Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ripperologist 147 December Mary Kelly

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    So this suggestion about Reid making a mistake is a load of old pony nothing more than a smokescreen to keep the old accepted facts alive.
    Then you are really claiming that Reid was correct when he said that none of the victims had any organs missing?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      Debs

      However you want to dress your arguments up you cannot get away from a number of important ascertained facts,these being in chronological order

      Reid was present at the crime scene. He was directly involved in the case being the head of Whitechapel CID

      Newspapers state nothing was removed

      Those same newspapers ignored the later articles stating that something was removed. Why did they do that? A missing organ was much more of a news interest than one that wasn't missing surely?

      Reid later states that nothing was removed. Trust me no one would forget such a horrific crime scene and the aftermath. So this suggestion about Reid making a mistake is a load of old pony nothing more than a smokescreen to keep the old accepted facts alive.

      No police officers after the event corroborate the suggestion that the heart was removed despite many discussing the murders over the ensuing years.

      As I said previous the facts in support of the heart being found far outweigh the facts to suggest it was taken away.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      No, Trevor.
      I can show you reports that say that Coroner MacDonald and Dr Phillips were sifting through refuse/ashes and say this should be taken that an organ was missing and taken away by the killer-they go on to say that it is being kept secret what was missing. These sources directly contradict yours but are as valid. The Telegraph source is unique and given by a reliable source as stated, as shown by the knowledge of the mode of removal of the heart-something not publicised at all.
      In fact it may be the first time I've ever seen a newspaper report like it.

      Reid is an unreliable source for the reasons that Nick Connell and people like Neil, Chris and Paul continually point out to you.

      The heart was taken away.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
        Reid was present at the crime scene. He was directly involved in the case being the head of Whitechapel CID.]
        He was there, yet in 1903 wrote that the mutilations were no more than some knife slashes.

        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
        Reid later states that nothing was removed. Trust me no one would forget such a horrific crime scene and the aftermath. So this suggestion about Reid making a mistake is a load of old pony nothing more than a smokescreen to keep the old accepted facts alive.
        I agree that no one would forget such a horrific crime scene. But he did deny that the mutilations were no more than some knife slashes, so that can't be a load of old pony can it?

        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
        As I said previous the facts in support of the heart being found far outweigh the facts to suggest it was taken away.
        That's not the case, Trevor. On balance I'd say the facts support the heart being missing or that they're at least even stevens.

        Not my place to answer for Debs, which I'm not doing, but it's patently obvious that Reid would not - probably could not - have forgotten the Kelly crime scene, and knew full well that the body had been horrendously mutilated. I can only assume that for some reason he chose to play down the severity of the mutilations (even though he had hitherto acknowledged them), and I assume that it was for the same reason that he denied that any body parts were removed from anyone. One therefore cannot really escape that Reid is not to be relied upon in this instance.

        Comment


        • #49
          Hi,

          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. Put simply, the fight / flight dichotomy which we experience in practice is caused by differing responses to the same chemical stimulus (and I think there's a third option, frozen, which is my standard response to these sorts of things). I think that these individual differences between people can affect the extent to which detailed memories are formed.

          Then you have individual variations in the extent to which these memories can be accurately recalled. I think it's probably possible for person A to have a better memory encoding in general than person B, but for person B to have better memory decoding in at least some circumstances - which is a bit like saying I'd fancy Usain Bolt over 100 metres, but Mo Farah over 10,000 metres. Not everyone's the same.

          In general, though, memory isn't a videotape. When you review your memories, they're not always the same, and time is the key factor there. The bits you remember - and the bits you forget - might be influenced by all sorts of pre-existing factors, such as previous trauma, personality type, and so on. Even the best of us is not a memory machine with perfect recall.

          I think there's every chance that Reid was just incorrect about his recollections, and that, given the chance to review the data to which we're party, he might correct himself. That doesn't make him the actor in a conspiracy, or deceitful: he's just subject to the same fluctuations in memory which we all experience.

          The difference for us is that we have to assess his words on their historical merit, and clearly there are issues here. Historians have to compare sources in order to create an understanding of the past, and sometimes it isn't clear whether this was the case, or that was the case. But the process can't be selective, and one mustn't overlook data which are unfriendly to one's existing theses in order to avoid having to change one's mind. In fact, the mark of a good historian is surely the capacity to change one's mind when confronted with new data, and when that new data undermines one's previous understanding. One would have thought that the same critical thinking skills would apply equally to any work which involves making judgement about the facts, and especially to any work of that sort which occurs in the public arena, at the cost of the public, and with an adversarial court system at the distal end. I recognise that Trevor rejects history as a failed methodology, preferring his 're-investigation' model, but surely the skills involved are identical.

          Regards,

          Mark
          I bet your Ripper feels better now.

          Comment


          • #50
            Hi Mark

            I think you are exactly right about what Reid told the newspaperman. He wasn't testifying to a coroner's inquest within days after the event but telling the writer what he remembered years later. He was "reminiscing" without notes, so in a sense -- sorry, Trevor -- shooting the breeze. Interesting but not "evidence" by any means.

            Best regards

            Chris
            Christopher T. George, Lyricist & Co-Author, "Jack the Musical"
            https://www.facebook.com/JackTheMusical/ Hear sample song at https://tinyurl.com/y8h4envx.

            Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conferences, April 2016 and 2018.
            Hear RipperCon 2016 & 2018 talks at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/.

