A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,



Okay, but just this one more post on the subject because we're drastically off-topic from "Access to Mary Kelly" here.

Agreed Ben, I moved this debate...

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=255994&postcount=1

See you there...

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Ok, lets approach this in more detail.

Okay, but just this one more post on the subject because we're drastically off-topic from "Access to Mary Kelly" here.

The second press publication of Hutchinson's account was obviously not sanctioned by the police. It cannot have been, as it contained numerous contradictions and embellishments of the original police statement. It wasn't just published by The Star either. Hutchinson evidently gave his account to a member of a press agency, which is why we see it duplicated more or less exactly in several newspapers. It is not certain whether or not he sought out reporters of his own volition, as he did the police, but it would be a reasonable assumption.

This is not 'inside' information, both articles are in the public domain, and as Hutchinson has now provided his name to the second article, the police need no longer withhold his name

But not in the public domain was any confirmation from the police that the naughty, unsanctioned "second" press report was authored by the same "witness" whose description was published on the 13th November. As the Echo observed, several of their "press contemporaries" believed that they were authored by two separate Astrakhan-spotters, and that it took a visit to the police station to ascertain that this was not the case. This certainly qualifies as "inside information" as nobody else besides the police was in any position to offer such a confirmation.

We know, then, that the Echo did approach the police station and extracted reliable, accurate information. We also know that they reported:

From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?

Evidently, therefore, the Echo extracted the information about this "reduced importance" in the same way they extracted the information regarding the 13th/14th confusion. This amounts to clear evidence of both a communication with the police and faithful reporting of accurate information received. We can therefore state, without any reasonable doubt, that the police had indeed attached a reduced importance to Hutchinson’s account, and this more than qualifies as "inside information". If the relationship between the Echo and the police was such that the latter felt comfortable divulging information, there is no way the Echo would have blotted their copybook and soured that relationship by making false claims about what "the authorities" had discovered.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
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.

Hi Ben.
Ok, lets approach this in more detail.
This is what the Echo learned.

The Echo learned from Comm. St. station that the second description published by the Star naming Hutchinson, was virtually the same description as that previously published on the 13th, in at least four morning papers, and released by the police.

This is not 'inside' information, both articles are in the public domain, and as Hutchinson has now provided his name to the second article, the police need no longer withhold his name.

This example you cling to does not represent the Echo obtaining 'inside' information. At the time the Echo made those enquiries the subject matter was already public information.
As I maintain, they never did receive 'inside' information.

[Ben]

Your desperation is duly noted.

Yeah, Jon...you've really got me on the ropes with this one.

As if the paper 'had' to include a physical description at all... of course they didn't.

Of course they didn't have to, but as argued by both myself and DRoy, they may have chosen to in order to better conceal his identity.

The thing about the "Harris/Reid" argument will always remain as, he's the wrong age, from the wrong part of the country, and he gets his facts wrong, especially those not taken from the press.

No.

The "thing" about the "Harris/Reid" argument will always boil down to the reality that Harris was probably Reid, unless we're prepared to accept silly "coincidence". The age is perfectly compatible, the "wrong part of the country" is most rationally attributable to deliberate misinformation, and as for getting "facts wrong", so did other detectives who spoke to the press.

But, y'know, meanwhile back on topic...

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.
Your desperation is duly noted.

....when we consider DRoy's sensible and plausible observation that the paper most likely altered details of the inspector's appearance and background in order to conceal his identity

As if the paper 'had' to include a physical description at all... of course they didn't. That is what they call 'special pleading'.

In academic circles it is recognised that when you have to resort to 'special pleading', the argument is lost.

The thing about the "Harris/Reid" argument will always remain as, he's the wrong age, from the wrong part of the country, and he gets his facts wrong, especially those not taken from the press.

And as I keep trying to remind you, this has nothing to do with your claim about the Echo accessing 'inside' information.

[Ben]

Sadly, Reid was born in Canterbury and reared in Kent.

Well it's not that tragic, really, when we consider DRoy's sensible and plausible observation that the paper most likely altered details of the inspector's appearance and background in order to conceal his identity (which is clearly what they were doing). Having said that, a man with dark brown hair can quite easily be greying, perhaps extensively so, especially if he's 49. Have a look at this photograph of him:

http://www.casebook.org/police_officials/po-edmund_reid.html

Seems pretty grey-haired there at least.

