A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[DRoy]

Jon,

You said...

Quite reasonably, what Officer is going to allow an interview with the press, using his correct name and title when it is common knowledge within the Force that such communications, unless of an official nature, were not permitted.

So why is it so hard to believe "Harris" wasn't Reid? You said it could have been a number of people...so please name one. I haven't seen anyone provide a name other than Reid yet.

I said this in post #308...

The only oddity is the article says that Harris was "born and reared within its confines" (meaning Whitechapel) when Reid was actually born in Kent. The article is littered with quotes but the comment about Harris being born in Whitechapel is not quoted so it could have been second/third person info being passed down to the writer of the article.

Again, if anyone is interested I can post the relevent Harris/Reid portions on a different thread. Once Harris' opinion on JTR is compared with that of Reid, and once the two men's history and credentials are compared, I believe it will leave little doubt that we are talking about the same man.

Thanks to Ben for taking the time to explain it. The quotes from this article seem to supersede Reid's later interviews yet say the same thing. How can anyone fit better than Reid? Regardless of whether they were permitted to provide information to the press, it seems they still sometimes did.

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

According to Sugden, the story was from a reporter who sold it to CNA. His note mentions "The Daily Telegraph."

I looked in "The Echo" for 6 October. Did not see the retraction.

LC

Hi Lynn, my apologies, I realized after the 'edit' option had expired, it was ELO not Echo

Let me know what you find, I don't see anything on the Casebook extract

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

You know what you are required to prove. So less of this smoke and mirror's and either admit you have no 'proof' that the police shared proprietary information about a current murder case, or come up with the proof.

I have proved conclusively, several times on several threads over the last year, that the Echo extracted information from the police pertaining to Hutchinson's account that we know for certain to be true. Mission accomplished, thank you very much. At the very least, it proves that certain newspapers were perfectly capable of extracting and publicizing police opinion (which was obviously arrived at as a result of "proprietary information" received), either as a collective or from individual officers. Whoever "Inspector Harris" was - and the strong indications are that it was Edmund Reid - he was perfectly content to let the New York Sun know his opinion that the killer frequented the local pubs before he found his victims, and that he may have been a resident of the Victoria Home lodging house.

Regards,
Ben

[lynn cates]

story

Hello Jon. Thanks.

According to Sugden, the story was from a reporter who sold it to CNA. His note mentions "The Daily Telegraph."

I looked in "The Echo" for 6 October. Did not see the retraction.

Of course, if it did happen, it was quickly caught. It is rare to see some wild, concocted story last long.

Of course, embellishments were rather common.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

It's such a startlingly naive, unimaginative and pointless thing to argue,

So you'll have no trouble proving it then, good.

That's a far simpler explanation than assuming the entire thing was an elaborate press invention.

Oh I don't think the entire article was an invention. But whoever the 'guide' was he either gave erroneous information on a subject he was not familiar with and which could have been easily gained more accurately from the press, or he intentionally gave false information.

Either way, none of that article suggests a Scotland Yard officer would give proprietary information about a murder investigation to the press.

It's clear evidence - more of it - that police officials did talk to individual newspapers, as I'm prepared to reiterate for longer than you're capable of repeating yourself.

You know what you are required to prove. So less of this smoke and mirror's and either admit you have no 'proof' that the police shared proprietary information about a current murder case, or come up with the proof.

[Wickerman]

Hi Michael.

I was quite taken by your statement I labelled as "1".....where is it written empirically that the police believed this was the method?

Scotland Yard have no expressed opinion on the matter, by rights they will defer to professional medical opinion. This is where it is stated.

I believe most officers thought it ridiculous to suggest that the women voluntarily laid down and remained silent while their throats were cut....from the front?

Why would you add the word 'voluntarily', ...and then challenge it?

If anything, there is evidence to surmise the killer cut the throat after the semi conscious women were placed on the ground,

Exactly, ....and they were cut from the front.

....even so, I hardly think cutting the arteries while in the path of the spray is anything the killer would have done.

Please read the medical evidence again Michael.

