Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reid Challenges Anderson 1910

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    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

    There's nothing much in what you have written to disagree with, Trevor, but unfortunately nothing much of what you've written has a bearing on the subject of this thread, which is what Reid said about Anderson’s claims. Reid may well have been accurate about things with which he was personally involved, but he was demonstrably wrong about other things he said. Nobody is trying to dismiss everything Reid said, least of all me, but in this case what Reid wrote about the Kelly doesnt have much relevance.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Paul View Post
      There's nothing much in what you have written to disagree with, Trevor, but unfortunately nothing much of what you've written has a bearing on the subject of this thread, which is what Reid said about Andersonís claims. Reid may well have been accurate about things with which he was personally involved, but he was demonstrably wrong about other things he said. Nobody is trying to dismiss everything Reid said, least of all me, but in this case what Reid wrote about the Kelly doesnt have much relevance.

      Then I apologise for hi jacking this thread. But in my opinion Reid is one of the most important and genuine police officers who were part of this investigation and so what he says has to be respected.


      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
        Then I apologise for hi jacking this thread. But in my opinion Reid is one of the most important and genuine police officers who were part of this investigation and so what he says has to be respected.


        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        So who might his 9 have been?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
          So who might his 9 have been?

          I didnt get a chance to ask him


          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
            Then I apologise for hi jacking this thread. But in my opinion Reid is one of the most important and genuine police officers who were part of this investigation and so what he says has to be respected.


            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            I completely agree that what Reid says has to be respected, but that shouldn't blind us to the fact that he's not always reliable, as you have acknowledged, and his pronouncements should not automatically be preferred to other commentators.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
              I didnt get a chance to ask him


              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              Missed him by a couple of weeks, I imagine.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Paul View Post
                I completely agree that what Reid says has to be respected, but that shouldn't blind us to the fact that he's not always reliable, as you have acknowledged, and his pronouncements should not automatically be preferred to other commentators.
                But will aspects of this Ripper case its all about proving or disproving whether it be witness statements, or press reports, or in this case press interviews with some of the main officers involved in the case.

                Now I hate to keep referring to the old accepted facts surrounding these murders but lets just say Reid was correct and that the killer did not remove the heart, where would that leave us in the grand scheme of things with the old accepted facts as far as organ removals are concerned

                It for one would certainly bring into question the organ removals from Chapman and Eddowes and question the whole accepted scenario that the killer removed the organs from those other two victims.

                I would also beg the question why were the removal of the victims organs never referred to in any great detail in either police reports of the day, and then the memoirs, and interviews with police officers in later years.

                Did they know something that they didnt want the press to find out about,perhaps that the organs from two victims had been taken from under their noses.

                You are fully aware of the activities of body dealers and their acquisition of body parts at the time of these murders via Elizabeth Hurrens books on that very topic.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                  So who might his 9 have been?

                  Reid thought Coles was the last. If I understand correctly Connell and Evans reckon his nine were probably the canonical five plus Smith, Tabram, McKenzie and Coles.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
                    Reid thought Coles was the last. If I understand correctly Connell and Evans reckon his nine were probably the canonical five plus Smith, Tabram, McKenzie and Coles.
                    The problem is that the police back then, and like us today can only speculate as to how many of those murders were committed by the same person.

                    However, the main front sheet from the Scotland Yard Ripper file has all the murders including Smith all under the category of The Whitechapel Murders.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    Attached Files

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      It looks like that list was compiled after Mckenzie. The TOD for Tabram is in a range beginning with Pearly Pollís 11.45 pm timing of when she and Martha parted. So presumably someone still thought Pollís evidence had validity in 1889-91. And Reid had personally conducted Poll to the Guardsí barracks in search of her corporal. So it seems rather odd that he should say Ďno man was ever seen in the company of the women who were found dead.í Can he possibly have forgotten Pearly Poll? Or, as How suggested, had he discounted her evidence altogether?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                        The problem is that the police back then, and like us today can only speculate as to how many of those murders were committed by the same person.

                        However, the main front sheet from the Scotland Yard Ripper file has all the murders including Smith all under the category of The Whitechapel Murders.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk



                        Why do you think that is the main front sheet from the Whitechapel Murders file?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                          But will aspects of this Ripper case its all about proving or disproving whether it be witness statements, or press reports, or in this case press interviews with some of the main officers involved in the case.

                          Now I hate to keep referring to the old accepted facts surrounding these murders but lets just say Reid was correct and that the killer did not remove the heart, where would that leave us in the grand scheme of things with the old accepted facts as far as organ removals are concerned

                          It for one would certainly bring into question the organ removals from Chapman and Eddowes and question the whole accepted scenario that the killer removed the organs from those other two victims.

                          I would also beg the question why were the removal of the victims organs never referred to in any great detail in either police reports of the day, and then the memoirs, and interviews with police officers in later years.

                          Did they know something that they didnt want the press to find out about,perhaps that the organs from two victims had been taken from under their noses.

                          You are fully aware of the activities of body dealers and their acquisition of body parts at the time of these murders via Elizabeth Hurrens books on that very topic.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          If we do say for arguments sake that Reid was correct and Kelly's heart wasn't missing, then that would very likely cause us to look at and perhaps reconsider other things. But reconsidering is what is going on here: you appeared to argue that Reid's supposed reliability negated what Anderson said, but it has been shown that Reid wasn't reliable, certainly about things beyond his personal experience. Don't you think you should be dealing with the implications of that before switching to a different topic?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                            The problem is that the police back then, and like us today can only speculate as to how many of those murders were committed by the same person.

                            However, the main front sheet from the Scotland Yard Ripper file has all the murders including Smith all under the category of The Whitechapel Murders.

                            I think you'll find that document came from the Swanson family.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
                              I think you'll find that document came from the Swanson family.

                              Indeed it did.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Paul View Post
                                If we do say for arguments sake that Reid was correct and Kelly's heart wasn't missing, then that would very likely cause us to look at and perhaps reconsider other things. But reconsidering is what is going on here: you appeared to argue that Reid's supposed reliability negated what Anderson said, but it has been shown that Reid wasn't reliable, certainly about things beyond his personal experience. Don't you think you should be dealing with the implications of that before switching to a different topic?

                                Reid publicly called Anderson out. From what is known I didnt see Anderson rebutting Reids claims with any proof.


                                And I have not studied Anderson in any great detail to comment further on him. I will let those better equipped than me to show the flaws in the things Anderson said and did which questions his integrity.



                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X