            Comment


            • #51
              The Observer, (London), 18 Nov 88, p5

              "Though the coroner prevented most of the medical evidence from coming out, it is believed that much of it will be of a curious nature. According to one report published on Friday it seems that the assassin cut the woman's heart out and carried it away, and if he did not carry away the other parts of the body, it was supposed that he was either disturbed or that he forgot them in his hurry to escape. That he cut the heart out from below instead of cutting through the diaphragm does not, as some argue, show that he is an ignorant person..."

              The Observer mentions another report mentioning the missing heart. That makes either three or two papers which mentioned it.


              Look at the date of the article... 10 days after the event !!!!!!!!!!!!!
              -Trevor Marriott-

              Look at the date of the article featuring the interview with Reid.....2,920 days after the event !
              To Join JTR Forums :
              Contact [email protected]

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Paul View Post
                He was there, yet in 1903 wrote that the mutilations were no more than some knife slashes.



                I agree that no one would forget such a horrific crime scene. But he did deny that the mutilations were no more than some knife slashes, so that can't be a load of old pony can it?



                That's not the case, Trevor. On balance I'd say the facts support the heart being missing or that they're at least even stevens.

                Not my place to answer for Debs, which I'm not doing, but it's patently obvious that Reid would not - probably could not - have forgotten the Kelly crime scene, and knew full well that the body had been horrendously mutilated. I can only assume that for some reason he chose to play down the severity of the mutilations (even though he had hitherto acknowledged them), and I assume that it was for the same reason that he denied that any body parts were removed from anyone. One therefore cannot really escape that Reid is not to be relied upon in this instance.
                Paul

                I see you are sitting on the fence as far as this is concerned which is perhaps the best place to be. However if Reid is correct, then even you must agree that the scales tip towards the heart not being taken.

                As far as Reid`s interview is concerned and the anomalies. We have to also consider that the reporter may well have written things down wrong with such a long interview. I myself can speak from experience with the press having given interviews and then later read what was printed, which at times bears no resemblance to what was actually said. I am not using that as a cop out on this topic, because I firmly believe that what he said about Kelly and nothing being taken was correct.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
                  The Observer, (London), 18 Nov 88, p5

                  "Though the coroner prevented most of the medical evidence from coming out, it is believed that much of it will be of a curious nature. According to one report published on Friday it seems that the assassin cut the woman's heart out and carried it away, and if he did not carry away the other parts of the body, it was supposed that he was either disturbed or that he forgot them in his hurry to escape. That he cut the heart out from below instead of cutting through the diaphragm does not, as some argue, show that he is an ignorant person..."

                  The Observer mentions another report mentioning the missing heart. That makes either three or two papers which mentioned it.


                  Look at the date of the article... 10 days after the event !!!!!!!!!!!!!
                  -Trevor Marriott-

                  Look at the date of the article featuring the interview with Reid.....2,920 days after the event !
                  Yes but Reid was there at the time, on the spot in Kellys room. He saw the body he was privvy to all that went on thereafter, the press weren't !!!!!!!!

                  So we have three papers saying it was missing, all of which came out 8-10 after the three that said nothing was missing, which came out at the time of the murder. As can be seen their articles do not conflict with each other so as to suggest a singular press release.

                  Did it take the authorities 10 days after finding the body to determine whether or not the heart was missing, of course it didn't.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Trev:

                    Reid was there at the time, on the spot in Kellys room. He saw the body he was privvy to all that went on thereafter, the press weren't

                    Why did you bring up the newspapers as a source for your belief in the first place ?

                    Didn't you read what Debs stated before ?
                    One thing your articles have in common, Trevor, is that they are all pre-inquest reports and follow on from the rumours that the uterus had again been taken away in this case.
                    To Join JTR Forums :
                    Contact [email protected]

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by m_w_r View Post
                      Hi,

                      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. Put simply, the fight / flight dichotomy which we experience in practice is caused by differing responses to the same chemical stimulus (and I think there's a third option, frozen, which is my standard response to these sorts of things). I think that these individual differences between people can affect the extent to which detailed memories are formed.

                      Then you have individual variations in the extent to which these memories can be accurately recalled. I think it's probably possible for person A to have a better memory encoding in general than person B, but for person B to have better memory decoding in at least some circumstances - which is a bit like saying I'd fancy Usain Bolt over 100 metres, but Mo Farah over 10,000 metres. Not everyone's the same.

                      In general, though, memory isn't a videotape. When you review your memories, they're not always the same, and time is the key factor there. The bits you remember - and the bits you forget - might be influenced by all sorts of pre-existing factors, such as previous trauma, personality type, and so on. Even the best of us is not a memory machine with perfect recall.

                      I think there's every chance that Reid was just incorrect about his recollections, and that, given the chance to review the data to which we're party, he might correct himself. That doesn't make him the actor in a conspiracy, or deceitful: he's just subject to the same fluctuations in memory which we all experience.
                      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.
                      Jon

                      "It is far more comfortable to point a finger and declare someone a devil, than to call upon your imagination to try to understand their world."


                      http://www.jlrees.co.uk



                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Thanks for reminding me to ditto that, Jon....it is a very appropriate post to the theme of the discussion, as usual, by Mark Ripper.`
                        To Join JTR Forums :
                        Contact [email protected]

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Big Jon View Post
                          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.
                          Multiple boxes, plural, in fact.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen"
                          (F. Nietzsche)

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            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.
                            "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
                                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.).
                                Jon

                                "It is far more comfortable to point a finger and declare someone a devil, than to call upon your imagination to try to understand their world."


                                http://www.jlrees.co.uk



                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X