Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Headline in newspaper:

TRAIN CRASH - 100 KILLED

Response of 99.999% of readers:

’OMG! That’s terrible.’

Response of the illuminati:

’That’s just hearsay.’

Over on JTRForums at the moment, the poster previously known as Pierre is insisting that pretty much all source material is untrustworthy: press reports, passenger lists, police statements, inquest testimony, infirmary admission records and death registers, death certificates, burial registers... at least those that contradict her theory.

Perhaps we should all give up and go home.

Sorry Gary, but your not a historian, so not only are you not qualified to criticise Kristina "Pierre" Nordqvist, you couldn't even begin to understand the historical sources she used. That's why the HMR initials at murder sites looks like chance. And why the "code" by the entry in the deaths registers appears - to the untrained eye - to be a reference to anything other than a man dying of pneumonia cutting his own throat and being buried without inquest. And why Henry appears - to the untrained eye - to be on a ship to India at the time of MJK's murder. If you had a degree in history, you'd grasp these simple concepts, the unquestionable "sources" that do not lie, and see, clear as day, that this case is now solved. Yet again.

( And remember, fellow Ripperologists, we've got to keep the bandwagon rolling at all costs. I shudder to think of the money I'll lose from all those books I've never written, the walks I've never hosted, the TV appearances I've never made. We'll shut this upstart down. No one stops the gravy train.)

[MrBarnett]

In the Daily Blurb:

‘The victim had suffered 39 punctured wounds, 38 seemingly caused by a hat pin and one by a pick axe.’

Reader 1: My medical expert tells me its impossible to tell the difference.

Reader 2: Bah, hearsay! For all we know she might have been strangled.

[MrBarnett]

Headline in newspaper:

TRAIN CRASH - 100 KILLED

Response of 99.999% of readers:

’OMG! That’s terrible.’

Response of the illuminati:

’That’s just hearsay.’

Over on JTRForums at the moment, the poster previously known as Pierre is insisting that pretty much all source material is untrustworthy: press reports, passenger lists, police statements, inquest testimony, infirmary admission records and death registers, death certificates, burial registers... at least those that contradict her theory.

Perhaps we should all give up and go home.

[Fisherman]

For as old a man as you are, Harry, one would have thought you ought perhaps have advanced a tad longer in your understanding of things. The notion that Killeen meant that the lesser blade would not have been able to pierce the sternum is a very old one. I did not invent it, it is instead accepted by scores of students of the case as a possibility. On this thread alone, you can see that f ex R J Palmer and Gary Barnett work from the possibility that Killeen may have meant this, which is why they have noted that they believe Killeen was probably wrong on it.

Are you calling them too "deliberate liars"? Are you in fact calling each and every one who has accepted that Killleen may have meant this liars - although it is a perfectly plausible interpretation of what Killeen said?

If so, I suggest that you contact the administrators of the boards and ask them to have us all banished from the site until we adjust to your demands. Because we do not want liars on the site, do we?

You astonishingly also add that I "now admit" that I am using newspaper reports to establish my beliefs in the Tabram case.
Eh ... yes. Yes, I do. And the reason for it is that there is nothing else to use, but for newspaper reports. The official material is lost to history. Which means that whatever claim you make to call half ot the boards liars must also be based on what the newspaper reports said.

In fact, the bulk of what we know or think we know - about the Ripper case is based on nwespaper reports.

It´s absolutely true, Harry! I´m not lying to you!!!

[harry]

No Fisherman,you are the one printing the lie that Killeen made such a statement.There is no doubt that your phrasing of the claim, was to suggest the wording of the claim 'A penknife could not penetrate the sternum',came directly from Killeen,when you now admit you were using newspaper reports.Hearsay evidence.The disgrace is with you.It was a deliberate attempt to mislead,so wriggle all you like,it was a lie.
Correct Trevor.and I might also add,and you may agree,be wary of relying too much on so called,'Expert witnesses',and,so called journalists.

