Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reid : News Of The World Article April 12, 1896

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

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
    If so, then you need to rely on the independent sources, not on Reid. Because police reminiscences years after the event aren't reliable. And it's obvious that Reid's reminiscences contain many errors.

    Yes you are right they do but not all of them and as stated there is corroboration to this part of the interview.



    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
    All of that detail could have been mugged up from a scrap book.

    Why would the sum of Kelly’s rent stick in his mind and not that he twice arranged ID parades at the Tower and on both occasions the witnesses drew a blank?

    I can’t recall, did he personally take the statements from Barnett/McCarthy where the 4s 6d sum was mentioned?

    And perhaps you can remind me whether it is you or I and ‘others’ who has/have a theory about missing organs. I know I don’t.

    You are digressing I am specifically dealing with the Kelly murder which it is documented he was directly involved. I have accepted that in the NOW article he did make two minor mistakes on the Kelly murder and that shows that no one is infallible, but you and others are cherry picking the parts you accept and disregarding the other important parts which you suggest are down to memory failure


    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    But in this case there is corroboration to what Reid says that no organs were missing from Kelly from independent sources

    If so, then you need to rely on the independent sources, not on Reid. Because police reminiscences years after the event aren't reliable. And it's obvious that Reid's reminiscences contain many errors.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    From the 1896 article

    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.

    Body not bodies

    The is no mention of bodies !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    And Evans and Gainey clearly misinterpreted his comments

    What so difficult to understand ?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    "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."


    What is difficult to understand, Trevor, is why it seems to be beyond your ability to understand that 'in every instance the body was complete' makes absolutely no sense. 'Every instance', as with 'every occasion', means more than one, but Kelly only had one body. If she had five bodies, you could legitimately say that in every instances the body was complete.



    What is also difficult to understand is why you keep saying that Evans and Gainey misinterpreted their comments. They simply published an article verbatim. They didn't interpret or misinterpret anything. Go and take a look at their book. I take it that you have actually read a biography of Reid, the man in whom you place such trust?

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
    I keep telling you that I consider all the police reminiscences to be unreliable.


    You obviously don't take in at all what anyone else says.

    But in this case there is corroboration to what Reid says that no organs were missing from Kelly from independent sources


    All I can do is to keep pointing out the points that he gets right and the minor points he gets wrong, and in relation to the Kelly murder he gets more major points right than he gets wrong.


    You cant look at the article and accept what he says about some of the content and then in the same breath suggest that the most important an contentious part of the article could not possible be correct due to failing memory especially with regards to his involvement in that specific murder, and the additional corroboration which suggests he was correct about no organs being found missing from Kelly



    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    I would suggest that out of all the murders Kelly was the most memorable, so how could he forget that, and as stated if you read the NOW article he gets almost everything correct about that murder down to the most minute detail. i.e state of the room, how much she was in arrears.


    The 1912 article clearly shows that he was not suffering from the degree of failing memory you and others would have us believe.


    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    All of that detail could have been mugged up from a scrap book.

    Why would the sum of Kelly’s rent stick in his mind and not that he twice arranged ID parades at the Tower and on both occasions the witnesses drew a blank?

    I can’t recall, did he personally take the statements from Barnett/McCarthy where the 4s 6d sum was mentioned?

    And perhaps you can remind me whether it is you or I and ‘others’ who has/have a theory about missing organs. I know I don’t.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    If Reid is not regarded as a trustworthy source the same must apply to Swanson, Macgnaghten and Anderson so where does that leave us?

    I keep telling you that I consider all the police reminiscences to be unreliable.


    You obviously don't take in at all what anyone else says.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
    But he gets so much else wrong, Trevor. How can he have forgotten that PP did not pick out a soldier at the Tower? How often in his career would he have overseen an ID parade there?

    I think it’s quite likely that the bits he got right were from notes or press cuttings he accumulated at the time. Where he got things wrong it was because his memory let him down.

    I would suggest that out of all the murders Kelly was the most memorable, so how could he forget that, and as stated if you read the NOW article he gets almost everything correct about that murder down to the most minute detail. i.e state of the room, how much she was in arrears.


    The 1912 article clearly shows that he was not suffering from the degree of failing memory you and others would have us believe.


    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
    No - even if your peculiar interpretation of what the News of the World report were correct, it would mean only that he said Kelly's body was complete and didn't say anything either way about the completeness of the other bodies.


