Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reid : News Of The World Article April 12, 1896

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
    I think you are benefitting from better background knowledge than I have. But nothing new there.
    I doubt that, Chris. But I really do wonder how much information about MJK's postmortem Reid would be privy to.What was the procedure in cases like this I wonder? Does anyone know? Who, officially, would have been given the precise details of the results of the postmortem on Kelly? There was no information given at Kelly's inquest on the nature of the mutilations for anyone to pick up the information there.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Paul View Post
      It never does. But ne lives in hope...
      Me too. That's those rose tinted specs of ours at work.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
        I doubt that, Chris. But I really do wonder how much information about MJK's postmortem Reid would be privy to.What was the procedure in cases like this I wonder? Does anyone know? Who, officially, would have been given the precise details of the results of the postmortem on Kelly? There was no information given at Kelly's inquest on the nature of the mutilations for anyone to pick up the information there.
        To answer your question I believe Reid attended the post mortem and from there he and others went back to Millers Court to conduct further enquiries and to examine the remains in the fireplace as to what they found we can only speculate. perhaps the remains of a burnt heart?

        So Reid was very much hands on with this specific murder.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Paul View Post
          Trevor,
          But he was that out of touch. He flat out stated that all the bodies were found intact, and if Anderson or Swanson had said it then you'd have been shouting it from the rooftops in your determination to show how unreliable they are. But because it's Reid, you are fighting tooth and claw to argue that he didn't say what he clearly did say.

          There is no disputing that in Reid's case he was unreliable, even about the Tabram investigation of which he had direct personal knowledge. You can't judge Reid just on his accuracy about Kelly, it's the totality of what he said that gives the clearest picture of the man, and the things that would have been important to him. For example, are you really sure that the missing body parts were that important back then? It's your assumption that they were, that they would have been at the forefront of Reid's mind, but if they weren't then it becomes less incomprehensible that Reid might never have taken the matter on board.

          It really all boils down to what information was given to Reid, what was important to him, and how much he remembered. Like Major Smith, he thought he was important enough to know all the facts, but what if he wasn't as well-informed as he thought. What if he wasn't interested in the medical evidence?

          Reid wrote, "Another absurd theory was that the murders were committed by a left-handed man who had seized his Victim from behind. The evidence was quite contrary to this. In the throat cutting the fiend had shown cunning. The position of the blood andthe body showed that he had stood face to face with the woman, and had slashed her throat, with his right hand from right to left, causing the blood to spurt away from him, so that he probably never had any blood stains on his clothes.”

          This was not in agreement with Dr Bond, who, in his report to Robert Anderson, concluded “All five murders were no doubt committed by the same hand. In the first four the throats appear to have been cut from left to right...All the circumstances surrounding the murders lead me to form the opinion that the women must have been lying down when murdered and in every case the throat was first cut.”

          Reid said the throat was cut from right to left and that the victim was standing, Bond said the cut was from left to right and that the victim was lying down. How conversant do you think this suggests Reid was with the medical evidence? There is evidence that suggests Bond and/or Hebbert said Kelly's heart was missing from the room. Reid's apparent ignorance of Dr Bond's conclusions has to raise a big question mark over Kelly’s heart, don't you think?
          But thats a good point because conversely Anderson, Swanson, Macnaghten. Abberline, Dew, and Smith and Dr Bond in his report to Anderson all seem to have conveninelty forgot to mention the most heinous part of these crimes the taking away of the organs by the killer, I wonder why all of these make no mention in their later ramblings. I would have expected someone when discussing the murders to sugest that the motive for thse murders could have been organ harvesting.

          You have mentioned Hebbert who was scribing for Dr Bond who prepared his report to Anderson from Hebberts notes. Hebbert scribed the heart was missing from the pericardium not that it was missing from the room.

          In fact Hebbert did not go to Millers Court with the others after the post mortem so he is of no real evidential value other than to corroborate what Bond stated, and that falls short of conclusive proof that the heart was taken away by the killer.


          With regards to the difference of opinions bewteen Reid and Bond I think Reid was quite entitled to question Bonds opinion. I did previously ask Dr Biggs to comment on the position of the killer in some of the murders given that the various doctors all gave different opinions back then.


          Q. The doctors in their reports offer opinions as to which position the killer was with the victims when carrying out the murders. Are these opinions reliable or simply guesswork?

          A. In answer to your question, it is impossible to say with certainty how the wounds were inflicted in terms of ‘reconstructing’ events from the appearance of wounds. This is something that used to be quite ‘popular’ even up until relatively late on in the 20thcentury, with pathologists stating confidently that a left-handed dwarf with a limp inflicted the injury from behind using a specific knife, etc. Nowadays it is accepted that there is so much variation that in such cases, apart from a few ‘extreme’ scenarios that can be more-or-less excluded, just about anything is possible.

