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 Debra Arif View Post
    and this one:
    [ATTACH]15644[/ATTACH]
    Oh dear another undated newspaper. The dates of the newspaper articles are also relevant. Those in and around the murder date which say nothing was missing. On the other side those much later that suggest an organ was missing. Which are correct ? On face value either could be correct.

    What is noticeable, and relevant in trying to establish which are correct is that if the later articles are correct, it seems all the previous papers chose to ignore this important new revelation. I wonder why? that`s not like the press is it?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


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

    First, there's no indication whatsoever that Reid's letter to the Morning Advertiser is incomplete in any way. I think it would be remarkable if the newspaper had excised part of it without indicating that fact.

    Second, Reid makes it perfectly clear in that letter what he is responding to. First he corrects errors in a pseudonymous letter that had been published by the same newspaper on 25 March. Then he responds to statements attributed to Abberline in the Pall Mall Gazette of 24 March. The specific reference to missing organs in that article related to Annie Chapman. But Reid's comment isn't specific to Chapman. He talks about the theory that "the series of murders" was the work of an expert surgeon, and in the next sentence he claims that "at no time was any part of the body missing".

    In both this letter and the News of the World article, Reid is talking about the whole series of murders, and in both cases he is demonstrably wrong.
    Thats your opinion but you need to sit down and study that letter in more detail. The reference to Chapman is a direct comparison to one of the other murder he was discussing which it would appear is either Coles or McKenzie/ Nothing to do with Eddowes.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    and this one:
    ashes.PNG

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicker Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    And please explain why they all went back to the crime scene later that day why was the need for doctors and police to go back, and what did they find ?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Where do you want me to begin?

    The ashes found in the fireplace of the room rented by the deceased woman were also submitted to a searching examination, but nothing likely to throw any light on this shocking case could be gleaned from them.
    Times, Nov. 12th.

    Nothing of any importance was discovered in the ashes at the deceased's house. A small portion only of the remains is missing,..
    Echo. Nov. 12th.

    ...and the ashes, which have been carefully sifted, reveal no traces of human burnt flesh.
    Morning Advertiser, Nov. 12th.

    the refuse had been passed through a sieve it was subjected to the closest scrutiny by the medical gentlemen. Nothing, however, was found at the examination which is likely to afford any assistance or clue to the police.
    Daily News, Nov. 12th.

    Insp. Reid was wrong, and so are you Trevor.
    It does you no good to back a horse that has been disqualified.

    Leave a comment:


  • CGP
    replied
    Trevor Marriott

    First, there's no indication whatsoever that Reid's letter to the Morning Advertiser is incomplete in any way. I think it would be remarkable if the newspaper had excised part of it without indicating that fact.

    Second, Reid makes it perfectly clear in that letter what he is responding to. First he corrects errors in a pseudonymous letter that had been published by the same newspaper on 25 March. Then he responds to statements attributed to Abberline in the Pall Mall Gazette of 24 March. The specific reference to missing organs in that article related to Annie Chapman. But Reid's comment isn't specific to Chapman. He talks about the theory that "the series of murders" was the work of an expert surgeon, and in the next sentence he claims that "at no time was any part of the body missing".

    In both this letter and the News of the World article, Reid is talking about the whole series of murders, and in both cases he is demonstrably wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Wasn't the Morning Advertiser 1903 ? which I have decimated, and the NOW article 1896 ? big difference 1896 is nearer to 1888 than 1903 if my maths are correct ! that makes a 15 year gap does it not?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Sorry, Trevor, but where have you decimated the 1903 Morning Advertiser letter? If you mean your post a few posts back, I'm afraid that I can't see where you have even scratched that letter, let alone decimated it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Trevor:

    You got the math correct but the thread is based on the mistakes Reid made in the 1896 article. In and of themselves, they aren't earth shaking gaffes....but for people who believe that nothing the police say should be taken as accurate or for those who cherry pick what police have said and in doing so unwisely choose the wrong cherry to pick ( as in this case about Mary Kelly's missing heart)...they're goalpost moving revelations.
    You're certainly free to believe you've 'decimated' the NOTW article...but I don't believe that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
    Ambiguous?
    My guess Trevor is, that you have not payed sufficient attention to what Bond actually wrote.