[Fisherman]

I am not pointing at anyone specific, all through this ripper mystery, there are researchers who clearly readily accept without question the content and accuracy of newspapers articles to prop up theories.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Oh, okay. So you just felt it was a nice send-off in your post, sort of? To say "It seems some are desperate to prop up their theories" and log off? Pointing at noone, just making a general observation and feeling it ought to be posted for the benefit of all of us?

Maybe I should try something along the same lines?

It seems some are predestined to get things wrong, no matter how hard they try.

I dunno. Doesn´t do much for me...

[Trevor Marriott]

There were numerous references to the London Correspondent of the SDT in 1888.

This is from a few years before - 1881 - but I would rate the possibility of the paper having a reporter available to personally visit George Yard Buildings in 1888 a little higher than Trevor’s ‘zero’. Just a little.

7 years is a long time, times change, people change, the world changes

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Can you please explain who it is you are so subtly referring to here, Trevor? And if it is me, then maybe you could explain to all of us how my particular theory becomes propped up by accepting that Killleen was more likely right than wrong about the two blades?

In actual fact, since my theory involves a single killer, and since a two knife scenario points AWAY from that scenario in a much higher degree than a one knife scenario does, have you not gotten things very wrong? Again?

I am not pointing at anyone specific, all through this ripper mystery, there are researchers who clearly readily accept without question the content and accuracy of newspapers articles to prop up theories.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

There were numerous references to the London Correspondent of the SDT in 1888.

This is from a few years before - 1881 - but I would rate the possibility of the paper having a reporter available to personally visit George Yard Buildings in 1888 a little higher than Trevor’s ‘zero’. Just a little.

[MrBarnett]

You have to ask yourself did the Sheffield newspaper have its own reporter in London to interview Hewitt. I would say the chance of that are zero.

So who was the reporter who interviewed Hewitt, or was there no reporter and the Sheffield newspaper obtained their report from the Central News agency or from another newspaper who did have a reporter in the area?

The conflicts are easily explained especially if a number of newspapers were using the Central news agency and knew that their press release was going to be used by multiple papers, tweaking the report would make their article different from the rest. Its commonly called being less than liberal with the truth.

Just to again clarify the difference between primary and secondary sources

If a newspaper published an article based on a report they have obtained from Central News or another reporter on an event or interview that neither were present then the newspaper is still a primary source but the article is secondary source or hearsay.

If a newspaper publishes a report from their own reporter who was present at any event then both become primary sources.

It has been proven many times that articles on the ripper murders in the newspapers that do not have any corroboration are unsafe to rely on

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well, the SDT claimed their reporter personally interviewed Hewitt on the afternoon of the murder, and the interview appeared nowhere else as far as I know.

I’m willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

[Fisherman]

It seems some are desperate to prop up their theories

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Can you please explain who it is you are so subtly referring to here, Trevor? And if it is me, then maybe you could explain to all of us how my particular theory becomes propped up by accepting that Killleen was more likely right than wrong about the two blades?

In actual fact, since my theory involves a single killer, and since a two knife scenario points AWAY from that scenario in a much higher degree than a one knife scenario does, have you not gotten things very wrong? Again?

[Fisherman]

No Fisherman,I do not retract anything,nor will I abandon calling your postings lies when I believe I have reason to.
Killeen was a witness in the Tabram murder.As such he would have made a statement.If he had said,and I quote you'A penknife could not have penetrated the sternum', that claim would have been in that statement.I am not interessted in what the paper say,or any conclusions you or anyone else draw from their statements,they are not proofs of anything.So i'll ask you again,where is your proof that Killeen made such a claim?
The most that anyone now can accept is that there was a difference in one of the 39 wounds.How much of a difference is not known,because no details exist,so any attempt to define a particular weapon is pointless.My opinion,and it is just that,an opinion,is,regardless of any differences,only one weapon need have been used in Tabram's death,and I have elsewhere stated my reasons.

You have not been asked to retract anything, although it would of course be the decent thing to do. Then again, you seem unable to read and understand what you are told, so maybe that is where your problem lies.