Just face it, this "Harris" was not Reid.

No. You "just face it". It probably was. It clearly isn't just me who believes that the similarity between the Reid article and "Harris'" views is too strong to be dismissed as mere coincidence.

Ok DRoy, then we can see that when a newspaper like the Echo persistently complains about the police not sharing details of the investigation with them, but then published an article purportedly declaring they know what the police are thinking/doing, reeks with an air of suspicion.

No, we can't "see" anything of the sort, and there is nothing in the world less "suspicious". It's really quite simple; the police were previously in the habit of refusing to supply information to the Echo, but later on, they were more willing to communicate, perhaps in recognition of the advantages inherent in so doing. Just look at the extract you quoted:

"Up to the present the police refuse the Press any information" - 9th November.

As distinct from (for example):

"The police never share anything with the Press, and never will...ever"

All they are doing is trying to catch the attention of their readers by portraying themselves as receivers of privileged information, a false claim.

Utter nonsense.

Yours is the false claim.

We know for an undisputed certainty that one of their claims - that the accounts published on the 13th and 14th November "proceed (sic) from the same source", i.e. Hutchinson - was correct, and they obtained their information "upon inquiry at Commercial Street Police Station".

Its rather akin to using someone's weapon against them, if you know what I mean.

But Sugden is no "weapon" here because we know for a fact that the police did indeed share case-related information with individual newspapers.

but my point was that this article had nothing to do with the original discussion about the police sharing details about the investigation with the press.

It wasn't the "original discussion", actually. It was just an off-topic argument you started. The "original discussion" is "the access to Mary Kelly", so now that we're all done with this nonsense, it's time to get back on topic.

Regards,
Ben

[DRoy]

Hi Jon,

I'm sorry for the very long response to your last two posts. I'll keep them shorter going forward.

Sadly, Reid was born in Canterbury and reared in Kent.

The one detective who should have known Whitechapel best, would have been Abberline. And no, I don't think it was Abberline either.

Jon, I pointed this out weeks ago. As I stated, the part of the article that deals with where 'Harris' was born is not quoted. I suggested that perhaps the reporter got this information second or third hand, hence the mistake. I would agree, it isn't Abberline.

"He was 49 years old, ....... 5 feet 6 inches tall and had dark brown hair, grey eyes, a fresh complexion...."

Jon, in trying to keep the identity of 'Harris' secret to avoid punishment from his superiors, wouldn't it make sense to change his appearance in the paper? It wouldn't make sense to describe the Inspector exactly when he would be easily identified.

The only similarity between Reid and this "Harris" is the opinion that the murders were committed after the pubs closed - brilliant!
Isn't that really common knowledge?
All the murders were committed after 12:30 am, ...just not directly after.

Jon, let's look at what 'Harris' and Reid have said...

New York Sun of December 8, 1889
"Every one of the Whitechapel murders has been committed within a radius of which this 'home' is almost the exact centre. The 'Victoria Home' was formerly a charitable institution. Now it is a cheap lodging house, and it is mostly frequented by men who have seen better days - broken-down gentlemen, lawyers, officers, clergymen and merchants. I'll wager there's many a queer history and many a romantic one hidden in that old building now. But what I started out to say was that when the Ripper is run down I wouldn't bo a bit surprised if he'd turn out to be an occupant of that same Victoria Home. I believe that the murderer is a man who has been driven crazy by misfortune, with which a woman has had a great deal to do. Every murder has been committed just after the public houses close. Now, I believe that 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."

Lloyd's Weekly News of February 4, 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. Having satisfied his maniacal blood-lust he would go away home, and the next day know nothing about it. One thing is to my mind quite certain, and that is that he lived in the district."

It may not be exact quoting but 'Harris' has said the same things that 23 years later Reid is getting credit for saying. It's as close as you could get to having a person telling the same story 23 years later.

You may have missed the fact that Ben leans on Sugden quite often when he is trying to garner support for himself. I am showing a more complete picture, using his own point of reference, Sugden.
Its rather akin to using someone's weapon against them, if you know what I mean.

Sorry Jon, I did miss that point as I thought you were responding to my posts. I've enjoyed some of your battes with Ben over the years! We both know he can fight his own battles. I just happen to share his opinion so I responded.

I can't envisage the leaps and hurdles it would require to explain how any of these victims could have been laid out with their heads lower than their trunk/body/torso.
Notice, Reid never made this uniquely erroneous observation?
Or, have you found somewhere where he did?

