Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reid : News Of The World Article April 12, 1896

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Paul View Post
    Ha, Ha. Get your coat.
    I’ll do a Gandhi and get mahatma coat.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
      I’ll do a Gandhi and get mahatma coat.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
        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

        I do need a trip to Specsavers, Trevor, but only because a lense has fallen out of a spare pair of glasses and I need to get them fixed. However, I have taken a look at Stewart and Nick's book and I can't see where they are conjecturing. Can you point it out? Nor do I understand how they've misled their readers. Read wrote, "Every body was found complete." Even if Reid meant "everybody", the meaning is still that no body parts were missing from any victim. It's very hard to see where you are coming from on this.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Paul View Post
          I do need a trip to Specsavers, Trevor, but only because a lense has fallen out of a spare pair of glasses and I need to get them fixed. However, I have taken a look at Stewart and Nick's book and I can't see where they are conjecturing. Can you point it out? Nor do I understand how they've misled their readers. Read wrote, "Every body was found complete." Even if Reid meant "everybody", the meaning is still that no body parts were missing from any victim. It's very hard to see where you are coming from on this.

          I am not prepared to keep repeating myself on this issue. It is quiet clear that they interpret the statement made by Reid with regards to the fact that no organs were missing as conjecture. He refers to the body and makes no mention of bodies which you would expect if he were referring to the others.

          In that part of the interview Reid is talking solely about Kelly at no time during that part of the interview does he make any mention of any of the other murders so for him as is being suggested to suddenly announce a statement which is being wrongly interpreted as relating to all the murders beggars belief, and only goes to show the desperation to prop up the old accepted facts by whatever means possible.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Paul View Post
            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.

            Do you not think that after attending and dealing with such an horrific murder would not result in all of that being firmly fixed in his mind? because it would me and I am sure many others if they were faced with that scenario.


            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
              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?

              I am saying that the part in question is conjecture because they infer as do others now that he was talking about other bodies, and that was not the case nor is there any evidence in that part of the article to show he was.



              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • #37
                In the space of three paragraphs at the beginning of the article ( first column)....Reid makes some mistakes.



                One : She encountered three men, not one as Reid states. Her testimony.

                Two: That she could give no description of 'the man'. Again, Reid was wrong.


                That she gave no outcry after having a pointed stick/iron bar/swordstick up her vagina is preposterous.
                To Join JTR Forums :
                Contact [email protected]

                Comment


                • #38
                  Here's another one from Reid...the following paragraph :



                  That the murderer was a man ( again, Smith was assaulted by three males) is only an inference.....
                  To Join JTR Forums :
                  Contact [email protected]

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                    I am not prepared to keep repeating myself on this issue. It is quiet clear that they interpret the statement made by Reid with regards to the fact that no organs were missing as conjecture. He refers to the body and makes no mention of bodies which you would expect if he were referring to the others.

                    In that part of the interview Reid is talking solely about Kelly at no time during that part of the interview does he make any mention of any of the other murders so for him as is being suggested to suddenly announce a statement which is being wrongly interpreted as relating to all the murders beggars belief, and only goes to show the desperation to prop up the old accepted facts by whatever means possible.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Nobody is propping up old accepted facts, Trevor. They don't have to. "Old accepted facts" are facts that have stood the test of time. They don't have to be "propped up", they stand up perfectly well on their own. And you are a very long way from being the first person to question these facts, and given that many of those who have questioned them are knowledgeable and intelligent and don't share your point of view, a more modest man might question why they are almost alone in these sorts of discussions.

                    This isn't about what Evans and Gainey interpret. Don't you understand that? It is a direct quote of what Reid wrote:
                    "It is said that in the case of the woman Kelly that portions of the body were carried away. This was not true. Every body was found complete."

                    Why would anyone expect to find mention of other bodies? Reid stated that it was not true that portions of Kelly's body were carried away, and he underlind this by saying that every body was found complete. That's not interpretation, Trevor, it's what Reid wrote!

                    Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean you can re-interpret Reid's words to mean something you find more acceptable. You don't have to repeat yourself. It's not going to change what Reid said.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                      I am saying that the part in question is conjecture because they infer as do others now that he was talking about other bodies, and that was not the case nor is there any evidence in that part of the article to show he was.

                      Just read and try to understand.

                      I am quoting an article quoted verbatim by Connell and Evans, and described by them as a report Reid wrote for the Sun in 1901. It says "Every body was found complete."

                      Do you understand? According to Connell and Evans that is quotation from what Reid wrote for the Sun. Not written by Connell. Not written by Evans. Not inference. Not conjecture. A quotation from Reid himself.

                      How can Reid be talking about only Kelly's body, when he refers to "Every body"? How many bodies do you think Mary Kelly had?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                        Do you not think that after attending and dealing with such an horrific murder would not result in all of that being firmly fixed in his mind? because it would me and I am sure many others if they were faced with that scenario.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        You have already asked me that question and I have answered you. Maybe it would help everyone, you included, if you started reading replies and taking them on board.


                        I'm absolutely certain that the details of that murder would have been firmly stuck in Reid's mind, but he didn't make the medical examination on site and he didn't perform the autopsy, but Bond and Hebbert did, and Bond's "inventory" of where body parts were found didn't include the heart, and information apparently provided by Bond and/or Hebbert stated that the heart had been removed from the room. So we have to weigh one statement against the other, and given Reid's unreliability elsewhere, placing one's faith that Reid accurately recalled something outside his direct personal experience. It isn't a matter of not remembering, it's a matter of whether he actually knew in the first place.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Just to underline how unreliable Reid was, here is the exciting story he told in this article about the murder of Frances Coles:

                          "A young constable, a Cornwall man, who had been a miner, and who had been in the force only six weeks, was on duty near the place, and hearing footsteps retreating rapidly as he entered the archway he ran forward in the direction of the sound. He stumbled over something lying on the ground, and on turning his light on to it found a woman with her throat cut and bleeding. Her eyes and lips were moving. The woman was just expiring. The policeman’s arrival at the entrance to the archway had disturbed the Ripper but a moment too late. However, he darted forward in the direction of the running footsteps, still to be heard. It was so dark he could see nothing. Yet he continued to run on, and was gaining on the sound when the pursued steps suddenly became silent.
                          The officer turned on his light and searched in every possible direction round the spot where the footsteps had ceased, but he could find no one."


                          Unfortunately most of this is sheer fantasy. The inquest evidence makes it clear that there were no "running footsteps" - only what "sounded like a person walking at an ordinary rate" - nothing that excited PC Thompson's suspicion before his discovery of the body, no attempted pursuit either before or after the discovery, no sudden silence and no torchlight search for the killer.
                          https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../18910216.html

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Hopefully this will be a bit easier to read:

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	01The New of the World Sunday 12 April 1896.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	279.1 KB
ID:	561336
                            Click image for larger version

Name:	02The New of the World Sunday 12 April 1896.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	213.7 KB
ID:	561337
                            Click image for larger version

Name:	03The New of the World Sunday 12 April 1896.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	163.8 KB
ID:	561338

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Thanks Rob....
                              To Join JTR Forums :
                              Contact [email protected]

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Is this not the best near-contemporary article/interview involving a policeman regarding the murders? Yes, it's full of questionable assertions, but there are so many little bits that warrant further discussion - not just pertaining to the current arguments. I'm embarrassed to say I missed the article by Nick Connell in Ripperologist. I've got some more homework to do.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X