          So in other words, the killer could have been behind the victim (with them both standing), or he (or she!) could have been ‘above’ the victim (kneeling, squatting, crouched, lying, stooping...) whilst she lay upon the ground (+/- prior strangling). Or it could have happened during a highly dynamic struggle, with all manners of grappling, twisting and fortuitous slashing going on. Only persons present at the time really know what went on (and we can’t ask them!), and nobody can be certain about a ‘reconstruction’ now based on photos / medical records. If several envisaged scenarios are actually ‘possible’, then nobody can argue in favour of a particular one any more than another.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • #80
            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.

            and is that convenient to say the part regarding the organs removal was an error on his part, come on give the man some credit for his rank and his direct involvement in the case !


            Was his memory failing when he gave the previous newspaper article in 1910 which Howard posted previous I dont see anyone pulling that article to pieces to prove their point.



            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
              and is that convenient to say the part regarding the organs removal was an error on his part, come on give the man some credit for his rank and his direct involvement in the case !
              I didn't say it was an error (regarding Kelly), nor would it be "convenient" for me, because I have no theory about the removal of organs, and therefore no axe to grind.

              I said that police reminiscences are unreliable. Solid contemporary evidence is what's needed.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
                I didn't say it was an error (regarding Kelly), nor would it be "convenient" for me, because I have no theory about the removal of organs, and therefore no axe to grind.

                I said that police reminiscences are unreliable. Solid contemporary evidence is what's needed.
                Well lets start with more corroboration from 1888!

                The Times 10th November


                “The latest account states upon what professes to be indisputable authority that no portion of the woman's body was taken away by the murderer. As already stated, the post-mortem examination was of the most exhaustive character, and surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for and placed as closely as possible in its natural position.”

                Times Nov 12th


                “As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church.It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination, which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case. The examination was most minutely made, and lasted upwards of 2 ½ hours after which the mutilated portions were sewn to the body,

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
                  I didn't say it was an error (regarding Kelly), nor would it be "convenient" for me, because I have no theory about the removal of organs, and therefore no axe to grind.

                  I said that police reminiscences are unreliable. Solid contemporary evidence is what's needed.

                  Well which parts do you rely on as being correct and which do you reject?


                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                    Well which parts do you rely on as being correct and which do you reject?

                    Not newspaper reports.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
                      Not newspaper reports.

                      Corroboration and not rebutted by the police it seems!


                      What would it take for you to believe then?


                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
                        I didn't say it was an error (regarding Kelly), nor would it be "convenient" for me, because I have no theory about the removal of organs, and therefore no axe to grind.

                        If you have no theory do you accpt that Reid could have been correct about no organs were missing?


                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                          If you have no theory do you accpt that Reid could have been correct about no organs were missing?

                          As far as I know there's no conclusive evidence either way in the case of Kelly.



                          But I would defer to those better acquainted with the evidence.


                          [Edit: I should have waited for someone who knew what they were talking about to reply!]

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                            But thats a good point because conversely Anderson, Swanson, Macnaghten. Abberline, Dew, and Smith and Dr Bond in his report to Anderson all seem to have conveninelty forgot to mention the most heinous part of these crimes the taking away of the organs by the killer, I wonder why all of these make no mention in their later ramblings. I would have expected someone when discussing the murders to sugest that the motive for thse murders could have been organ harvesting.

                            You have mentioned Hebbert who was scribing for Dr Bond who prepared his report to Anderson from Hebberts notes. Hebbert scribed the heart was missing from the pericardium not that it was missing from the room.

                            In fact Hebbert did not go to Millers Court with the others after the post mortem so he is of no real evidential value other than to corroborate what Bond stated, and that falls short of conclusive proof that the heart was taken away by the killer.


                            With regards to the difference of opinions bewteen Reid and Bond I think Reid was quite entitled to question Bonds opinion. I did previously ask Dr Biggs to comment on the position of the killer in some of the murders given that the various doctors all gave different opinions back then.


                            Q. The doctors in their reports offer opinions as to which position the killer was with the victims when carrying out the murders. Are these opinions reliable or simply guesswork?

                            A. In answer to your question, it is impossible to say with certainty how the wounds were inflicted in terms of ‘reconstructing’ events from the appearance of wounds. This is something that used to be quite ‘popular’ even up until relatively late on in the 20thcentury, with pathologists stating confidently that a left-handed dwarf with a limp inflicted the injury from behind using a specific knife, etc. Nowadays it is accepted that there is so much variation that in such cases, apart from a few ‘extreme’ scenarios that can be more-or-less excluded, just about anything is possible.

