Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reid : News Of The World Article April 12, 1896

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

  • Paul
    replied
    The Dundee newspaper could not have got their information first hand and Dundee is a long way from Whitechapel. So the accuracy of the article is questionable and secondary.


    Actually, that's tosh. The distance of Dundee from Whitechapel has no bearing on the accuracy of the Dundee newspaper's story, and it it could have got its information first hand if it had a London representative reporting first hand. More probably, though, it took the story from one of the press agencies whose representative would have been reporting first hand. But maybe I'm misinterpreting something intended to spark hilarity

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Yes you are right, your too good for me Mr Begg Sir I give up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    I know I'm right, Trevor. I'm very pleased that you finally realise it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by Gene Hunt
    The Dundee newspaper could not have got their information first hand and Dundee is a long way from Whitechapel. So the accuracy of the article is questionable and secondary.
    It was also in the London Observer and the account of the heart's specific removal was accurate. Those details were never revealed at inquest.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
    You'll never top that lawnmower joke.

    No it certainly had an impact on the feminists !!!!!!!!!!!!


    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul View Post
    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.

    Yes you are right, your too good for me Mr Begg Sir I give up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott
    As is normal on here there is a distinct lack of a sense of humour If you had bothered to read the message I posted you will have seen that it was tongue in cheek.
    You'll never top that lawnmower joke.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Here we go yet again the pack of wolves circle their prey waiting to pounce !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
    You believe Reid attended the postmortem? Do you mean you don't know for certain?

    Ok lets be certain he did attend the post mortem does that make you happy?

    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?

    As is normal on here there is a distinct lack of a sense of humour If you had bothered to read the message I posted you will have seen that it was tongue in cheek.

    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?

    The Dundee newspaper could not have got their information first hand and Dundee is a long way from Whitechapel. So the accuracy of the article is questionable and secondary.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    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!]

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X