    There would still be no conflict there with the Sun report. The only conflict is between the documented facts and what Reid is reported as saying. And everyone except you (including Nick Connell) sees that as a conflict with what Reid is reported as saying in both articles, not just the Sun article.


    The point is that, as Gary says, there are so many errors in what Reid is quoted as saying in all these articles. That doesn't mean everything he says is false. But it does mean he isn't a trustworthy source and it isn't safe to rely on anything he says without independent evidence to support it.

    But thats the point there is independent corroboration to support the fact that no organs were found to be missing from Kelly. The very same sources you seek to use to negate what he says.


    If Reid is not regarded as a trustworthy source the same must apply to Swanson, Macgnaghten and Anderson so where does that leave us?


    It seems to me that researchers will accept some of what is said by the aformentioned if it suits their own theory but when it doesn't we see the rejection.


    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    If you are looking for answers perhaps the reporter took it down wrong in one of the reports because there is a clear conflict between what he said in the NOW and what he said in The Sun, and it seems all want to belive The Sun article.

    No - even if your peculiar interpretation of what's in the News of the World report were correct, it would mean only that he said Kelly's body was complete and didn't say anything either way about the completeness of the other bodies.


    There would still be no conflict there with the Sun report. The only conflict is between the documented facts and what Reid is reported as saying. And everyone except you (including Nick Connell) sees that as a conflict with what Reid is reported as saying in both articles, not just the Sun article.


    The point is that, as Gary says, there are so many errors in what Reid is quoted as saying in all these articles. That doesn't mean everything he says is false. But it does mean he isn't a trustworthy source and it isn't safe to rely on anything he says without independent evidence to support it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Well we will agree to disagree on that point.


    Because it does not make sense that 2 victims were found with organs missing at the post mortems, an important and integral part of these murders so how could he get such an important part of these murders so wrong, and in the next breath get so many minor points relating to the the Kelly murder so correct.


    If you are looking for answers perhaps the reporter took it down wrong in one of the reports because there is a clear conflict between what he said in the NOW and what he said in The Sun, and it seems all want to belive The Sun article.



    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    But he gets so much else wrong, Trevor. How can he have forgotten that PP did not pick out a soldier at the Tower? How often in his career would he have overseen an ID parade there?

    I think it’s quite likely that the bits he got right were from notes or press cuttings he accumulated at the time. Where he got things wrong it was because his memory let him down.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    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.


    Trevor:

    No, it's you who doesn't understand it.

    The first sentence refers to the Kelly murder.
    The second sentence refers to ALL of the cases...every instance of murder in the series.

    Well we will agree to disagree on that point.


    Because it does not make sense that 2 victims were found with organs missing at the post mortems, an important and integral part of these murders so how could he get such an important part of these murders so wrong, and in the next breath get so many minor points relating to the the Kelly murder so correct.


    If you are looking for answers perhaps the reporter took it down wrong in one of the reports because there is a clear conflict between what he said in the NOW and what he said in The Sun, and it seems all want to belive The Sun article.



    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Because in the NOW article and in the specific part of the interview he is only talking about the Kelly murder not any other murders and in that article he deals with all the murders separately.

    There is clearly a conflict with the two newspaper articles

    But I am not talking about the Sun article I am dealing solely with the News of the World Article in 1896 which is the topic of this thread. which is in much more detail than the Sun article as far as the Kelly murder is concerned.

    The emphasis is actually much the same in the Sun article as in the News of the World. First he denies specifically that parts of Kelly's body were taken away, and then he makes a similar statement about the murders generally:


    "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."


    In fact he writes as though he simply wasn't aware that parts of Chapman's and Eddowes's bodies were missing, and knew only that Kelly's heart was said to have been taken.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    I understand it, and let me say that Reid was not directly involved in the murders of Nichols and Chapman.but by the time the Kelly murder took place as head of Whitechapel CID you would expect him to know the full facts about the all other murders, and we know that organs were found missing from the other victims when they did the post mortems

    So for those on here to infer that he made a comment suggesting all the bodies were intact is beyond belief even he was not that out of touch.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Trevor,

    He carted Pearly Poll around London searching for the soldier she claimed Martha Tabram had been with on the night she was killed, and yet he said that none of the victims had been seen with a man on the night they were murdered.

    I’d have thought the experiences of attending three line-ups of Guardsmen would have been quite memorable.

    Gary

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    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.


    Trevor:

    No, it's you who doesn't understand it.

    The first sentence refers to the Kelly murder.
    The second sentence refers to ALL of the cases...every instance of murder in the series.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X