Reid : News Of The World Article April 12, 1896

[Gary Barnett]

Haven't we been here before?
https://jtrforums.com/showthread.php...ews+world+reid

Trevor is nothing if not consistent.

[Chris Phillips]

The claim made by Connell which you seek to rely on is not correct that it is conjecture on his part. If as you say that referred to all the other victims it would have been in the plural as in "BODIES" he refers to it in the singular "BODY"

You are really trying to deny that "In every instance the body was complete" refers to all the murders, because you think that in that case grammatically it should have read "In every instance the bodies were complete"?

I think you need to seek advice from an English teacher about that.

[Trevor Marriott]

You are really trying to deny that "In every instance the body was complete" refers to all the murders, because you think that in that case grammatically it should have read "In every instance the bodies were complete"?

I think you need to seek advice from an English teacher about that.

It read as he says it "In every instance the body was complete" In the singular tense because he was talking in the singular tense at that part of the interview when discussing a singular even t i.e the singular murder of Kelly

Why would he suddenly when talking about the murder of Kelly go off on a tangent and make mention of the organs from the other victims it is you that need to consult the English teacher.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Chris Phillips]

Haven't we been here before?
https://jtrforums.com/showthread.php...ews+world+reid

Thanks for reminding me about that discussion, which I must admit I had forgotten.

So apparently Trevor's argument was that when Reid wrote - "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." - he really was referring just to Kelly, and "in every instance the body was complete" meant "the heart was complete, the liver was complete, the kidney was complete" and so on.

I have to say I think that interpretation is absurd enough in itself. But in any case it is easily disproven, because according to Connell and Evans, in a report Reid wrote for the Sun in 1901, he said "Every body was found complete." Unless Trevor is telling us that Mary Kelly had more than one body, surely that must be clear enough (The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper, p. 125).

[Trevor Marriott]

It’s also not true that the books of the barracks proved that the two soldiers Poll ID’d were ‘Indoors during the whole evening and night.’

I make that nine errors in respect of a case personally handled by Reid.

And on top of that we have Reid saying that none of the victims were seen with a man on the nights of their deaths.

Nine or possibly ten errors.

Also you’ll notice he dates Alice McKenzie’s murder to one year eight months after that of Kelly, which is out by a year.

How many times do you have to be told that Reid was not "DIRECTLY" involved in all of the murders so it has to be accepted that he may have got some of his facts wrong about them. But we are talking specifically here about one murder a murder that he was directly involved in.


Its laughable really to see the desperation in posts by those trying to give reasons why his statement about the Kelly murder should not be accepted, when we see those same dissenters readily accepting and believing without question all that is written by Swanson in the Marginalia, by Anderson in his memoirs, by Macnagten in in his memo all of which also have significant flaws


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Chris Phillips]

It read as he says it "In every instance the body was complete" In the singular tense because he was talking in the singular tense at that part of the interview when discussing a singular even t i.e the singular murder of Kelly

Why would he suddenly when talking about the murder of Kelly go off on a tangent and make mention of the organs from the other victims it is you that need to consult the English teacher.

Just think about it, in the manner of Janet and John.


John has three apples in a bag. He looks at the three apples to see whether they are good to eat. Unfortunately they are not.



What does he say to Janet?


(1) "In every instance the apple was bad"


or


(2) "In every instance the apples were bad"


?

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks for reminding me about that discussion, which I must admit I had forgotten.

So apparently Trevor's argument was that when Reid wrote - "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." - he really was referring just to Kelly, and "in every instance the body was complete" meant "the heart was complete, the liver was complete, the kidney was complete" and so on.

I have to say I think that interpretation is absurd enough in itself. But in any case it is easily disproven, because according to Connell and Evans, in a report Reid wrote for the Sun in 1901, he said "Every body was found complete." Unless Trevor is telling us that Mary Kelly had more than one body, surely that must be clear enough (The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper, p. 125).

What they stated was nothing more than conjecture on their part and if you cant see that then I would suggest a visit to specsavers. They have misled their readers.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Paul]

It read as he says it "In every instance the body was complete" In the singular tense because he was talking in the singular tense at that part of the interview when discussing a singular even t i.e the singular murder of Kelly

Why would he suddenly when talking about the murder of Kelly go off on a tangent and make mention of the organs from the other victims it is you that need to consult the English teacher.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

In "every instance" of what, Trevor?

In every instance of a Whitechapel murder the body was complete? Or what?

[Gary Barnett]

How many times do you have to be told that Reid was not "DIRECTLY" involved in all of the murders so it has to be accepted that he may have got some of his facts wrong about them. But we are talking specifically here about one murder a murder that he was directly involved in.