On point 2, how do you know Maria didnt pay some money to Mary...she was there until the 3rd and she did give Mary a coin that last night before she left.

Because Maria was not there for a week, 2/6 is half a weeks rent according to this Kate, but the actual weekly rate was 4/6 therefore if Maria paid anything for the two nights she stayed she would have paid two days of a weeks rent where the daily rate would have been 8d between them both, so each pay 4d per night.

Its that simple...

[Ben]

Your claim, lest we forget, was that either the Echo or Star were provided with current, inside information, on an active murder inquiry.

And I have proved it, again and again and again. It's your presumably precious time to waste on an off-topic crusade to "prove" the police never, ever communicated with individual newspapers. It's such a startlingly naive, unimaginative and pointless thing to argue, and yet argue it you must in order for your highly questionable views on the Kelly murder to hold any water at all (which they don't).

This so-called "Harris" is described as, " of medium stature, grey hair, and of some 50 years". Reid was only 43 in 1889.

Don't be preposterous. A 43-year-old with grey hair may be easily confused with someone of 50 years or older - that's just obvious.

If you're seriously suggesting that a few errors of detail in a newspaper report means that the entire report is a fabrication - which is just an impossibly ludicrous and nonsensical thing to suggest - then you ought to re-think your approach. Why not read some of Abberline's opinions as reported in the press? According to him, the Whitechapel murders were the work of an "expert surgeon", and that the witnesses "all agree" that the killer was a "foreign-looking man". I suppose, according to you, the paper's informant can't have been Abberline? It must have been an imposter, or the entire article is a press invention? Puh-please.

Look, it's perfectly simple. Policeman make mistakes, and journalists make mistakes. "Inspector Harris" could easily have stated that the murders took place after the pubs closed, with the reporter adding "just after" in confusion. That's a far simpler explanation than assuming the entire thing was an elaborate press invention. An article attributed to Inspector Reid quotes him as saying: "The whole of the murders were done after the public-houses were closed", which tallies well with Inspector Harris' views. Also, note the congruity between Reid's known statement in 1912...

"My opinion is that the perpetrator of the crimes was a man who was in the habit of using a certain public-house, and of remaining there until closing time. Leaving with the rest of the customers, with what soldiers call 'a touch of delirium triangle,' he would leave with one of the women. "My belief is that he would in some dark corner attack her with the knife and cut her up".

...and the observations of Harris in 1889:

"Now, I believe he gets to drinking in the public houses and the fury comes upon him while he's in liquor. Then he goes out and murders somebody"

Very similar indeed.

- "(the murderer) isn't covered with blood,.....he allows the blood to run out of their bodies entirely before he carves them up".

This is just plain silly.

Not really. It's an exaggerated account of what actually occurred, i.e. the "blood-letting" (throat cut) taking place before the abdominal mutilations commenced, preventing the murderer from being soaked in blood.

Don't let that "Kate" business trouble you. The interview took place a year after the Kelly murder, and the occupant, "Kate", was evidently making money by publicizing the fact that she lived in the murder room. She was obviously lying about having lived there with Kelly in 1888.

The story is nothing more than a record of a guided tour around the murder sites, and provides no more helpful information than was provided in the press and, certainly less accurate than was provided in the press.

We're not assessing it on its "helpfulness". We're trying to determine if there's any mileage at all in your ludicrous insinuation that the entire article is an outright fabrication and that the informant was a phoney, and there isn't any. None at all. If you think it's a "charade", let's have some welcomed hush from you on the subject. I'm not "dispensing" with it. It's clear evidence - more of it - that police officials did talk to individual newspapers, as I'm prepared to reiterate for longer than you're capable of repeating yourself.

[Michael W Richards]

1. Scotland Yard knew very well the victims were laid flat and their throats cut from the front. This "Harris" was not well enough informed to pose as a CID Inspector. Reid knew better.