You now "ask me again" what proof I have of Killen saying that a pen-knife could not have penetrated the sternum, and that is superfluous since I pointed out in my last post that the wording used by Kileen has generally been beleived to tell us that this was so. However, I also very clearly deminstrated how it need not be so, posting another quotation from the East London Advertiser, pointing to how Killeen may instead have meant that a knife such as the one used in the 38 lesser stabd would not have produced the kind of hole there was in the sternum.

I am pleased to see that you have now understood that ni measuring of the wounds can be made and thus we cannot tell if it was one or two weapons. This is whjat I have said over and over again, although it has - expectedly - been lost on you. I have also said that SINCE we cannot measure the wounds, any suggestion that it was more likely one weapon cannot be in any way substantiated. That stands. Plus I have said that the view we must work from is that a medico commenting of phsyological matters is more likely to be right than wrong. That too stands.

The result of me having laid this out for you to digest has been the common one: you call me a liar. That, I´m afraid, makes you a disgrace.

There we are.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

On 8th August, the Sheffield Daily Telegraph printed a verbatim statement by Francis Hewitt which its reporter had obtained (or so they said) on the afternoon of the murder.

Perhaps you can explain the conflict between their very early report and the reports of other papers. As I’m sure you know, the only record of the Tabram inquest we have is what was printed in the press.



Gary

You have to ask yourself did the Sheffield newspaper have its own reporter in London to interview Hewitt. I would say the chance of that are zero.

So who was the reporter who interviewed Hewitt, or was there no reporter and the Sheffield newspaper obtained their report from the Central News agency or from another newspaper who did have a reporter in the area?

The conflicts are easily explained especially if a number of newspapers were using the Central news agency and knew that their press release was going to be used by multiple papers, tweaking the report would make their article different from the rest. Its commonly called being less than liberal with the truth.

Just to again clarify the difference between primary and secondary sources

If a newspaper published an article based on a report they have obtained from Central News or another reporter on an event or interview that neither were present then the newspaper is still a primary source but the article is secondary source or hearsay.

If a newspaper publishes a report from their own reporter who was present at any event then both become primary sources.

It has been proven many times that articles on the ripper murders in the newspapers that do not have any corroboration are unsafe to rely on

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

Harry
You are quite right to emphasise the problem with researchers relying heavily on the content of newspaper reports. I have stated before these are not primary sources and the majority cannot be accepted as such. How can anyone rely on articles from newspapers in Manchester or Sheffield to be accurate when they either conflict with other newspapers or are in direct conflict with the inquest testimony and the writers of those articles from those papers were not present to record the events they then publish

It seems some are desperate to prop up their theories

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

On 8th August, the Sheffield Daily Telegraph printed a verbatim statement by Francis Hewitt which its reporter had obtained (or so they said) on the afternoon of the murder.

Perhaps you can explain the conflict between their very early report and the reports of other papers. As I’m sure you know, the only record of the Tabram inquest we have is what was printed in the press.



Gary

[Trevor Marriott]

No Fisherman,I do not retract anything,nor will I abandon calling your postings lies when I believe I have reason to.
Killeen was a witness in the Tabram murder.As such he would have made a statement.If he had said,and I quote you'A penknife could not have penetrated the sternum', that claim would have been in that statement.I am not interessted in what the paper say,or any conclusions you or anyone else draw from their statements,they are not proofs of anything.So i'll ask you again,where is your proof that Killeen made such a claim?
The most that anyone now can accept is that there was a difference in one of the 39 wounds.How much of a difference is not known,because no details exist,so any attempt to define a particular weapon is pointless.My opinion,and it is just that,an opinion,is,regardless of any differences,only one weapon need have been used in Tabram's death,and I have elsewhere stated my reasons.

Harry
You are quite right to emphasise the problem with researchers relying heavily on the content of newspaper reports. I have stated before these are not primary sources and the majority cannot be accepted as such. How can anyone rely on articles from newspapers in Manchester or Sheffield to be accurate when they either conflict with other newspapers or are in direct conflict with the inquest testimony and the writers of those articles from those papers were not present to record the events they then publish

It seems some are desperate to prop up their theories

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk