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
    Author & Researcher

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
    Thanks for reminding me about that discussion, which I must admit I had forgotten.

    So apparently Trevor's argument was that when Reid wrote - "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. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation." - he really was referring just to Kelly, and "in every instance the body was complete" meant "the heart was complete, the liver was complete, the kidney was complete" and so on.

    I have to say I think that interpretation is absurd enough in itself. But in any case it is easily disproven, because according to Connell and Evans, in a report Reid wrote for the Sun in 1901, he said "Every body was found complete." Unless Trevor is telling us that Mary Kelly had more than one body, surely that must be clear enough (The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper, p. 125).

    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

    Leave a comment:

  • Chris Phillips
    Researcher-Administrator

  • Chris Phillips
    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.

    Just think about it, in the manner of Janet and John.


    John has three apples in a bag. He looks at the three apples to see whether they are good to eat. Unfortunately they are not.



    What does he say to Janet?


    (1) "In every instance the apple was bad"


    or


    (2) "In every instance the apples were bad"


    ?

    Leave a comment:

  • Trevor Marriott
    Author & Researcher

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
    It’s also not true that the books of the barracks proved that the two soldiers Poll ID’d were ‘Indoors during the whole evening and night.’

    I make that nine errors in respect of a case personally handled by Reid.

    And on top of that we have Reid saying that none of the victims were seen with a man on the nights of their deaths.

    Nine or possibly ten errors.

    Also you’ll notice he dates Alice McKenzie’s murder to one year eight months after that of Kelly, which is out by a year.

    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

    Leave a comment:

  • Chris Phillips
    Researcher-Administrator

  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
    Thanks for reminding me about that discussion, which I must admit I had forgotten.

    So apparently Trevor's argument was that when Reid wrote - "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. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation." - he really was referring just to Kelly, and "in every instance the body was complete" meant "the heart was complete, the liver was complete, the kidney was complete" and so on.

    I have to say I think that interpretation is absurd enough in itself. But in any case it is easily disproven, because according to Connell and Evans, in a report Reid wrote for the Sun in 1901, he said "Every body was found complete." Unless Trevor is telling us that Mary Kelly had more than one body, surely that must be clear enough (The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper, p. 125).

    Leave a comment:

  • Trevor Marriott
    Author & Researcher

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
    You are really trying to deny that "In every instance the body was complete" refers to all the murders, because you think that in that case grammatically it should have read "In every instance the bodies were complete"?

    I think you need to seek advice from an English teacher about that.

    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

    Leave a comment:

  • Chris Phillips
    Researcher-Administrator

  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    The claim made by Connell which you seek to rely on is not correct that it is conjecture on his part. If as you say that referred to all the other victims it would have been in the plural as in "BODIES" he refers to it in the singular "BODY"
    You are really trying to deny that "In every instance the body was complete" refers to all the murders, because you think that in that case grammatically it should have read "In every instance the bodies were complete"?

    I think you need to seek advice from an English teacher about that.

    Leave a comment:

  • Gary Barnett
    Rambler

  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
    Trevor is nothing if not consistent.

    Leave a comment:

  • Gary Barnett
    Rambler

  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
    Here he claims that Tabran, as he calls her, had her throat cut; that her wounds (plural) had been caused by a bayonet; that it was the corporal whom she went off with; that Poll picked out a soldier at the Tower; and that the soldiers at the Tower were Coldstreamers. He also seems confused about the order of the murders, describing the Bucks Row murder as the next after that of Emma Smith, whose lodgings he says were in George Yard.
    It’s also not true that the books of the barracks proved that the two soldiers Poll ID’d were ‘Indoors during the whole evening and night.’

    I make that nine errors in respect of a case personally handled by Reid.

    And on top of that we have Reid saying that none of the victims were seen with a man on the nights of their deaths.

    Nine or possibly ten errors.

    Also you’ll notice he dates Alice McKenzie’s murder to one year eight months after that of Kelly, which is out by a year.

    Leave a comment:

  • Debra Arif
    Registered User

  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Haven't we been here before?
    https://jtrforums.com/showthread.php...ews+world+reid

    Leave a comment:

  • Trevor Marriott
    Author & Researcher

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
    Nick Connell is obviously the person who has researched Reid most thoroughly. I can't imagine all that work was motivated by a desire to dismiss what Reid said without proper consideration.

    Connell's assessment of this article is:

    "As in other interviews given by Reid on the Whitechapel murders, this contains glaring and obvious errors, including getting the year of the Mitre Square murder wrong, saying that Emma Smith was killed by one man when she had described three attackers, claiming that no body parts had been removed and saying that nobody saw a man with any of the victims on the nights they were killed are just a few examples.
    ...
    It is perplexing to read the remarks of a police officer who had worked so closely on the Whitechapel murders investigation for so long, making numerous errors just a few years after the crimes had been committed. Yet on other occasions Reid was accurate, such as still being able to remember exactly how much weekly rent Mary Kelly had to pay. Disappointingly, Edmund Reid has not proved to be the most reliable source on the subject of the Whitechapel murders. However, his ultimate conclusion that the identity of Jack the Ripper was not known is entirely reasonable."

    Regarding the body parts, although he says it while discussing the Kelly murder, his claim relates to all the murders: "In every instance the body was complete." Whatever theories people may have about where the missing body parts went, that statement is not accurate,
    As I have stated before Reid was not as directly involved in some of the other murders as he was with the Kelly murder and so for him to accurately relay verbatim all the events and all the evidence gathering process that happened 20 years previous without any errors would have been a feat in itself.

    The claim made by Connell which you seek to rely on is not correct that it is conjecture on his part. If as you say that referred to all the other victims it would have been in the plural as in "BODIES" he refers to it in the singular "BODY"

    However Reid was directly involved in the Kelly murder and so one would expect his recollection to be that much clearer especially on some of the major aspects of the case. I have set out below the extract relating to the Kelly murder

    “This was a case in which a pretty, fair-haired, blue-eyed, youthful girl was murdered. (A pretty good description of Kelly)

    "She rented a room in a house in Dorset-street, or which she paid 4s 6d a week rent"( Totally correct)


    The room was badly furnished for the reason that her class of people always pawn or sell anything decent they ever get into their places. The curtains to the windows were torn and one of the panes of glass was broken. (Again totally accurate)

    Kelly was in arrears with her rent (Correct)

    and one morning a man known as ‘The Indian’, (Thomas Bowyer was known as the Indian)


    who was in the employment of the landlord of the house,(correct)

    went round about eight o’clock to see the woman about the money.
    (He does get the time wrong it was 10.45am)

    Receiving no answer to his knock at the door, he peered through the window, and through the torn curtain saw the horrible sight of the woman lying on her bed hacked to pieces and pieces of her flesh placed upon the table. (correct)

    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. (He is talking specifically about the Kelly murder and not about the other murders, and the suggestion that this refers to all the other murders is total conjecture by Connell and has been misinterpreted by researchers)

    The suggestion having been made that in the eyes of a murdered person a reflection of the murderer might be retained, we had the eyes of Kelly photographed and the photographs magnified, but the effort was fruitless. We tried every possible means of tracing if the woman had been seen with a man, but without avail. (This is also correct and confirmed in Walter Dews memoirs and he Dew makes no mention of missing organs from this crime scene or any other crime scene)

    We tried every possible means of tracing if the woman had been seen with a man, but without avail. An example of the difficulty we had may be found in that women came forward who swore that they saw Kelly standing at the corner of the court at eight o’clock of the morning her body was found, but the evidence of the doctors proved this to be an impossibility. By that hour the woman had been dead not less than four hours.” (Correct)

    So I have to say that the evidence to show Reid was correct is overwhelming.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:

  • Chris Phillips
    Researcher-Administrator

  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    And the $64.000 question would be why would Reid say no organs were missing from Kelly?

    OK. You're the one who's been banging on about this. You're the one who has repeatedly tried to shift other discussions on other threads on to this topic.


    So please let's be clear. In this article you were so keen to talk about, Reid doesn't say no organs were missing from Kelly. He says that "In every instance the body was complete."


    Do you accept that refers to all the murders? And do you claim that is an accurate statement?

    Leave a comment:

  • Trevor Marriott
    Author & Researcher

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    It is not an obvious conclusion you are wrong Bonds statement is ambiguous, and he makes no mention of the missing heart in his report to Anderson, now even you must find that strange.

    **************************************************

    Those with the Ultimate Sourcebook by Evans & Skinner can see the report which Bond provided for Anderson on pages 383 and 384.

    The only thing that's strange is your bizarre belief that you know more than one of the attendant physicians.


    No other senior officers have made any mention of Kelly's heart being taken away by the killer in fact no other officers at all make mention that I can see, and you have to ask why?


    Because in the scheme of things, it was seen as just another terrifying deed in a series of murders loaded with terrifying deeds.

    It's important to you because you want other people to believe the killer wasn't responsible for removing and taking organs from previous victims....which, of course, he did.

    Howard

    Each murder has to be analyzed separately on its merits.

    What was so terrifying about the deeds 20+ years later when police officers wrote their memoirs and recollection? - nothing

    And the $64.000 question would be why would Reid say no organs were missing from Kelly? because if he was not suffering from memory loss or failing memory then he must be correct! So was he? and if he was wrong why would he make such a statement, and why did he simply not say the killer did not remove and organs from any of the victims.

    The failure by you and others to simply reject was Reid says is unreal, and the explanations given are explanations given by desperate people trying to prop up the old previously accepted theories.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:

  • Chris Phillips
    Researcher-Administrator

  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Nick Connell is obviously the person who has researched Reid most thoroughly. I can't imagine all that work was motivated by a desire to dismiss what Reid said without proper consideration.

    Connell's assessment of this article is:

    "As in other interviews given by Reid on the Whitechapel murders, this contains glaring and obvious errors, including getting the year of the Mitre Square murder wrong, saying that Emma Smith was killed by one man when she had described three attackers, claiming that no body parts had been removed and saying that nobody saw a man with any of the victims on the nights they were killed are just a few examples.
    ...
    It is perplexing to read the remarks of a police officer who had worked so closely on the Whitechapel murders investigation for so long, making numerous errors just a few years after the crimes had been committed. Yet on other occasions Reid was accurate, such as still being able to remember exactly how much weekly rent Mary Kelly had to pay. Disappointingly, Edmund Reid has not proved to be the most reliable source on the subject of the Whitechapel murders. However, his ultimate conclusion that the identity of Jack the Ripper was not known is entirely reasonable."

    Regarding the body parts, although he says it while discussing the Kelly murder, his claim relates to all the murders: "In every instance the body was complete." Whatever theories people may have about where the missing body parts went, that statement is not accurate,

    Leave a comment:

  • Gary Barnett
    Rambler

  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
    Nick Connell transcribed most of this report in an article in Ripperologist 147 (December 2015). It can be downloaded as part of a zip file covering issues 121-151 here:
    http://www.ripperologist.co.uk/backissues.html
    Here is a copy of issue 147 somewhere else:
    https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/re...57/edmund-reid
    Here he claims that Tabran, as he calls her, had her throat cut; that her wounds (plural) had been caused by a bayonet; that it was the corporal whom she went off with; that Poll picked out a soldier at the Tower; and that the soldiers at the Tower were Coldstreamers. He also seems confused about the order of the murders, describing the Bucks Row murder as the next after that of Emma Smith, whose lodgings he says were in George Yard.

    Leave a comment:

  • Chris Phillips
    Researcher-Administrator

  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Nick Connell transcribed most of this report in an article in Ripperologist 147 (December 2015). It can be downloaded as part of a zip file covering issues 121-151 here:
    http://www.ripperologist.co.uk/backissues.html
    Here is a copy of issue 147 somewhere else:
    https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/re...57/edmund-reid

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X