Heartless?

[PaulB]

Debs

If one reads the article several times, does it not come across as a collection of reports, from different sources put together to produce a single article?

Indeed that view is strengthened by the following:

In another thread recently under discussion "the Pall" the source used is the Daily News 10th Nov 1888:

"Shortly afterwards a detective officer carried from the house a pail, with which he left in a four wheel cab. The pail was covered with a newspaper, and was stated to contain portions of the woman's body. It was taken to the house of Dr. Phillips, 2 Spital square"


The very same words are used in this article.

There certainly seems nothing to suggests it contains an interview of any type with Arnold that I can see.



Steve

Hi Steve,
Weekly newspapers are often particularly valuable sources because they sometimes give fuller and more detailed reports, but they also lifted a lot of material from daily newspapers and it is often possible to identify which ones, as you have done. Unfortunately, Trevor relies almost totally on internet sites for his information (his book on serial killers was lifted almost wholesale from the internet, as was his book of mysteries. I see no reason to suppose thathis Ripper books are different. Certainly in this case he seemsto have stumbled across something on Richard Jones' site, completely misunderstood it, and hastily rushed across to Casebook and resurrected a thread from 2012 to share his discovery. I can't see any reason why he shoud be treated seriously over this (or anything else for that matter) as he only muddies the water (to coin a phrase!)

[Trevor Marriott]

Absolutely, Steve. That's definitely my impression too; a mish-mash of earlier reports. Kattrup's earlier point was correct.Tthere is no 'statement' from Arnold in that news report.

Does there have to be a specific statement? It is obvious that the article as stated was from an interview, as was the article in The NOW Reid interview. Where are you going to get a statement from ? There was no need for him to make an official statement at the time.

The full content of that article cannot be rejected just because there are mistakes, especially as those mistakes which have been highlighted are being used to suggest that some of what might be true is unsafe also. It doesn't work that way in the real world, each part has to be analysed and judged on its merits.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MsWeatherwax]

So according to your thinking, we should dismiss every article we read in every daily newspaper that is published, or do our own research into all those articles and quotes that appear in those papers to prove them correct, before we accept them.

Why not? If it's something that interests me, or I think might have a significant effect on my daily life, I do. Do you seriously believe what you read in the Daily Mail or The Sun? Why do you think they have to keep publishing apologies for the lies they've told? Or why at least one of their 'investigative reporters' has been prosecuted?

I don't even accept 'facts' from newspapers when I'm doing a bit of light reading, and if I was about to publish research with my name on it based on something in a newspaper, I certainly wouldn't accept them.

[Joshua Rogan]

No worries Debs, at least someone noticed.

[Debra A]

Yes Debs, I think I previously suggested that the Echo 12 Nov reference that Trevor is so fond of quoting was referring to the uterus, not the heart.

"Nothing of any importance was discovered in the ashes at the deceased's house. A small portion only of the remains is missing, while it is noticeable as a special incident in the barbarous murder that the organ hitherto taken away at the mutilations was found in the room, although it had been cut out of the body."


The Daily News 10 Nov seems to confirm this;

"It was stated in some of the evening papers that the particular organ missing in two previous murders was also found to have been abstracted in this case also. That, however, is not the case."

Thanks Joshua.

[Debra A]

Debs

If one reads the article several times, does it not come across as a collection of reports, from different sources put together to produce a single article?

Indeed that view is strengthened by the following:

In another thread recently under discussion "the Pall" the source used is the Daily News 10th Nov 1888:

"Shortly afterwards a detective officer carried from the house a pail, with which he left in a four wheel cab. The pail was covered with a newspaper, and was stated to contain portions of the woman's body. It was taken to the house of Dr. Phillips, 2 Spital square"


The very same words are used in this article.

There certainly seems nothing to suggests it contains an interview of any type with Arnold that I can see.



Steve

Absolutely, Steve. That's definitely my impression too; a mish-mash of earlier reports. Kattrup's earlier point was correct.Tthere is no 'statement' from Arnold in that news report.

[Joshua Rogan]

Excellent.
I noticed that either here or in another thread you also drew Trevor's attention to the fact that some of the earlier reports were refering to the rumours that the uterus had been removed when they report that the organ thought to have been removed and taken away had been found. I've also mentioned this to Trevor before. I think it's an important point.

