Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence left behind

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

  • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

    The minimalist nature is what makes it so malleable to different theories. If there were more facts we'd have less speculation. And a normal hobby.
    Clearly we agree on that, although at times I'm not so sure that even if we had CCTV footage, DNA, and a confession that speculation would be eliminated.

    - Jeff

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

      Clearly we agree on that, although at times I'm not so sure that even if we had CCTV footage, DNA, and a confession that speculation would be eliminated.

      - Jeff
      Of course not. A cover up obviously.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

        Clearly we agree on that, although at times I'm not so sure that even if we had CCTV footage, DNA, and a confession that speculation would be eliminated.

        - Jeff
        I think that the real problem here Jeff, we are trained to believe that those are the methods with which a determination of guilt could be made. What that negates is that for years before DNA, CCTV or even confessions, murders still got solved. Not all, but most. I don't recall who to attribute the quote to, but I believe it was Monro, about "undiscovered murders" being uncommon in London. We will never have that preponderance of evidence that makes a conclusive case for any one person, but again....people solved murders by interviews, research and their ability to read the evidence.

        We can do all those things, granted, we have less evidence, but its all about what people think they see when they look at what we do have.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

          I think that the real problem here Jeff, we are trained to believe that those are the methods with which a determination of guilt could be made. What that negates is that for years before DNA, CCTV or even confessions, murders still got solved. Not all, but most. I don't recall who to attribute the quote to, but I believe it was Monro, about "undiscovered murders" being uncommon in London. We will never have that preponderance of evidence that makes a conclusive case for any one person, but again....people solved murders by interviews, research and their ability to read the evidence.

          We can do all those things, granted, we have less evidence, but its all about what people think they see when they look at what we do have.
          Michael, it's worth pointing out undiscovered murders were as rare then as they were throughout the entire time of well documented murders and subsequent hangings in the annals of British legal history. It is definitely rare for a convicted killer to be unknown to the victim. Pierrpoint faced this through his entire career.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

            Or Reid knew that they weren't taken by the killer because....he was Jack!
            Someone will accuse him eventually Joshua.
            Regards

            Herlock






            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

              There are two theories being examined here, Kelly's heart was taken by the killer, and Kelly's heart was not taken by the killer. I don't care which of those ends up with the most support. But from everything we have, the vast bulk of it ends up on the side of her heart was taken, as only Reid's unofficial statement made 8 years later suggests otherwise. So while I do stand by the conclusion, it's because nothing has been presented that changes the weighting of the evidence or where it points. If, however, someone were to present a good argument that the evidence needs re-weighting, or even better presents a new source of evidence, that might very well change the balance and a new conclusion would be warranted. So far, nothing I've seen has done that for this particular question.

              - Jeff
              Jeff
              Take the blinkers off, Reids statement, plus the newspaper reports, plus the absence of any corroboration thereafter of the heart being taken, overwhelming, against one ambiguous uncorroborated statement made by Bond, who makes no mention thereafter in his report to Anderson despite him taking charge, and no one after that making any mention of the heart being taken.

              If you are going to disregard Reids statement because it doesn't sit well with you. are you going to disregard all the other police officers statements of facts and quotes that they made over the years, which many rely heavily on?

              There is only small part of that interview regarding Kelly he got wrong and that was in relation to the time her body was discovered. The rest is in such detail for it not to be correct, he has no reason to lie.

              Of course you and others have to try to negate it, because to accept it as fact kicks the arse out of the rest of the old accepted facts and we wouldn't want that would we ?

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                Jeff
                Take the blinkers off, Reids statement, plus the newspaper reports, plus the absence of any corroboration thereafter of the heart being taken, overwhelming, against one ambiguous uncorroborated statement made by Bond, who makes no mention thereafter in his report to Anderson despite him taking charge, and no one after that making any mention of the heart being taken.
                There is only the Times report on the 12th that states nothing was taken, that was corrected on the 13th. The Echo's report on the 12th specifically states a portion was missing, so how you can possibly interpret that as nothing was taken is beyond me. Regardless, the Times story on the 13th effectively retracts their story from the 12th, but if that story from the 12th suits your needs I can't stop you, but I can disagree with you. I'm looking at the entire set of evidence, and in combination the Times ends up clearly stating (on the 13th) a portion of the body was missing.