Jon, I'm not saying that I agree that all the victim's heads were lower than their trunk. I only mentioned it as being something 'new' given in that interview that I hadn't seen in any other papers. I admit I'm not aware of Reid or anyone for that matter making this observation other than 'Harris'. Although I do believe there are explanations as to why 'Harris' would say that, I don't believe it should be in this thread.

If you feel convinced this was Reid, ok, but my point was that this article had nothing to do with the original discussion about the police sharing details about the investigation with the press.
From my point then, this article was not important.

We can agree to disagree on 'Harris' being Reid. However, unless you are saying the entire article is bogus, then we do at least have someone (presumably an officer of some sort) who has talked to the press in this instance regardless whether they were supposed to.

Let's get back to "The access to Mary Kelly". Since you are doing your large inquest comparison, I'm excited to see what you may find!

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

Jon,
I understand what you are saying about police talking to the press. I honestly do. It appears Ben does as well. I'm sure everyone would agree that reporters did not have an easy time getting information from the police.

Ok DRoy, then we can see that when a newspaper like the Echo persistently complains about the police not sharing details of the investigation with them, but then published an article purportedly declaring they know what the police are thinking/doing, reeks with an air of suspicion.
All they are doing is trying to catch the attention of their readers by portraying themselves as receivers of privileged information, a false claim.

You had previously said "...in fact he only repeated common knowledge easily found in the press." While I accept that yes, most of the article did contain basic information, 'Harris' did report a couple of things I haven't seen elsewhere. That would be the victim heads being lower than the trunk and 'Kate' apparently living with MJK. I was pointing out to you that you were incorrect when you made that comment in support of your argument that 'Harris' was not Reid.

By 'most' you mean all of it, except the 'Kate' and the 'position of the head' comment?
Seeing as they are both erroneous, then we can safely discount them.

I don't know who 'Kate' is but if Reid says she was living with MJK then I find that quite interesting. Would Reid or any other Inspector really make a mistake like that to the press?

Reid did make several incorrect statements to the press after he retired.
However, as I indicated to Ben, when both the age & stated origins of "Harris" do not match Reid then there are no reliable grounds to identify "Harris" as Reid. it simply boils down to personal preference, ie belief.

You Jon, may go to Sugden's book for all your answers but I prefer to go beyond just that book.

You may have missed the fact that Ben leans on Sugden quite often when he is trying to garner support for himself. I am showing a more complete picture, using his own point of reference, Sugden.
Its rather akin to using someone's weapon against them, if you know what I mean.

Jon, I don't think you are interpreting this correctly. As you say "as flat as the ground permitted" but the ground is not always flat. I interpret 'Harris' as saying because the ground wasn't flat, the head would have been on the lower end of the ground and the trunk being on the higher end of the ground.

Ok, here's an honest series of questions

- Describe to me how you see Mary Kelly's head being lower than her torso, given that her head was up on a pillow.

- How would you describe the head of Nichols being lower than her body when she was found horizontal across a gateway?
The slope to the road was away from her, to her right.

- How would you explain Chapman's head being lower than her torso, in a flat yard?

- Eddowes body was found horizontal with the side of the house, any slope of the pavement would have been to her right side, just like Nichols. However, there is no perceptible slope, and the blood pooled around her body.

- Stride's neck was across a cartwheel 'rut', where her feet were nearest the house wall. The possibility exists her feet were at a slightly higher elevation than her head, we can't say they were, just that the possibility exists.
The blood from her throat did not run towards her feet, but away from her neck towards the grate.

I can't envisage the leaps and hurdles it would require to explain how any of these victims could have been laid out with their heads lower than their trunk/body/torso.
Notice, Reid never made this uniquely erroneous observation?
Or, have you found somewhere where he did?

Jon, he was being walked around Whitechapel by an Inspector. Why would the reporter go to the press to get what you've been saying is inaccurate information instead of getting it straight from an Inspector?

If you recall, this was a financial arrangement made at 'arms length', a friend of a friend, of a friend, etc., the names of all the players were not made public. Do you really think such an arrangement sounds legitimate?

If you were to read MJK's inquest story in The Daily Telegraph's and compare it to every other paper, you'd see there were wide differences. How can that be when they were all listening to the exact same inquest taking place? It happens.