Its laughable really to see the desperation in posts by those trying to give reasons why his statement about the Kelly murder should not be accepted, when we see those same dissenters readily accepting and believing without question all that is written by Swanson in the Marginalia, by Anderson in his memoirs, by Macnagten in in his memo all of which also have significant flaws


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And I’m comparing it to another murder he was directly involved in. That there are 9 - possibly 10 - errors in the NOW article in respect of the Tabram case demonstrates the potential for error elsewhere.

There is just no getting away from that, Trevor.

Incidentally, I have only really commented re Tabram. You can tell me as many times as you like that Reid wasn’t directly involved in that case. Why don’t you do so now, so that we have it on record how desperate you are to refute the possibility that Reid was capable of error.

[Gary Barnett]

In "every instance" of what, Trevor?

In every instance of a Whitechapel murder the body was complete? Or what?

I think Trevor may be reading it as ‘in every respect...’.

[Chris Phillips]

What they stated was nothing more than conjecture on their part and if you cant see that then I would suggest a visit to specsavers. They have misled their readers.

Let me try to understand what you are saying.

You are saying that when Connell and Evans printed a half-page verbatim quotation of "a report [Reid] drew up for the Sun's journalist" on page 125 of their book about Reid, it was nothing more than "conjecture on their part" and they were misleading their readers, and if I can't see that there is something wrong with my eyesight?

Can you clarify that? Because it makes no sense at all to me.

Are you saying they fabricated half a page of text, or what?

[Paul]

How many times do you have to be told that Reid was not "DIRECTLY" involved in all of the murders so it has to be accepted that he may have got some of his facts wrong about them. But we are talking specifically here about one murder a murder that he was directly involved in.

Its laughable really to see the desperation in posts by those trying to give reasons why his statement about the Kelly murder should not be accepted, when we see those same dissenters readily accepting and believing without question all that is written by Swanson in the Marginalia, by Anderson in his memoirs, by Macnagten in in his memo all of which also have significant flaws

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You are letting you prejudices and fantasies to play wild and free, Trevor. Nobody here has accepted without question what Anderson, Macnaghten, and Swanson said. Everyone has analysed what they say in considerable detail, in the case of Anderson even to reading his religious and other writings, whereas you have not - you freely admitted, "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." So you are happy to prefer Reid over another source who you haven't studied! There is so much wrong about your reasoning here that it is difficult to know where to start, but it is amazig how almost everyone who has their pet theories challenged quickly falls back on accusing the critics of stupidity or bias or having a closed mind.

Secondly, as you say, Reid was not directly involved with the other murders, although he was wrong about a lot of things connected with the Tabram murder, with which he was involved. But although hewas involved in the investigation of Kelly, on what did he base his statement that there were no body parts missing? It wasn't a personal examination of the body, that's for sure. So do you think he was directly informed that all the body parts were accounted for, or did he infer it? I don't doubt that he genuinely believed nothing was missing, but Reid is wrong about so much that I think it is unsafe to prefer him over a statement apparently based on information provided by Bond and/or Hebbert: "all the organs, except the heart were found scattered about the room".

[Paul]

I think Trevor may be reading it as ‘in every respect...’.

Well, what Reid might have meant was that in every instance of a part being missing from Kelly's body, that part was found intact. But that is a rather tortuous interpretation of what seems otherwise to be a clear statement that Reid did not believe any organs were taken from anyone.

I have no problem with Mary Kelly's heart being accounted for, and I don't really understand why Trevor thinks it is such a big thing, unless he hopes to push a silly "if Reid was right about this, then Reid was right about that" sort of argument. But even while I am uncertain about the heart being missing, or rather the idea that it was taken away by the murderer, and have a mind open to arguments either way, Trevor's argument seems to be that because Reid was personally involved in the Kelly investigation, he has to be right about the heart being accounted for. But given Reid's unreliability elsewhere and the statement apparently by Bond and/or Hebbert that it was missing from the room, Trevor's case seems as wobbly as an unset jelly.

[Gary Barnett]

Well, what Reid might have meant was that in every instance of a part being missing from Kelly's body, that part was found intact. But that is a rather tortuous interpretation of what seems otherwise to be a clear statement that Reid did not believe any organs were taken from anyone.

I have no problem with Mary Kelly's heart being accounted for, and I don't really understand why Trevor thinks it is such a big thing, unless he hopes to push a silly "if Reid was right about this, then Reid was right about that" sort of argument. But even while I am uncertain about the heart being missing, or rather the idea that it was taken away by the murderer, and have a mind open to arguments either way, Trevor's argument seems to be that because Reid was personally involved in the Kelly investigation, he has to be right about the heart being accounted for. But given Reid's unreliability elsewhere and the statement apparently by Bond and/or Hebbert that it was missing from the room, Trevor's case seems as wobbly as an unset jelly.

A Chivers jelly?

[Paul]

A Chivers jelly?

Ha, Ha. Get your coat.