                There is nothing about the postmortem report and crime scene recorded details of organ placement that is at all ambiguous.

                Nobody ever makes mention of people stealing organs at the mortuary either, yet that seems of no concern to you. Nobody ever makes any mention that the testimony at the inquest was later found to be in error, or any other remote hint that Reid's assertion might have a foundation in actual fact. The only way that idea could have possibly be conceived by him is while he was at the crime scene. At that point, when the organ placements were detailed, and the uterus and kidneys were accounted for, and nothing was apparently missing, that point was noted among the police and medical professionals at the time. It would be beyond belief to think that would not happen. That would mean that Reid's personal involvement at the crime scene would include a conversation where it appeared nothing was taken away. Only after the autopsy examined her chest was it found that the heart was missing - but Reid would not have been at the autopsy, and his first memory would be of things being "all present". That is exactly the kind of thing that results in long term memory errors. Given Reid's claim has no support in the documentation, a simple normal error of recall is the only explanation of worth. He's not lying, he's mistaken.

                If you are going to disregard Reids statement because it doesn't sit well with you. are you going to disregard all the other police officers statements of facts and quotes that they made over the years, which many rely heavily on?
                I put very little weight on any of the memoirs or other "years-later statements", particularly when ever they conflict with information recorded at the time. In the case when those later statements are the only source for a new bit of information, they serve only as something to investigate further. In other words, I think they can be a source suggesting something that is worth investigating to see if it can be corroborated or refuted. But until more reliable contemporary information is found supporting or refuting it, then like Reid's statement, I consider it nothing more than a hypothesis, not evidence. Reid's statement is a hypothesis, the evidence refutes it. That doesn't mean everything in Reid's interview will be wrong, because it is an error to dismiss everything simply because one bit is shown to be incorrect; if I do 100 sums, and get 99 of them correct and 1 wrong, that one error doesn't mean I got the other questions incorrect true; nor does getting 99 correct mean the last question doesn't still need to be evaluated. In other words, I have no doubt his knowledge of the case was impressive, but that doesn't mean every statement of fact he utters is correct. Each statement must be evaluated, and that one comes out false.

                There is only small part of that interview regarding Kelly he got wrong and that was in relation to the time her body was discovered. The rest is in such detail for it not to be correct, he has no reason to lie.
                The truth of other statements does not make a false statement true.


                Of course you and others have to try to negate it, because to accept it as fact kicks the arse out of the rest of the old accepted facts and we wouldn't want that would we ?

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                I don't have to try and negate it, the evidence does that for me. My job is just to make sure I don't dismiss evidence because it doesn't fit the theory I'm considering. I don't have an agenda to overturn accepted facts simply because they've been accepted for a while, which is clearly your mission. I actually applaud the push to re-evaluate accepted beliefs, to go back over the evidence and see if it does get us there. As you rightly point out, sometimes long held beliefs turn out to be erroneous, but what you seem to forget is that sometimes they turn out to be correct. A hypothesis does not refute anything, it only suggests new types of evidence to look for. Find and show me evidence that Kelly's heart was in the possession of the doctors rather than trying to make clear statements to the contrary sound like they are ambiguous just so the hypothesis remains open. Show me some evidence, that isn't retracted, that isn't based upon otherwise unsupported statements based upon memory of long past events, and I will happily change my view. But expecting me to ignore the recorded crime scene and medical evidence that straight forwardly states her heart was missing simply because a "What if..." story can be spun is a pipe dream.

                - Jeff
                Last edited by JeffHamm; 10-08-2019, 11:38 PM.

