines. .but policemen aren't exactly renowned in this historical episode..of being trustworthy..are they?

    Reid words are unreliable eh?

    Then don't dare back any other word of any of them..because if Reid is unreliable..I hate to describe Swanson. .Anderson..Macnagthen. .etc.

    No matter WHAT people write of them in glowing terms..past present or future

    This may seem like a rant..It isn't. .its a reality check. Wanna put Reid in a box and label him? Remember just exactly who else is in there...Swanson too. Remember that.


    Have a happy New Year. ☺


    Phil

    Leave a comment:


  • CGP
    replied
    Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
    My own personal opinion is that it makes no sense to me..that when clearly talking about Mary Kelly only..He would suddenly veer off in paragraph three and return specifically to talking of Kelly in the fourth.
    Therefore..as I read it..He is..In this instance, referring to the Kelly murder only. That is how I read it. 100%
    When you say "In this instance", I assume you're using the phrase with its usual meaning of "On this occasion"?

    But unintended irony aside, is it really so hard to understand that people can make more general comments while they are talking about a particular subject? There had been reports that there were missing organs in the Kelly case. Reid not only contradicts those stories, he also says there were no missing organs on any occasion ("instance"), and that the murderer was "exclusively" interested in mutilation (rather than taking away organs). That would make absolutely no sense if Reid was aware that organs had been taken on other occasions.

    But of course, as I keep saying, we know anyway from Reid's letter to the Morning Advertiser that he mistakenly believed that no organs had been taken from any of the victims. It's pointless to argue over the wording of the News of the World article. No one is suggesting Reid did think Kelly's heart was missing. The point is that he thought all the other bodies were complete too, and he was certainly wrong about that, which means his opinion about Kelly cannot be relied on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phil Carter
    replied
    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    Trev:

    There are roughly 95-100 members who log in every day.

    You know where Hangin' Judge Phillips, Debs, and I stand on the issue of the missing heart.


    Excluding these three people....is there anyone who agrees with Trevor's position that:

    1. Reid was referring only to the Kelly murder.
    2. That Kelly's heart was not missing.

    Please speak up....

    Thanks
    Hello How,

    Having given this some thought..and re read again the 4 paragraphs Trevor quotes..

    My own personal opinion is that it makes no sense to me..that when clearly talking about Mary Kelly only..He would suddenly veer off in paragraph three and return specifically to talking of Kelly in the fourth.
    Therefore..as I read it..He is..In this instance, referring to the Kelly murder only. That is how I read it. 100%

    As far as the question of the heart missing or not..There are certainly pros and cons. It is unclear, in my view..taking in ALL the sources as a whole.
    If I were to venture on to on side..I try not to fence sit, tthen my opinion is that the heart was NOT taken by the killer. I believe it was missing from its position in the body.

    Now..as to why this piece of information is so untalked of both at the time and since..I can only guess..but to me, Phillips inquest testimony and his official post mortem hold the key.
    The police specifically asked the Coroner to direct the inquest in a certain manner away from information they did not want made public.
    I have to say that one very logical thing to me is that if the heart was not taken from the room..was "somewhere"..then the killer of MJK did not follow the killer of the previous women and take organs with him. In turn..at the inquest. .someone MIGHT have suggested therefore...A different modus operandi. Such a discussion would have wanted to be avoidable.

    That information alone would cause question as to the apparently established modus operandi. .and the natural point then to ask..is...what if it was a different killer..or..as was hinted at at the time..as killer and an accomplice.

    That would raise disturbing alarm bells.

    On the balance of all the reports from all the sources I have read. .For and against..I think the withholding of evidence is the crucial point..and the heart NOT missing may...just may..have something to do with it. It sits about 55/45 in my book against.

    Just my personal opinion. Whoever it agrees with or not..that doesn't matter to me. Trevor and I disagree on various things..but he knows that I try..In my own mind..to find a logical answer..agree with him or not.

