Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reid Challenges Anderson 1910

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Who was the specific Jewish suspect from the police files in 1888, and where is the evidence to support that suspect?

    Can you really be suggesting that no one Jewish was suspected of the murders in 1888? Let alone up to February 1891, which is when Reid thought the last murder had been committed?


    It's quite unbelievable.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      Who was the specific Jewish suspect from the police files in 1888, and where is the evidence to support that suspect?


      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      What specific Jewish suspect from the police files in 1888? I never said there was one, so you tell me.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
        Who was the specific Jewish suspect from the police files in 1888, and where is the evidence to support that suspect?


        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        You also avoided answering Chris's question. I think you really should answer it:


        'But you agree the claims in that article aren't reliable about the case more generally?

        That was what I asked you about.'

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Paul View Post
          You also avoided answering Chris's question. I think you really should answer it:


          'But you agree the claims in that article aren't reliable about the case more generally?

          That was what I asked you about.'

          Yes I do accept that, but that was because Reid did not take such an active part in them, and so there is an excuse for the errors which some seem to want to use to discredit him in relation to the Kelly murder where it is fully documented as to is involvement in that murder, and that is why his memory was so good in describing everything about the Kelly murder.


          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
            Yes I do accept that, but that was because Reid did not take such an active part in them, and so there is an excuse for the errors which some seem to want to use to discredit him in relation to the Kelly murder where it is fully documented as to is involvement in that murder, and that is why his memory was so good in describing everything about the Kelly murder.


            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Trevor,

            Given that he was also involved in the Tabram murder, why do you think he would state that none of the victims were seen in the company of a man?

            Gary

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
              Trevor,

              Given that he was also involved in the Tabram murder, why do you think he would state that none of the victims were seen in the company of a man?

              Gary
              Probably because Tabram at the time she was murdered there was no serial killer in the frame, and later there is still a grave doubt as to whether or not she was a ripper victim.

              I know that those who want to prop up the old theory that the killer took away Kellys heart have and are still trying to negate what Reid says in this article and continue to attempt to muddy the waters by suggesting his memory had failed him. That cannot be so with regards to what he says about the Kelly murder.

              But the facts are that he was there at the crime scene and directly involved in the investigation and what he says in that article about the Kelly murder is in my opinion factually and evidentially correct.

              I have conceded that other parts of the article are not factually correct and have explained the reasons why this could be so.


              If you and others want to keep believing in the ambiguous statement of Dr Bond then so be it.


              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                Probably because Tabram at the time she was murdered there was no serial killer in the frame, and later there is still a grave doubt as to whether or not she was a ripper victim.

                I know that those who want to prop up the old theory that the killer took away Kellys heart have and are still trying to negate what Reid says in this article and continue to attempt to muddy the waters by suggesting his memory had failed him. That cannot be so with regards to what he says about the Kelly murder.

                But the facts are that he was there at the crime scene and directly involved in the investigation and what he says in that article about the Kelly murder is in my opinion factually and evidentially correct.

                I have conceded that other parts of the article are not factually correct and have explained the reasons why this could be so.


                If you and others want to keep believing in the ambiguous statement of Dr Bond then so be it.


                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Trevor,

                I am only concerned with Tabram here. In the article Reid speaks of 9 victims.

                Perhaps he excluded Tabram because he believed Pearly Poll’s soldier story. Or perhaps he included her and didn’t believe PP.

                Gary

                Comment


                • #23
                  Perhaps he excluded Tabram because he believed Pearly Poll’s soldier story. Or perhaps he included her and didn’t believe PP.

                  Gary...for certain, he didn't believe Poll's story. He submitted a report to Inspector West on September 24th which mentioned the fruitless effort to put Tabram and Poll together with the privates prior to the former's murder including the remark that her 'evidence' would be worthless at that point.
                  To Join JTR Forums :
                  Contact [email protected]

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Who was the specific Jewish suspect from the police files in 1888, and where is the evidence to support that suspect?

                    I waited for someone to mention it but since no one else did....

                    The first suspect named in the Case was John Pizer, who was Jewish.

                    Special Report re murder of Mary Ann Nichols 31-8-1888

                    7-9-1888 ( Excerpt which mentions Pizer):

                    'A man named 'Pizer alias Leather Apron' has been in the habit of ill-using prostitutes in various parts of the Metropolis for some time past and careful inquiries have been made to trace him, but without success. There is no evidence against him at present. Enquiries are being continued.
                    -Page 23 of The Ultimate Sourcebook-

                    You forget Leather Apron, Trevor ?
                    To Join JTR Forums :
                    Contact [email protected]

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
                      Perhaps he excluded Tabram because he believed Pearly Poll’s soldier story. Or perhaps he included her and didn’t believe PP.

                      Gary...for certain, he didn't believe Poll's story. He submitted a report to Inspector West on September 24th which mentioned the fruitless effort to put Tabram and Poll together with the privates prior to the former's murder including the remark that her 'evidence' would be worthless at that point.
                      Thanks, How.

