Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ripperologist 147 December Mary Kelly

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

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by CGP View Post
    Trevor Marriott

    I'm not under any illusion that you're going to listen to reason, and probably there's no danger of anyone else being taken in by this nonsense. I probably should exercise more self-control and just ignore you, as most people do.
    But you like others cannot exercise self control because as soon as anyone posts anything that goes against the status quo, there your all are like a shoal of piranhas all swimming together ready to tear apart anything that threatens that status quo and threatens any of your own theories.

    There is no reason to continue to listen to your interpretation of what you believe Reid is saying. It is flawed it has been pointed out to you where it is flawed but you wont accept it and I am sure when the rest of the Forums jury come on line they will be saying the same thing as you are. Why is there this inherent need to keep propping up the old accepted theories when many of them do not now stand up to close scrutiny.

    You need to take another look see where the nonsense is coming from !

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • CGP
    replied
    Trevor Marriott

    I'm not under any illusion that you're going to listen to reason, and probably there's no danger of anyone else being taken in by this nonsense. I probably should exercise more self-control and just ignore you, as most people do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by CGP View Post
    "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."

    As has been pointed out several times already, the first three sentences obviously aren't referring only to Kelly's murder, as the phrase "In every instance" makes clear. And if Reid was aware that body parts had been taken in other cases, it would make no sense for him to say the mania of the murderer was "exclusively" for mutilation (rather than for the theft of body parts).

    Reid mistakenly thought no body parts had been taken from any of the victims. If the quotation in the News of the World isn't clear enough, that is confirmed by his letter to the Morning Advertiser, quoted above. So far from holding "the key to the real truth", Reid was simply wrong in his belief about the series of murders as a whole, so his opinion can't be relied on in relation to any of the murders in particular.
    I dont want to be unkind to you but might I suggest you read it again because if you believe what you wrote then you need a reality check, because no where in that article that relates to Kelly can in be remotely construed that he is talking about or referring to any other murder than that of Kelly.

    "stories of portions of the body being taken away. In every instance"

    We know that several newspaper reports relate to organs in the plural"

    "The mania of the murderer was mutilation"

    Reid knew that no organs were taken away from Kelly so he is stating the motive for the murder when continuing to discuss the murder of Kelly.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • CGP
    replied
    "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."

    As has been pointed out several times already, the first three sentences obviously aren't referring only to Kelly's murder, as the phrase "In every instance" makes clear. And if Reid was aware that body parts had been taken in other cases, it would make no sense for him to say the mania of the murderer was "exclusively" for mutilation (rather than for the theft of body parts).

    Reid mistakenly thought no body parts had been taken from any of the victims. If the quotation in the News of the World isn't clear enough, that is confirmed by his letter to the Morning Advertiser, quoted above. So far from holding "the key to the real truth", Reid was simply wrong in his belief about the series of murders as a whole, so his opinion can't be relied on in relation to any of the murders in particular.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Final Assessment

    I have returned momentarily in order to post my final assessment and evaluation regarding the missing heart issue.In doing so I have taken into account all the various newspaper articles both for and against the two arguments.

    Great play as been made about the post mortems. In the grand scheme of things it is academic whether or not there was one or more. What is important is as to what followed thereafter. The newspapers all conflict with each other on this issue so on their own they should not be relied upon to corroborate either argument. So based on those alone their is no definitive answer.

    Itis accepted that Dr Bonds report is ambiguous to say the least and again no definitive answer can gathered from this.

    It is also noticeable that after the post mortem and inquest the missing heart was never mentioned by any other Doctor other than Hibbert who was only present at the post mortem and did not go back to the house thereafter. He was Dr Phillips assistant and scribes the notes at the post mortem and later only confirms the ambiguous statement made by Bond.

    It is noticeable that following on from the post mortem and the inquest, there is no mention of the missing heart made by any of the police officers of any rank thereafter until 1896, and here, in my opinion, lies the definitive answer with D.I Reid. He was in command of H Divison CID. He attended the crime scene and was actively involved in the investigation thereafter so if anyone knew the truth I would have expected to have been him.

    As it is known he gave an interview with The News of the World in 1896. Below is part of that interview which solely relates to The Mary Kelly Murder and no reference is made to any other murders in this part of the interview.