I compiled all the Kelly Inquest records, I have eight sources, including the original GLRO. It is all on one file, grouped paragraph by paragrah.
The differences are not that great, on the contrary, there is much similarity.

What is beneficial in doing this is that we can see at a glance that the original GLRO is also incomplete. The newspapers help to fill out the witness statements and we see what questions were asked by the Coroner.

As I've said before, this article is very important since it gives us Reid's opinion much earlier than previously we were aware of.

If you feel convinced this was Reid, ok, but my point was that this article had nothing to do with the original discussion about the police sharing details about the investigation with the press.
From my point then, this article was not important.

[Wickerman]

"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"

Sadly, Reid was born in Canterbury and reared in Kent.

The one detective who should have known Whitechapel best, would have been Abberline. And no, I don't think it was Abberline either.

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.

But Reid did not have grey hair at 43.
You don't read your sources too thoroughly do you, when Reid retired in 1896 he is described thus:
"He was 49 years old, ....... 5 feet 6 inches tall and had dark brown hair, grey eyes, a fresh complexion...."
(Pension records)

Just face it, this "Harris" was not Reid.

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

The only similarity between Reid and this "Harris" is the opinion that the murders were committed after the pubs closed - brilliant!
Isn't that really common knowledge?
All the murders were committed after 12:30 am, ...just not directly after.

Strange that such a unique detail like the bodies laying with the head lower than the trunk is nowhere attributed to Reid in the Connell & Evans book.

Another tenuous parallel exposed?

[DRoy]

Jon,

I understand what you are saying about police talking to the press. I honestly do. It appears Ben does as well. I'm sure everyone would agree that reporters did not have an easy time getting information from the police.

What I am saying specifically in regards to this article is that Reid spoke regardless of whether he was allowed to or not. Yes I believe it is Reid for the reasons noted previously. Why he did it is speculation. However, the information he gave to the reporter of this article was not during the investigation although the case was still open. Most of the article did contain information that was already known.

Don't concern yourself with that "Kate", we do know who stayed with Kelly it was Barnett, and he only left 9 days previous.
Maria Harvey stayed with Kelly for two of those days, so no-one stayed and shared the weekly rent with Mary, this "Kate" is making it up.
Therefore, you will not read her claim in the papers.

You had previously said "...in fact he only repeated common knowledge easily found in the press." While I accept that yes, most of the article did contain basic information, 'Harris' did report a couple of things I haven't seen elsewhere. That would be the victim heads being lower than the trunk and 'Kate' apparently living with MJK. I was pointing out to you that you were incorrect when you made that comment in support of your argument that 'Harris' was not Reid.

I don't know who 'Kate' is but if Reid says she was living with MJK then I find that quite interesting. Would Reid or any other Inspector really make a mistake like that to the press? Would Reid or any other Inspector really not question 'Kate' if she admits she was living with MJK at the time? I'm not saying the Kate story is true but it would bother me if I instead had to accept that Reid or any other Inspector wouldn't have confirmed details like that. What I won't do is throw it out completely without first doing some digging and getting confirmation. You Jon, may go to Sugden's book for all your answers but I prefer to go beyond just that book.

Secondly, the bodies were not found with their heads lower than the trunk, that is just plain fiction, so no, it is not "inside information". All the bodies were laid flat, as flat as the ground permitted, and we do have the medical evidence to prove it.

Jon, I don't think you are interpreting this correctly. As you say "as flat as the ground permitted" but the ground is not always flat. I interpret 'Harris' as saying because the ground wasn't flat, the head would have been on the lower end of the ground and the trunk being on the higher end of the ground.

Like I said in my previous post, the accuracy of some of those points in that "Harris" article leaves a lot to be desired. The reporter could have gained more accurate details straight from the press.

Jon, he was being walked around Whitechapel by an Inspector. Why would the reporter go to the press to get what you've been saying is inaccurate information instead of getting it straight from an Inspector?

I can appreciate there may be small inaccuracies but I think that's also normal. That's why what Sugden says about being careful with the press, I agree we should. If you were to read MJK's inquest story in The Daily Telegraph's and compare it to every other paper, you'd see there were wide differences. How can that be when they were all listening to the exact same inquest taking place? It happens. The foreign NY reporter could also have had a difficult time in understanding a strong English accent. It happens. I don't however think things were made up in this article.