    I don't look upon this a a jousting contest. I don't put anyone down if they disagree. If people don't agree..or see my reasoning has enough validity..fair enough..I've no problem with it. I see where both sides are coming from..understand each argument..but plump..at this moment in time..For the opinion as stated above.

    Hope that helps your question. ☺


    Phil

    Leave a comment:


  • CGP
    replied
    Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
    I think in sloppy American English, "instance" could be used as I described. It may be very different in British English. Another thing to consider is a writer interviewed Reid. Possibly Reid's oral statement clarified. It is possible he was discussing great damage to the organs. Maybe some organs had been cut into more than one piece and the medical men had thought other organs were partially missing, but in every "instance" the organs were accounted for. Just a thought. Without a video tape of the interview we are not sure what Reid's actual words were or what the writer was thinking. If Reid had written the piece, edited it, submitted it, and peer reviewed it, the words would be much more important.

    How I wish we had video taped interviews from that time. I would really like to see and hear Barnett's police interview(s). Not to mention video tape of everything that went on in the Millers Court investigation. Heck, if Mary had had security cameras in her room we wouldn't have a mystery at all.
    I don't see any point in getting hung up on the wording of the News of the World article. Reid's letter to the Morning Advertiser has been known for years, and that makes it clear he didn't think there were organs missing from any of the victims' bodies.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
    Or used 'in this instance' which would have clearly made it specific to him talking about MJK.
    Yes, Debra. As it is, it is not totally clear.

    Don't get me wrong, from what I've read, I suspect the heart probably was missing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
    If Reid had used the word 'respect' instead of 'instance' the meaning would have been clear. As it is, it doesn't make sense.

    That's my two-penn'orth.
    Or used 'in this instance' which would have clearly made it specific to him talking about MJK.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    Trev:

    There are roughly 95-100 members who log in every day.

    You know where Hangin' Judge Phillips, Debs, and I stand on the issue of the missing heart.


    Excluding these three people....is there anyone who agrees with Trevor's position that:

    1. Reid was referring only to the Kelly murder.
    2. That Kelly's heart was not missing.

    Please speak up....

    Thanks
    How, l think the weight of evidence shows the heart was taken away, I do not say it definitely was. My objections to what Trevor is saying is that there is no 'old idea' about the heart being taken away, it's been a topic of discussion for years with people on both sides of the fence. I believe there was a previously un-discussed newspaper article posted here which gave an even clearer indication that the heart was taken away and that the nature of that information showed the information came from a reliable source.

    I do believe that Reid was referring to all the murders, otherwise the sentence does not make any sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anna Morris
    replied
    I think in sloppy American English, "instance" could be used as I described. It may be very different in British English. Another thing to consider is a writer interviewed Reid. Possibly Reid's oral statement clarified. It is possible he was discussing great damage to the organs. Maybe some organs had been cut into more than one piece and the medical men had thought other organs were partially missing, but in every "instance" the organs were accounted for. Just a thought. Without a video tape of the interview we are not sure what Reid's actual words were or what the writer was thinking. If Reid had written the piece, edited it, submitted it, and peer reviewed it, the words would be much more important.

    How I wish we had video taped interviews from that time. I would really like to see and hear Barnett's police interview(s). Not to mention video tape of everything that went on in the Millers Court investigation. Heck, if Mary had had security cameras in her room we wouldn't have a mystery at all.
    Last edited by Anna Morris; January 15, 2016, 03:12 PM. Reason: add

    Leave a comment:


  • CGP
    replied
    Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
    If Reid had used the word 'respect' instead of 'instance' the meaning would have been clear. As it is, it doesn't make sense.
    It doesn't make sense as a statement about a single murder. But it does as a remark about the whole series of murders, made in the course of describing Kelly's murder. And it was the same remark Reid made about the series of murders in his letter to the Morning Advertiser.