                      But that could just have meant that having apparently picked out two wrong soldiers her evidence would have been of no use in a trial. He might still have believed her story that she and Tabram were with soldiers on the night in question. Or perhaps he felt that her timing was so far adrift from those of Killeen and PC Barrett that the soldier she described couldn’t have been the killer.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        But that could just have meant that having apparently picked out two wrong soldiers her evidence would have been of no use in a trial. He might still have believed her story that she and Tabram were with soldiers on the night in question. Or perhaps he felt that her timing was so far adrift from those of Killeen and PC Barrett that the soldier she described couldn’t have been the killer.
                        -Gary-

                        Correct, Gary...
                        To Join JTR Forums :
                        Contact [email protected]

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Amended post:

                          Reid says 'This is news, indeed" when he mentions Grainger ( The Irishman).

                          Grainger was suspected. A lengthy edition of the Pall Mall Gazette in May 1895 ( Henry Cust, Editor) illustrated the lengths the police went to in order to ascertain Grainger's whereabouts in 1888 as a result of the February 1895 assault he committed upon Alice Graham.

                          Reid compares the styles of murder Klosowski and Cream employed to those of the Whitechapel Murderer ( comparing a watchmaker to a bricklayer) which is kosher .....but then infers the killer might have been a woman.


                          Trevor:

                          You mentioned :
                          I know that those who want to prop up the old theory that the killer took away Kelly's heart have and are still trying to negate what Reid says in this article ....

                          Where does he mention the missing heart in the article ?
                          To Join JTR Forums :
                          Contact [email protected]

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                            Yes I do accept that, but that was because Reid did not take such an active part in them, and so there is an excuse for the errors which some seem to want to use to discredit him in relation to the Kelly murder where it is fully documented as to is involvement in that murder, and that is why his memory was so good in describing everything about the Kelly murder.

                            Well, obviously the question is how reliable Reid's knowledge in 1910 was about the case in general. This isn't a thread about Kelly. What was claimed was that Reid's general knowledge of the case in 1910 was so accurate that it made nonsense of Anderson's claims.


                            But on the contrary, Reid's recollection was demonstrably faulty.



                            He claimed that it was never suggested at the time of the murders that the killer was a Jew. In fact, as Howard points out, the highest-profile contemporary suspect, John Pizer, was Jewish, and he was not only suspected, but put on an identification parade and identified, albeit later cleared. More generally, there was rampant speculation in the press about whether the killer might be Jewish, and grave concern about possible anti-semitic violence in Whitechapel.


                            Reid also claimed that no man was ever seen in the company of the victims. That seems inexplicable. Even limiting it to the canonical victims, four out of the five appear to have been seen with men on the nights of their murders.


                            Elsewhere Reid claimed not only that no portion of Kelly's body was taken away, but that "Every body was found complete." And in another article, "at no time was any part of the body missing" (Connell and Evans, pp. 125, 128). Again, it's demonstrably false, and the missing body parts are something he must have been aware of at the time, if only because it was given such prominence in the press.


                            Obviously Reid's recollections were very unreliable in some respects, like the reminiscences of many of the Ripper detectives. They should all be treated with caution, whether they come from Reid, Anderson. Abberline, Swanson or whoever.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                              Yes I do accept that, but that was because Reid did not take such an active part in them, and so there is an excuse for the errors which some seem to want to use to discredit him in relation to the Kelly murder where it is fully documented as to is involvement in that murder, and that is why his memory was so good in describing everything about the Kelly murder.


                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              If I may, you have argued that Reid would have learned about the suspect when the information passed up the line of command, but here you argue that Reid may have been inaccurate about things he wasn't acively involved with. So, if he wasn't involved with the suspect, why do you suppose that he'd have been accurate about him? Especially given that he thought the murders extended to 1891 and says that no Jews suspected were suspected during the time of the murders, when clearly there were.


                              Nobody is or should be claiming that Reid's is unreliable about everything, just that his memory was clearly at fault about some things and was ignorant about others. This has to be weighed in the balance when comparing Reid's statement to those of others, especially as you admit that he probably wasn't so hot at recalling things in which he had no direct involvement.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Paul View Post
                                If I may, you have argued that Reid would have learned about the suspect when the information passed up the line of command, but here you argue that Reid may have been inaccurate about things he wasn't acively involved with. So, if he wasn't involved with the suspect, why do you suppose that he'd have been accurate about him? Especially given that he thought the murders extended to 1891 and says that no Jews suspected were suspected during the time of the murders, when clearly there were.

                                Nobody is or should be claiming that Reid's is unreliable about everything, just that his memory was clearly at fault about some things and was ignorant about others. This has to be weighed in the balance when comparing Reid's statement to those of others, especially as you admit that he probably wasn't so hot at recalling things in which he had no direct involvement.
                                I agree, but we cannot get away from the part of the interview which related to the Kelly murder, when he is able to give so much accurate information about that specific murder, and that's all we should focus on because he was in charge of Whitechapel CID at that time, he attended the crime scene and the post mortem.

                                If you or I had been directly involved in such an horrific murder do you not think all of those events would not have implanted themselves in our memory to remain there forever.

                                All other parts of that interview which are factually wrong in relation to other murders which he was not directly involved in also have to be scrutinized as to his accuracy at remembering with regards to events that he was not directly involved in.

                                But you cannot dismiss outright everything contained in that article on the grounds of the passage of time and that his memory was not as clear because of that passage of time.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X