Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reid : News Of The World Article April 12, 1896

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

  • Howard Brown
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
    A Chivers jelly?

    Ha, Ha. Get your coat.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    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.
    A Chivers jelly?

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    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".

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    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.

    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul View Post
    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...’.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X