    As for the idea that the heart wasn't missing, that's not what I was describing as nonsense. There may be arguments to be made on both sides of that question (though the arguments that the heart was missing seem a lot stronger to me). I certainly don't have any vested interest in arguing that the heart was missing. I'm not trying to make money by peddling a theory, for example.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    If Reid had used the word 'respect' instead of 'instance' the meaning would have been clear. As it is, it doesn't make sense.

    That's my two-penn'orth.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anna Morris
    replied
    There are valid points on both sides of the argument so maybe the answer is not so simple as Mary's heart was missing or no, it was not missing.

    On one hand we seem to have something missing, whether body part or something else, and there is Abberline sifting ashes and medical men searching. The papers reported it was feared the Ripper had burned something in the fire.

    On the other hand we have Reid saying no body part was missing. Trevor makes a valid point that surely he would have remembered if the heart was missing, the heart with all its historic and romantic connotations. We are not talking about an appendix or one ovary, but a whole heart. While I find Reid less than accurate, a missing heart is a big thing.

    Reid cites no missing organs as a support for the killer's mania being mutilation. That makes me think of someone whose goal is vandalism pure and simple. But if said person vandalizes a building and takes a souvenir, his main goal is still destruction. One way of looking at it.

    Going back to the heart, is it possible the heart was not readily found? Could the heart have been secreted somewhere in the room or stuffed inside the mattress and only found later after the ashes were sifted, etc.? If so, that would also tell us something about the killer.

    It was said in the papers that a policeman removed a bucket covered with paper from Millers Court and that the bucket contained parts of the murdered woman. Could the heart have slipped out of the bucket? Could it have been found much later in a vehicle used to transport the body and parts? Could it even have been misplaced in the mortuary and found later?

    Is it possible only part of the heart was missing? A slice or so? There was some thought that the killer may have eaten the heart.

    The heart is very important. Was the killer saying Mary had stolen his heart? Unrequited love, even in Jack was merely a deranged stalker? Etc.

    We do not have a complete story such as, the heart was missing, a search was made and it was found in a certain place in a certain condition. Add to that the shortened inquest and our lack of medical details, and we end up with a partial story.

    I think Mary's heart is well worth considering further. Is it possible she had something like a loose brick in her fireplace where she kept a few valuables, perhaps a few coins? Could the killer have emptied this and replaced the contents with her heart? Prostitutes only love money, perhaps he would be saying. Of course this is pure fantasy on my part, however the story may be a lot bigger than her heart was missing or no, it wasn't.

    I always thought the police had an idea who was Jack at the time of Mary's murder. Perhaps they did. Perhaps he heart was temporarily missing.

    Yet another thought, if I correctly identify this line of thinking with Trevor, is about mortuary attendants taking parts. Perhaps a mortuary attendant swiped the heart for whatever reason and it was later accounted for. Maybe it was a very sick joke which was found out.

    What if her heart was missing but it became one of those controlled bits of information only the police know until the crime is solved? What if the story for public consumption was that the heart was not missing...but it really was? What if, by the time of Reid's interview, police were still thinking finding a dessicated human heart in possession of a suspect, would solve the case? Reid would have no responsibility to tell the press or anyone else the truth. Various readings indicate the human heart can remain fairly intact for many years. For example, the tale of Anne Boleyn's heart being interred in a church in Kent.

    When Reid says "in every instance", I think it refers to MJK's body, singular. I visualize a check list of body parts being reassembled. Spleen, check; liver, check; ovary, check..... Perhaps there was half a heart?

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Trev:

    There are roughly 95-100 members who log in every day.

    You know where Hangin' Judge Phillips, Debs, and I stand on the issue of the missing heart.


    Excluding these three people....is there anyone who agrees with Trevor's position that:

    1. Reid was referring only to the Kelly murder.
    2. That Kelly's heart was not missing.

    Please speak up....

    Thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • CGP
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    ... when the rest of the Forums jury come on line they will be saying the same thing as you are.
    No doubt.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X