    “This was a case in which a pretty, fair-haired, blue-eyed, youthful girl was murdered. She rented a room in a house in Dorset-street, or which she paid 4s 6d a week rent. The room was badly furnished for the reason that her class of people always pawn or sell anything decent they ever get into their
    places. The curtains to the windows were torn and one of the panes of glass was broken.

    Kelly was in arrears with her rent and one morning a man known as ‘The Indian’ who was in the employment of the landlord of the house, went round about eight o’clock to see the woman about the money. Receiving no answer to his knock at the door, he peered through the window, and through the torn curtain saw the horrible sight of the woman lying on her bed hacked to pieces and pieces of her flesh placed upon the table.

    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.”


    Since the republication of this article it has been painful to watch and see the lengths some researchers who clearly want to support the theory of the killer taking the organ will go to prop up this theory. Clearly in my opinion Reid holds the key to the real truth.

    In an attempt to water down the impact Reid’s statement now has on the missing heart issue, futile attempts have been made by some to pour water on this important part of the article by attempting to discredit Reid himself.

    It is suggested by those researchers that in later years he was forgetful, or gave the wrong facts some of which are highlighted in the full article. I fully accept that may be the case in relation to some of the anomalies highlighted in the full article, but each part of the full interview has to be carefully analysed with that in mind.

    However, when we look at this important part of the interview about the Kelly murder I have to ask what has he got wrong, where has he misled anyone? Every detail he mentions about the Kelly murder is spot on except for the time Bowyer went to Millers court. Just because he got other facts wrong about other cases he mentions in the article, does that automatically mean to say he got everything wrong about the Kelly murder?

    Why is he correct and should be believed? Because as a police officer involved in the case and having attended the crime scene, and seeing such a horrific sight, and then having to investigate that murder thereafter, you can bet your life not just with Reid but with anyone, all of that would stay firmly in anyone’s mind for the rest of their life. So when he says no body part was missing, he should be believed.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Christer Holmgren
    replied
    Originally posted by Jon Simons View Post
    Thank you for your gracious reply, Christer.

    I find that dislocating my fingers, so I can`t type, goes some of the way to controlling the beast. That and not paying the bill.

    Which revolutionary thing do you refer to ?

    You were on tv again on Christmas Day, at 16hrs. We did watch it.
    I think they may have wanted Toy Story 2 on but hey ...
    The revolution I point to is simply the Internet - that is the most revolutionizing thing that you and me are going to see in our lifetime. Nothing will open more doors than that has done, and we are still very much benefiting from it. More will come.

    Thanks for the information about the renewed sending of the docu on TV. Christmas Day, you say...? Well, Lechmere did have a beard à la Santa Claus, but I very much doubt that he had what it takes otherwise to bring a joyous X-mas. Let´s just hope that those who jumped into the docu five minutes in, did not mistake it for Toy Story 2...

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon Simons
    replied
    Apology gratefully accepted, Jon - whatever level of knowledge I have, I owe it to a lot of people, you included!
    This is a place where so very many knowledgeable and gifted people are presented with such great opportunitites to take the case forwards. It buggers me that we so often fail miserably in that respect, each and every one of us. The net is a truly two-faced beast; it brings out the worst in us at times, whilst at the same time it offers such tremendeous possibilities.
    It is so often said that the case cannot be solved unless something totally revolutionary happens. Most people fail to realize that it probably HAS happened already. The birth of the net is - as far as I´m concerned - what gave us the chance to break the case, if we can only learn how to tame the beast. I for one will not be giving crash courses on the topic, but I welcome anybody who can do it...
    Thank you for your gracious reply, Christer.

    I find that dislocating my fingers, so I can`t type, goes some of the way to controlling the beast. That and not paying the bill.

    Which revolutionary thing do you refer to ?

    You were on tv again on Christmas Day, at 16hrs. We did watch it.
    I think they may have wanted Toy Story 2 on but hey ...

    Leave a comment:


  • Anna Morris
    replied
    Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
    The police by themselves were quite capable of identifying pieces of clothing or the wire rim of a hat, or any other item of daily use.
    The important question is, why would the doctors need to be there to sift through the ashes?

    I think you might agree, the doctors have the ability to identify what they may find, in case it was beyond the knowledge of the police.

    So whether they actually found anything is immaterial, there would be no need to have doctors looking for something if the body was complete.
    Absolutely agree. Medical men looking for body part(s).