2. Kelly's rent was 4/6 per week and she shared it with no-one in her last week.

I was quite taken by your statement I labelled as "1".....where is it written empirically that the police believed this was the method? I believe most officers thought it ridiculous to suggest that the women voluntarily laid down and remained silent while their throats were cut....from the front? If anything, there is evidence to surmise the killer cut the throat after the semi conscious women were placed on the ground, even so, I hardly think cutting the arteries while in the path of the spray is anything the killer would have done.

On point 2, how do you know Maria didnt pay some money to Mary...she was there until the 3rd and she did give Mary a coin that last night before she left.

Best regards

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

I agree about police business, but surely no one would suggest ANY paper--including the much maligned "Star"--would invent a story from whole cloth? I refer especially to what their reporters came up with.

Without doubt, there are inaccuracies and embellishments. But I think wholesale fabrication is right out.

Cheers.
LC

The Press Association published an article claiming an interview with the Commish. of the Met. Sir Edward Bradford, over the Coles murder, he denied making the specific claim attributed to him, a retraction was requested by his Office.
In 1894 the Evening News published a long interview with Robert Anderson, and Le Matin with C.I. Melville, both Officers absolutely denied any such interviews took place.

Total fabrications were taking place, but to what extent we can only guess.

Quite reasonably, what Officer is going to allow an interview with the press, using his correct name and title when it is common knowledge within the Force that such communications, unless of an official nature, were not permitted.

"Also, the fiasco at the Forester's Music Hall concerning a mugging being the actual motive for the murders was later claimed to have been an entire fiction, intentionally sent to the news agency by a reporter."

Which reporter?

Pick up Sugden, he provides the background on page 487, n.2, he gives no name. According to Sugden the confession was made public in the Echo, 6 Oct. 1888, but I have not seen that article myself.

[Wickerman]

And yes, there is good reason to think that Reid was the detective interviewed, and no, I'm not the only person to think so.

Hi Ben.
Ok, so lets have at it..... I'll provide some quotes...

This so-called "Harris" is described as, " of medium stature, grey hair, and of some 50 years".
Reid was only 43 in 1889.

What does this "Harris", Inspector of CID, know about the murders?

- "Every murder has been committed just after the public houses close"

Pubs closed around 12.30, the Canonical murders took place at 3.30, 5.30, 12.50, 1.40, and sometime between 1.00-4.00.
Reid didn't know this?


- "(the murderer) isn't covered with blood,.....he allows the blood to run out of their bodies entirely before he carves them up".

This is just plain silly.


- "all the bodies have been found with the head lower than the trunk, and he has cut all their throats from behind".
(Lynn should be interested in this )

Scotland Yard knew very well the victims were laid flat and their throats cut from the front. This "Harris" was not well enough informed to pose as a CID Inspector. Reid knew better.

Followed by some erroneous creative writing...

Then we have this "Kate" claiming to have shared the rent with MJK which was 2/6 p/w between them, but after the murder she had to pay it all by herself.

Kelly's rent was 4/6 per week and she shared it with no-one in her last week.


So lets dispense with this charade.
The story is nothing more than a record of a guided tour around the murder sites, and provides no more helpful information than was provided in the press and, certainly less accurate than was provided in the press.

Your claim, lest we forget, was that either the Echo or Star were provided with current, inside information, on an active murder inquiry.

I have told you this is B*llsh*t, and I have the contemporary complaints directly from the press to prove it. The media were adamant that the police would not share information with them, and we have the direct official reason why from Director Vincent.

The ball is entirely in your court to 'prove' otherwise. You are afterall, using this argument to bolster a theory of yours, so lets make no mistake, "proof" is required.

Lets see something tangible, not another ill-informed tourist guide repeating what can be found in any newspaper.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Responding with your usual excuse for not looking for actual evidence?

Responding with your usual tactic of refusing to back down when one of your ironclad pronouncements is exposed as wrong?

Yep. Looks like it.

What exactly is your problem with the extract you quoted from the New York Sun article?:

"Our informant knew a man, who's wife's brother, had a friend who was distantly related in a business way to Scotland Yard, and it was possible that by the use of diplomacy and finesse this friend might be able to induce an officer to take the risk for a proper consideration..."