So what are you left with, at best, a policeman who relayed to a foreign reporter only as much details as can be found in the papers.

He was not sharing details of the police investigation known to no-one else and privy to only Scotland Yard &/or, the Met.

No Jon, I think you're mistaken. Ben and I have shown as best as possible that 'Harris' was Reid and not just a policeman. I believe I've also made a reasonable argument about the information Reid gave in the article.

As I've said before, this article is very important since it gives us Reid's opinion much earlier than previously we were aware of.

Cheers
DRoy

[Ben]

Many thanks for your input, Droy. I agree with your points entirely.

Hi Jon,

In this case I think I am in good company, both Sugden & Curtis have researched this issue and have considerably more credibility than a few isolated voices who contest this issue here on Casebook.

It's so very tiresome to see you pretending always to represent the rank-and-file voice of the majority, especially since you very, very rarely do. You can argue all you want that the press encountered considerable difficulty when attempting to extract case-related information from the police. Nine times out of ten, most attempts might well have failed, but to argue that it never once occurred is both shockingly naive and 100% refuted. We have irrefutable instances of it happening. The police informed the Echo (at least) of the "very reduced importance" status which they had attached to Hutchinson's account, as well as providing the reason for how it came to be so. We know this because they extracted information we know to be true as a result of "inquiry at Commercial Street Police Station". This most assuredly qualifies as an example of the police divulging "proprietary information" regarding an active murder investigation to certain members of the press.

Your press quotes only remind us of what we all know, i.e. that the press experienced difficulty in obtaining reliable information from the police.

Here is an early publication of Lawende's description in the Times, 2nd October:

The following is a description of a man seen in company with a woman who is supposed to be the victim of the murderer in the City. The man was observed in a court in Duke-street, leading to Mitre-square, about 1:40 a.m. on Sunday. He is described as of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak.

Evidently, this description was not provided by the Jewish trio or else the rest of their accounts would be provided along with their names. Since this description was only supposed to have been released for the first time in the police-sanctioned Police Gazette on 19th October, it is perfectly clear that a police source communicated with the Times directly (unless this description appears in any other paper?), resulting in the premature release of the Lawende description.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Thanks DRoy.

Might I ask, are you sure you have read the caveat written by Sudgen?

He did not say the police never spoke to the press. Neither has Curtis (Jack the Ripper and the London Press), neither have I, though I must admit the context of this disagreement sometimes becomes confused.
I think intentionally, by one particular person.

Please let me explain, Sugden wrote: (and allow me to hi-lite the relevant pieces)

"And except in the context of Coroner's inquiries, they were not made privy to the details of police investigations. It cannot be emphasized too strongly, therefore, that however valuable the newspapers might be as sources of contemporary comment and for information on the public aspects of the subject like inquest hearings or street scenes they are not credible sources for the details of the crimes themselves and should not be used as such" (p.112)

In each case "they" is a reference to the press in general.

Curtis writes:

"Besides the issue of propriety, reporters had to contend with the persistent refusal of Scotland Yard to divulge the details of their hunt for the killer. Lack of cooperation from the police greatly hampered the efforts of journalists to cover the entire story and forced them to rely on the testimony of police surgeons and other witnesses at each inquest." (pp.116-7)

So, as naive as Ben likes to label anyone who disagrees with him. In this case I think I am in good company, both Sugden & Curtis have researched this issue and have considerably more credibility than a few isolated voices who contest this issue here on Casebook.

That said, we know from numerous complaints across the board:

"As a strongly-marked feature of the hue and cry after the murderer, we feel bound to mention the almost insuperable difficulty there is in obtaining any information from the police". Evening News, 10 Sept.

"The police, however, refuse to supply information of any kind to certain of the reporters", Star, 9 Nov

"The result of the police reticence has been the creation of a market for false news", Star, 12 Nov.

"The police, presumably acting under instructions from headquarters, manifest the greatest reserve in communicating information, and at present decline to state either the names given by the prisoners, or the circumstances which led to their arrest."
Echo, 1 Oct.

"Up to the present the police refuse the Press any information". Echo 9 Nov.

"...in consequence of the reticence of the police authorities all sorts of rumors prevailed". Daily Telegraph, 12 Nov.

"The utmost reticence is being observed regarding the arrest and the authorities at the Commercial street police station", Morning Advertiser, 7 Dec.

