Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reid : News Of The World Article April 12, 1896

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

  • #46
    Presumably Reid directed them to the (wrong) Bucks Row murder spot. And that he seems not to have remembered that Tabram came between Smith and Nichols is astonishing.

    If he was anything like Fred Wensley, he would probably have kept press cuttings of the most important cases that he was involved in. The errors are probably all his, the accurate bits may not be.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by John Malcolm View Post
      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.

      It's interesting that he thought the murderer lived in the neighbourhood of Berner Street. Though he rather spoils that by immediately adding that the first murder took place in that district, and then apparently placing the graffito and the apron piece there!

      Comment


      • #48


        He's suggesting that the killer randomly walked the streets and then, at the spur of the moment when approached and solicited, he decided to murder them.
        To Join JTR Forums :
        Contact [email protected]

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
          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?
          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.

          So he goes from 1896 where he states no organs were missing from Kelly to 1901 where none of the bodies were missing organs, come on then we have the 1912 article which clearly show his memory was still as sharp as a needle.

          It is a step to far for you or other to suggest that everything that goes against the old accepted facts is a mistake, and then you all agree on the other parts which are not contentious.

          There is corroboration to this organ issue of Kellys to be found in a number of press reports from the day, are they all wrong too, surely they all cant be wrong?

          Where is the corroboration to show that all the bodies were complete if there is none that shows an error in that report either by Reid or the reporter.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Paul View Post

            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.

            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

            Comment


            • #51
              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
              What do you understand by the word ‘instance’, Trevor?

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                What do you understand by the word ‘instance’, Trevor?

                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

                Comment


                • #53
                  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.
                  To Join JTR Forums :
                  Contact [email protected]

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    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

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        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

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              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

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X