This merely explains how the paper came to be in contact with a senior investigator working the case - in this instance it was a family connection. It also provides a good example of the way in which certain newspapers may find themselves quite capable of extracting information directly from reliable police sources. They just had to be a bit resourceful. To argue that senior police officials would never speak to individual newspapers is both extremely naive and utterly refuted.

And yes, there is good reason to think that Reid was the detective interviewed, and no, I'm not the only person to think so.

If I'm not mistaken, the challenge was to provide proof that the police, against strict orders, shared information concerning an ongoing murder investigation with one particular media outlet

And that challenge was met, because we know for an indisputable fact that it occurred. The Echo example particularly, along with Harris/Reid article, demonstrate this perfectly. You can dismiss the latter as an "unnecessary distraction" if you want, but I'm going to go on and on and on about it for as long as you persist in the erroneous assertion that police detectives never communicated with individuals newspapers.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

I think you'll find, Jon, that a number of people have stated it as their opinion that Harris and Reid were one and the same.

With all due respect Garry, Casebook abounds with 'what people think'.

If I'm not mistaken, the challenge was to provide proof that the police, against strict orders, shared information concerning an ongoing murder investigation with one particular media outlet.

This Harris/Reid issue is a red herring and, an unnecessary distraction.

[lynn cates]

basis

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"With regard to 'inventing' stories, this is precisely what the Star did. In fact Sugden (again) points this one out, that the Star published long and lurid articles about Leather Apron."

So also Professor Cook. But long and lurid are not necessarily false.

"Sugden observes, "...they seem to have been pieced together from the tittle tattle of whores, lodginghouse proprietors and tradesmen and almost no reliable substantiation exists for any part of them" (p.73)"

And Inspector Abberline? Even the wildest tale has a fundamentum in re.

"Also, the fiasco at the Forester's Music Hall concerning a mugging being the actual motive for the murders was later claimed to have been an entire fiction, intentionally sent to the news agency by a reporter."

Which reporter?

"The issue in my previous post was the creative wording employed by a select few press outlets where they choose to present themselves as receivers of 'inside' information - that's the fabrication I was referring to.
These are not whole stories, but usually anything from a sentence to a paragraph, but never a source is provided."

But likely based on gossip. And, as with any tale, it is helpful to sift the wheat to divest it of chaff.

Cheers.
LC

[Garry Wroe]

I think you'll find, Jon, that a number of people have stated it as their opinion that Harris and Reid were one and the same.

[Wickerman]

It is a proven fact that the Echo not only communicated with the police, but extracted information from them which we know for a proven fact to be true.

And please don't ask me to waste bandwidth churning out the details for the millionth time. .......

Hi Ben.
Responding with your usual excuse for not looking for actual evidence?
I'll save you your precious time,..... it doesn't exist.

Say what you like about the general practice of police supplying information to the press, but it indisputably occurred in this case.

Another case in point is this article:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5281

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030272/1889-12-08/ed-1/seq-21/

"Inspector Harris - I may as well call him Harris, as I am ready to swear if possible that there is no such person - was the one man of all the department who ought to known Whitechapel best, having been born and reared within its confines"

You must have missed the escape clause in the lead up....

"Our informant knew a man, who's wife's brother, had a friend who was distantly related in a business way to Scotland Yard, and it was possible that by the use of diplomacy and finesse this friend might be able to induce an officer to take the risk for a proper consideration..."

What a stroke of luck, their informant only turned out to be a "very famous member of the C.I.D."

Good grief Ben, where's that Brooklyn Bridge,....wanna buy a bridge Ben?

It has been suggested that "Inspector Harris", who escorted a New York Sun reporter around Whitechapel, was actually Edmund Reid.

No, it is not, it was "asked" (by Tradename) if this could be Reid, one name among dozens of potential 'officers'.
Always assuming this man, who had a friend, who had a brother-in-law, who had a friend, who...etc...etc. actually existed.
You really should be able to determine the difference between a question and a statement.

Have another go Ben....