    Lets quote Bond's terminology:
    - The whole of the surface of the abdomen & thighs was removed...
    - The breasts were removed by more or less circular incisions...
    - ..the nose, cheeks, eyebrows & ears being partly removed...
    - The skin and tissues of the abdomen from the costal arch to the pubes were removed in three large flaps...

    Why does Bond use the term "removed"?

    His notes do indicate why.
    Bond used "removed" because these parts that were removed from their normal location in/on the body were found in the room.

    "The viscera were found in various parts viz; the uterus & kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right foot, the liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side & the spleen by the left side of the body".

    "The heart absent"
    , was not removed, as the heart was not found in the room.

    Not after Bond's initial post-mortem on Friday afternoon between 2-4:00pm, nor on Saturday morning at the official autopsy between 7:30-10:00am at the mortuary.
    So from that we know the heart was also not transported from Millers Court in that pail of body parts delivered to Dr. Phillips.

    At some point on Saturday afternoon, we read in the press:
    "Some portions of the body are missing, and, says an Echo reporter, writing at two o'clock this afternoon, Dr. Phillips and Dr. Bond, accompanied by Inspector Moor, Inspector Abberline, and Inspector Reid, are again paying a visit to Miller's-court, in order to examine the ashes found in the grate, as it is thought small parts of the body may have been burnt."

    We can therefore take it that Dr. Bond only compiled his report for Anderson later in the day on Saturday.
    After the doctors had exhausted all means to find the missing organ.

    "Absent", means not found, whereas "removed" means the organ was found, but away from the body.
    How could this be any simpler Trevor?
    Well then we will agree to disagree. But perhaps you should know the definition of ambiguous.

    "open to more than one interpretation; not having one obvious meaning"

    And please explain why they all went back to the crime scene later that day why was the need for doctors and police to go back, and what did they find ?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicker Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    When are you and others on here going to accept that statement was ambiguous. It came after the initial post mortem.
    Ambiguous?
    My guess Trevor is, that you have not payed sufficient attention to what Bond actually wrote.

    Lets quote Bond's terminology:
    - The whole of the surface of the abdomen & thighs was removed...
    - The breasts were removed by more or less circular incisions...
    - ..the nose, cheeks, eyebrows & ears being partly removed...
    - The skin and tissues of the abdomen from the costal arch to the pubes were removed in three large flaps...

    Why does Bond use the term "removed"?

    His notes do indicate why.
    Bond used "removed" because these parts that were removed from their normal location in/on the body were found in the room.

    "The viscera were found in various parts viz; the uterus & kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right foot, the liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side & the spleen by the left side of the body".

    "The heart absent"
    , was not removed, as the heart was not found in the room.

    Not after Bond's initial post-mortem on Friday afternoon between 2-4:00pm, nor on Saturday morning at the official autopsy between 7:30-10:00am at the mortuary.
    So from that we know the heart was also not transported from Millers Court in that pail of body parts delivered to Dr. Phillips.

    At some point on Saturday afternoon, we read in the press:
    "Some portions of the body are missing, and, says an Echo reporter, writing at two o'clock this afternoon, Dr. Phillips and Dr. Bond, accompanied by Inspector Moor, Inspector Abberline, and Inspector Reid, are again paying a visit to Miller's-court, in order to examine the ashes found in the grate, as it is thought small parts of the body may have been burnt."

    We can therefore take it that Dr. Bond only compiled his report for Anderson later in the day on Saturday.
    After the doctors had exhausted all means to find the missing organ.

    "Absent", means not found, whereas "removed" means the organ was found, but away from the body.
    How could this be any simpler Trevor?

