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 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

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    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
    What do you understand by the word ‘instance’, Trevor?

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied


    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Malcolm
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Thanks Rob....

    Leave a comment:


  • Rob Clack
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    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.....

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X