And there is more, but you get the gist.
The police, did not talk to the press about the murder investigation currently underway.


Returning to your post.

Don't concern yourself with that "Kate", we do know who stayed with Kelly it was Barnett, and he only left 9 days previous.
Maria Harvey stayed with Kelly for two of those days, so no-one stayed and shared the weekly rent with Mary, this "Kate" is making it up.
Therefore, you will not read her claim in the papers.

Secondly, the bodies were not found with their heads lower than the trunk, that is just plain fiction, so no, it is not "inside information". All the bodies were laid flat, as flat as the ground permitted, and we do have the medical evidence to prove it.

Like I said in my previous post, the accuracy of some of those points in that "Harris" article leaves a lot to be desired. The reporter could have gained more accurate details straight from the press.

So what are you left with, at best, a policeman who relayed to a foreign reporter only as much details as can be found in the papers.

He was not sharing details of the police investigation known to no-one else and privy to only Scotland Yard &/or, the Met.

Like I said, this "Harris" article, for this debate, is an unnecessary distraction.

[DRoy]

Hi Jon,

The article is a distraction to the point of the discussion.

As we all can easily see, there is nothing discussed in that article which is proprietary. "Harris" did not talk about police activity, in fact he only repeated common knowledge easily found in the press.
Yet, this article was offered as proof that the police did share information about their investigation - nothing could be further from the truth.

I disagree Jon. First of all the title of the article is A Night in Whitechapel - The Trip of a New York Reporter Through the London Slums. The article is not about the Whitechapel murders, it is about Whitechapel the location. In fact, the reporter specifically says "I told him that we wanted to see all the
terrors of Whitechapel, the thieves' dens, the underground lodging houses, and all that sort of thing that we had read about."

I also disagree with 'Harris' only repeating what is in the press. He talks about 'Kate' who apparently lived with MJK which I have yet to see in the local press. 'Harris' is the first person to comment on "All the bodie's have been found with the head lower than the trunk". 'Harris' provides the first "drunkard theory" in the article which Reid agrees with (see below...).

What does Stewart Evans (on this site) say about Reid's theory about who the WM was? "A first airing of a 'Jack the Drunkard' theory!" and that is from Lloyd's Weekly News of February 4, 1912 which is 23 years after this New York article!

I felt the reporter discusses two murders and their sites more than the others; they were the Alice MacKenzie & MJK murders. Did 'Harris' specifically give more information on the two beacuse they were the most sensational to him? For obvious reasons the MJK site was discussed in detail; but why the Mackenzie site? Mackenzie's site happened to be the site where Reid was the first Inspector on the scene and viewed the body (which 'Harris' also did). Reid said this "And there was always a sort of interesting speculation as to who would reach the scene of a new crime first."

Why does it matter if "Harris" was Reid, how many CID Detectives worked at Scotland Yard, and do you think any of them might have shared that same thought as Reid?
Or do you think he was alone in his interpretation, if so, why would you think that?

Whether "Harris" was Reid, or simply another "older" officer (10 yrs older?) who agreed with that particular point, is a matter for belief, it cannot be proven either way.

As mentioned in my earlier posts in this thread, it is hugely important if 'Harris' is Reid! We'd have very valuable information coming from him; clues and information we didn't have before from a predominant Inspector who was in the know.

Perhaps there were other Detectives that shared Reid's opinion but none of them are quoted as saying so. I don't think the onus should be on me to prove there weren't others that shared Reid's (or Harris') view, that onus should be on you to show they did. As Ben showed in his earlier posts, the wording between 'Harris' and Reid is too close to assume coincidence.

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

Jon,

You said...

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.

Hi DRoy.
The article is a distraction to the point of the discussion.

As we all can easily see, there is nothing discussed in that article which is proprietary. "Harris" did not talk about police activity, in fact he only repeated common knowledge easily found in the press.
Yet, this article was offered as proof that the police did share information about their investigation - nothing could be further from the truth.

Why does it matter if "Harris" was Reid, how many CID Detectives worked at Scotland Yard, and do you think any of them might have shared that same thought as Reid?
Or do you think he was alone in his interpretation, if so, why would you think that?

Whether "Harris" was Reid, or simply another "older" officer (10 yrs older?) who agreed with that particular point, is a matter for belief, it cannot be proven either way.

[lynn cates]

check

Hello Jon. Thanks. I'll see what they have to say.

Cheers.
LC