                            So in other words, the killer could have been behind the victim (with them both standing), or he (or she!) could have been ‘above’ the victim (kneeling, squatting, crouched, lying, stooping...) whilst she lay upon the ground (+/- prior strangling). Or it could have happened during a highly dynamic struggle, with all manners of grappling, twisting and fortuitous slashing going on. Only persons present at the time really know what went on (and we can’t ask them!), and nobody can be certain about a ‘reconstruction’ now based on photos / medical records. If several envisaged scenarios are actually ‘possible’, then nobody can argue in favour of a particular one any more than another.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Trevor,
                            If you read properly what I wrote, you'd have noticed that I raised the very point that the taking away of body parts may not have been thought ‘the most heinous part of these crimes’. I pointed out that you may regard the taking of body parts as a BIG THING, but what evidence do you have that the police back then did?

                            You wondered “...why all of these (Swanson, Anderson, and so on) make no mention in their later ramblings” - well, you tell me. There is no doubt that organs were missing, so why didn’t they mention them? Do you think it may have been because the idea had already been ridiculed when Wynne Baxter suggested it? Or maybe they didn’t mention it because they didn’t attach as much weight to it as you do.

                            If you read the stuff you were told and bothered to remember it, you would no doubt recall being told many, many times that Dr Bond and/or Dr Hebbert stated that the heart was not found in the room. It is a completely different from the observation in Bond's autopsy report that the heart was “absent” (not missing) from the pericardium. You have also been told that whilst Bond noted where other body parts were located, he did not say where the heart was.

                            What difference does it make whether Dr Hebbert went with the others to Millers Court after the post-mortem? He was present at Miller’s Court and was present when Dr Bond made his examination in situ, and he stated that the heart was missing from the room at least twice. Twice! He was there, present, a witness to the body in Millers Court, involved with Dr Bond in the examination of the body, took notes when Dr Bond conducted a post-mortem. Do you seriously expect anyone to think that isn’t evidential value?

                            Reid said the opposite to Dr Bond. He didn't question Dr Bond's concusion, he seemed not even to know it. His knowledge of the medical evidence seems negligable.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                              To answer your question I believe Reid attended the post mortem and from there he and others went back to Millers Court to conduct further enquiries and to examine the remains in the fireplace as to what they found we can only speculate. perhaps the remains of a burnt heart?

                              So Reid was very much hands on with this specific murder.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              You believe Reid attended the postmortem? Do you mean you don't know for certain?

                              But aren't there also newspaper reports (I am mentioning them only because you are using newspaper reports to supports your ideas about the heart) that state that nothing was found in the grate, no human remains?

                              You have also left out the newspaper report from the Dundee Evening paper of 17th Nov that Kelly's heart was removed and taken away. In that same newspaper report we are told that the medical men were keeping this under wraps and went on to explain the exact way that the heart was removed room the body, from below. The source was said to be a medical man present at the postmortem.

                              How do you explain that?

                              Is your suggestion that the burnt heart was found in the grate later but no one bothered to tell the medical men?

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                Well lets start with more corroboration from 1888!

                                The Times 10th November
                                “The latest account states upon what professes to be indisputable authority that no portion of the woman's body was taken away by the murderer. As already stated, the post-mortem examination was of the most exhaustive character, and surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for and placed as closely as possible in its natural position.”

                                Times Nov 12th
                                “As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church.It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination, which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case. The examination was most minutely made, and lasted upwards of 2 ½ hours after which the mutilated portions were sewn to the body,

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                The press reports do not support Reid, unless they are selectively chosen, which is what you have done, Trevor.

                                The Times 10th November 1888
                                “The latest account states upon what professes to be indisputable authority that no portion of the woman's body was taken away by the murderer."

                                The Times, 12th November 1888
                                It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination, which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case."


                                The Times, 13 November 1888
                                "Notwithstanding reports to the contrary, it is still confidently asserted that some portions of the body of the deceased woman are missing."

                                The Daily Telegraph, 13 November 1888
                                "We are enabled to state, on good authority, that notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, a portion of the bodily organs was missing. The police, and with them the divisional surgeon, have arrived at the conclusion that it is in the interest of justice not to disclose the details of the professional inquiry..”

                                Within four days of the murder the early uncertainty about whether the heart was missing seems to have solidified into acceptance that it was missing, and the press blelieved the police and doctors were witholding the information. As you will have hopefully observed, even The Times report you co confidently cite as corroboration of Reid was corrected by The Times itself!

                                You really are flogging a dead horse here, Trevor.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X