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    Yes he may have become a little forgetful or slightly confused in later years, everyone does, but for someone to have seen the horrific Kelly crime scene and been directly involved in he investigation and what went on thereafter all of that would remain firmly planted in anyone`s mind let alone and experienced police officer at the time beggars belief when feeble attempts are made to negate what is an important statement,which if correct, and I have no reason to believe it is not, kicks another big hole in this Ripper mystery and the old accepted facts.
    -Trevor Marriott-

    For Chrissakes, the interview was less than 8 years after the murders. You make it sound like it was 25-30 years after his retirement.
    Reid's remarks don't kick a hole in anything.
    Wasn't the Morning Advertiser 1903 ? which I have decimated, and the NOW article 1896 ? big difference 1896 is nearer to 1888 than 1903 if my maths are correct ! that makes a 15 year gap does it not?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Yes he may have become a little forgetful or slightly confused in later years, everyone does, but for someone to have seen the horrific Kelly crime scene and been directly involved in he investigation and what went on thereafter all of that would remain firmly planted in anyone`s mind let alone and experienced police officer at the time beggars belief when feeble attempts are made to negate what is an important statement,which if correct, and I have no reason to believe it is not, kicks another big hole in this Ripper mystery and the old accepted facts.
    -Trevor Marriott-

    For Chrissakes, the interview was less than 8 years after the murders. You make it sound like it was 25-30 years after his retirement.
    Reid's remarks don't kick a hole in anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by CGP View Post
    No - that quotation came from the Morning Advertiser in 1903. It's the one I referred to earlier in the discussion, which was printed by Connell and Evans, and can be found here:
    http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...53&postcount=3

    I meant to add that it was in a letter written to the newspaper by Reid, not from a report, so Reid is not likely to have been misquoted, as Trevor Marriott suggested.
    You need to look at the contents, firstly that article was transposed from the original letter so we have no way of knowing if it was the full contents or it had been edited.

    Looking at the contents, it all seems out of context, but that could be due to a number of factors. He starts off by talking about the Frances Coles murder the date of which he gets spot on. Then if the article is correct then digresses to talk about Mitre Square.

    He then goes onto mention Dr Phillips and the statement that no body part was missing. Now the question is which murder is he referring to at this point. Reid was not involved in the Coles murder nor the Eddowes murder.

    He mentions slashes to the body.The wounds on the body of Mckenzie had nothing more than scratches to the body and no organ missing. Insp Reid attended this crime scene as did Dr Phillips and was involved in the investigation.

    So in this article I would suggest Reid was at that point still talking about the McKenzie murder with regards to no organs missing and scratches to the body, and not referring to Eddowes as some suggest.

    So I see no confusion because the 1896 newspaper article which is the topic of this thred is firmly in the correct context where he says when talking about the Kelly murder :

    "I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue"

    Yes he may have become a little forgetful or slightly confused in later years, everyone does, but for someone to have seen the horrific Kelly crime scene and been directly involved in he investigation and what went on thereafter all of that would remain firmly planted in anyone`s mind let alone and experienced police officer at the time beggars belief when feeble attempts are made to negate what is an important statement,which if correct, and I have no reason to believe it is not, kicks another big hole in this Ripper mystery and the old accepted facts.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by CGP View Post
    No - that quotation came from the Morning Advertiser in 1903. It's the one I referred to earlier in the discussion, which was printed by Connell and Evans, and can be found here:
    http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...53&postcount=3

    I meant to add that it was in a letter written to the newspaper by Reid, not from a report, so Reid is not likely to have been misquoted, as Trevor Marriott suggested.
    Post withdrawn unfinished reply
    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; January 3, 2016, 01:26 PM. Reason: Unfinished reply

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Thanks Chris,.....I thought it was from the NOTW article.

    Leave a comment:


  • CGP
    replied
    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    Chris...all

    There's a problem with that last line you quoted, CGP.

    "Again, the late Dr Phillips, police surgeon, were he alive now, would tell you that at no time was any part of the body missing."


    Phillips was alive at the time of the interview. He died on October 27, 1897.
    This interview was conducted on April 12, 1896
    No - that quotation came from the Morning Advertiser in 1903. It's the one I referred to earlier in the discussion, which was printed by Connell and Evans, and can be found here:
    http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...53&postcount=3

    I meant to add that it was in a letter written to the newspaper by Reid, not from a report, so Reid is not likely to have been misquoted, as Trevor Marriott suggested.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X