    Leave a comment:


  • Christer Holmgren
    replied
    Originally posted by Jon Simons View Post
    Sorry Christer. I apologise for that.
    We all know that it is not true, and you are one of the most knowledgeable people around (including non - suspect Ripperologists ;-)
    Apology gratefully accepted, Jon - whatever level of knowledge I have, I owe it to a lot of people, you included!
    This is a place where so very many knowledgeable and gifted people are presented with such great opportunitites to take the case forwards. It buggers me that we so often fail miserably in that respect, each and every one of us. The net is a truly two-faced beast; it brings out the worst in us at times, whilst at the same time it offers such tremendeous possibilities.
    It is so often said that the case cannot be solved unless something totally revolutionary happens. Most people fail to realize that it probably HAS happened already. The birth of the net is - as far as I´m concerned - what gave us the chance to break the case, if we can only learn how to tame the beast. I for one will not be giving crash courses on the topic, but I welcome anybody who can do it...

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon Simons
    replied
    Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
    "Strange obsessive reasons"...? Wow.
    Sorry Christer. I apologise for that.
    We all know that it is not true, and you are one of the most knowledgeable people around (including non - suspect Ripperologists ;-)

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicker Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
    One thought that comes to mind is Abberline sifted the ashes in Mary's fireplace. He testified to that at the inquest. He didn't say why he sifted the ashes. It is believed, and reported by papers, that he was looking for something it was believed the Ripper might have taken with him. If not the heart, what was he looking for?

    Clothing had been burned so we could think the question was, clothing was burned, what else? Did the Ripper burn his own clothes? Etc. Or the question might have been about a missing part of the body.

    What's the chance part of her heart was there and part was missing? Maybe Jack was a bit of a cannibal. Maybe he ate a piece of her heart.
    The police by themselves were quite capable of identifying pieces of clothing or the wire rim of a hat, or any other item of daily use.
    The important question is, why would the doctors need to be there to sift through the ashes?

    I think you might agree, the doctors have the ability to identify what they may find, in case it was beyond the knowledge of the police.

    So whether they actually found anything is immaterial, there would be no need to have doctors looking for something if the body was complete.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
    Yes. It's probably my own fault. I never learn and have this strange thing that I always seem to feel sorry for people and give them the benefit of the doubt, thinking they are capable of honest discussion.
    I want to discuss too. I suppose that's because I am interested in establishing the facts and the truth. But I should learn that sometimes there is no point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul View Post
    I must admit that I often wonder why anyone bothers to debate with Trevor. Usually one argues with people whose opinions matter. The point about asking Trevor who his many supporters are is that they don't appear here or anywhere else discussion takes place, so it is difficult to know if they exist. If his arguments persuade the innocent, then maybe there is a point in arguing with him, if he's not persuading anyone, perhaps one shouldn't bother. One can point out the facts, maybe, edge him in the right direction, but leave it at that.
    Yes. It's probably my own fault. I never learn and have this strange thing that I always seem to feel sorry for people and give them the benefit of the doubt, thinking they are capable of honest discussion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anna Morris
    replied
    The problem with arguments without new information is that those arguments go on and on and nothing is accomplished. I know what Trevor believes and though I don't agree, I cannot absolutely say he is wrong. So I keep my eyes open. I believe the overwhelming evidence is that organs were missing from the victims, and taken away by him, including Mary's heart, or part of her heart.

    Lots of times we come up against a brick wall like Debra, Gary and I did with Bridget Kelly. We could push and pull and try to make her fit at MJK, but the best thing is to keep looking for evidence.

    Knowing what Trevor believes firmly I always think of his opinion when I read about the case. Reid made too many mistakes I think, to consider him reliable. (Recently some police officials have gone online to discuss a more recent crime which had international attention. Less than two decades after the fact these investigators had forgotten a number of things that folks like us on the internet remembered. There was just too much information in the investigation for these men to remember every little bit. I am sure the same can be said of the men involved in the JtR investigations.)

    Leave a comment:


  • CGP
    replied
    Originally posted by m_w_r View Post
    There are a handful of people who are quite consciously destroying this subject ...
    I suppose that, in another sense, this sort of thing does represent a kind of tribute to Ripperology. Ad hominem mudslinging is often the resort of people who are unable or unwilling to respond to the substantive criticisms of their claims.

    But what I find really offensive is the way in which non-Ripperologists - usually the descendants of people involved in the case - are sometimes dragged into the argument and victimised by these people.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X