                Comment


                • If you are going to disregard Reids statement because it doesn't sit well with you. are you going to disregard all the other police officers statements of facts and quotes that they made over the years, which many rely heavily on?
                  Sorry Trevor but that’s a bit rich coming from someone that dismisses as ‘unreliable’ Anderson and Macnaghten from the police and witnesses like Cadosch and Richardson. When we read that the heart was missing and it wasn’t counted amongst the other body parts in the room the conclusion should be inescapable. What you appear to be doing is indulging in conspiracy theorist thinking.
                  Regards

                  Herlock






                  "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                    Michael, it's worth pointing out undiscovered murders were as rare then as they were throughout the entire time of well documented murders and subsequent hangings in the annals of British legal history. It is definitely rare for a convicted killer to be unknown to the victim. Pierrpoint faced this through his entire career.
                    I think that using information like Al really helps when assessing the circumstantial evidence. Which is, in some of these cases, the only real way to see some of the marked differences in context. I see the possibility that within the Canonical Group alone, 3 of the Five women might have known their killers, formally or informally. In one case, intimately. I also see the remaining 2 being the hardest of all murders to solve...seemingly motiveless. That's the Ripper there. Killing strangers. No ties, no regrets.
                    Michael Richards

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      Sorry Trevor but that’s a bit rich coming from someone that dismisses as ‘unreliable’ Anderson and Macnaghten from the police and witnesses like Cadosch and Richardson. When we read that the heart was missing and it wasn’t counted amongst the other body parts in the room the conclusion should be inescapable. What you appear to be doing is indulging in conspiracy theorist thinking.
                      No conspiracy just assessing and evaluating the evidence along with the supporting facts and coming to a right and proper conclusion.

                      The only difference is that we can prove Anderson and MM were less that liberal with the truth, and I am being kind when I say that. As to Reid he would appear to have been one of the most reliable and honest out of all the police who were involved in these murders. So all that he says not just in relation to the Kelly murder but all the other quotes from him must be respected. Just look at how he challenges Anderson what Anderson says.

                      As to the newspaper reports there is continuity upwards from editions that initally printed the suspicion that organs were missing to the later editions which confirmed following the post mortem none were missing. I fail to see why these facts along with Reids interview are disputed, especially when there is no corroboration to back up Bonds ambiguous statement.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Bond’s statement isn’t ambiguous. The heart was absent and it wasn’t listed as being in the room along with other body parts. This is straightforward.
                        Regards

                        Herlock






                        "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                          Bond’s statement isn’t ambiguous. The heart was absent and it wasn’t listed as being in the room along with other body parts. This is straightforward.
                          No its not straightforward, following the post mortem a return visit was made to kellys room, clearly they were looking for something, We also do not know what the contents of the pail were which went to Phillips and whatever it was presumably didnt find its way back to the post mortem room for documentation.

                          Bonds report was written up later by Dr Hebbert who attended the post mortem, but after the post mortem he left and did not take part in anything further. So if the heart was found when they went back, or it was in the pail, then he would not have needed to add it to the report that it was found, because it was never missing. So thats why it is not mentionbed in his report, and no one else refers to it being taken away by the killer.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            No its not straightforward, following the post mortem a return visit was made to kellys room, clearly they were looking for something, We also do not know what the contents of the pail were which went to Phillips and whatever it was presumably didnt find its way back to the post mortem room for documentation.
                            True, and what we do know ,if the Bond report is accurate on this score, is that the stomach ,still attached, was in the report .
                            So it wasn't removed in the pail
                            You can lead a horse to water.....

                            Comment


                            • I think that mystery is being seen where none exists.

                              .The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent.
                              If there was a list of important organs which would we expect at the top of the list? I’d suggest the heart. And so why....

                              . The viscera found in various parts viz; the uterus & kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right foot, the liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side & the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen & thighs were on a table
                              A pretty exhaustive list but no mention of the bodies major organ. Why? Because the killer took it away with him.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






                              "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                I think that mystery is being seen where none exists.



                                If there was a list of important organs which would we expect at the top of the list? I’d suggest the heart. And so why....



                                A pretty exhaustive list but no mention of the bodies major organ. Why? Because the killer took it away with him.
                                Well you keep believing that, and you have again totally ignored all the points raised in my previous post, which in addition to Reids statement, and the newspaper reports offers yet another plausible explanation for the heart not being mentioned in the report in the first instance, and in fact the newspapers reports tell us that eventually all the body parts were accounted for.

                                I think you have been living with the old accepted theories for far too long and clearly find it hard to accept the fact that they are not now as acceptable as they perhaps were years ago.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X