Yes Debs, I think I previously suggested that the Echo 12 Nov reference that Trevor is so fond of quoting was referring to the uterus, not the heart.

"Nothing of any importance was discovered in the ashes at the deceased's house. A small portion only of the remains is missing, while it is noticeable as a special incident in the barbarous murder that the organ hitherto taken away at the mutilations was found in the room, although it had been cut out of the body."


The Daily News 10 Nov seems to confirm this;

"It was stated in some of the evening papers that the particular organ missing in two previous murders was also found to have been abstracted in this case also. That, however, is not the case."

[Elamarna]

Once again, the Echo articles from 10th and 12th are contradicted by the same paper on 13th;

"PORTION OF BODY IS MISSING.
The medical testimony adduced at the inquest was limited to that which was absolutely required to enable the Jury to find respecting the cause of death. A morning contemporary is, however, enabled to state, on what it declares to be good authority, that, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, a portion of the body organs was missing. The police, and with them the divisional surgeon, have arrived at the conclusion that it is the interest of justice not to disclose the details of the professional inquiry."

Joshua,

i think that can be said to be data supporting the view that something was taken and not found.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Is it me or are the comments that Trevor is attributing to Arnold very similar to the comments made to the press by John McCarthy on 10th November on what he saw when he looked through the window?

Debs

If one reads the article several times, does it not come across as a collection of reports, from different sources put together to produce a single article?

Indeed that view is strengthened by the following:

In another thread recently under discussion "the Pall" the source used is the Daily News 10th Nov 1888:

"Shortly afterwards a detective officer carried from the house a pail, with which he left in a four wheel cab. The pail was covered with a newspaper, and was stated to contain portions of the woman's body. It was taken to the house of Dr. Phillips, 2 Spital square"


The very same words are used in this article.

There certainly seems nothing to suggests it contains an interview of any type with Arnold that I can see.



Steve

[Debra A]

Once again, the Echo articles from 10th and 12th are contradicted by the same paper on 13th;

"PORTION OF BODY IS MISSING.
The medical testimony adduced at the inquest was limited to that which was absolutely required to enable the Jury to find respecting the cause of death. A morning contemporary is, however, enabled to state, on what it declares to be good authority, that, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, a portion of the body organs was missing. The police, and with them the divisional surgeon, have arrived at the conclusion that it is the interest of justice not to disclose the details of the professional inquiry."

Excellent.
I noticed that either here or in another thread you also drew Trevor's attention to the fact that some of the earlier reports were refering to the rumours that the uterus had been removed when they report that the organ thought to have been removed and taken away had been found. I've also mentioned this to Trevor before. I think it's an important point.

[Elamarna]

Lets stick to the fact that is in issue and not muddy the waters.

Exactly, is the report reliable?
And is it a first hand account of Arnold's?

Is there any direct evidence from anyone who was directly involved to corroborate the inference being drawn by researchers from Bonds statement to show that the heart wad taken away by the killer. The answer is no, end of story

That depends on how you interpret Dr Hebberts comments in "A system of legal medicine":

"all the organs except the heart were found scattered around the room"


There are enough difference between Hebbert's version of the scene and Bond's to suggest that one is not a mere copy of the other, and so should be view as as independent support.

Is there any evidence to show that the heart was not taken away yes end of story.

Who do we believe, and what evidence is reliable? Two police officers directly involved, numerous newspaper articles all saying nothing was taken away.

No Trevor, not two, just Reid!

As Kattrup as said, there appears to be no reference to Arnold talking about the heart in the debated article.

They all cant be wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually they can be!

However that is not what we are discussing, which is the reliability of a specific newspaper article.


Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

Once again, the Echo articles from 10th and 12th are contradicted by the same paper on 13th;

"PORTION OF BODY IS MISSING.
The medical testimony adduced at the inquest was limited to that which was absolutely required to enable the Jury to find respecting the cause of death. A morning contemporary is, however, enabled to state, on what it declares to be good authority, that, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, a portion of the body organs was missing. The police, and with them the divisional surgeon, have arrived at the conclusion that it is the interest of justice not to disclose the details of the professional inquiry."

[Debra A]

Is it me or are the comments that Trevor is attributing to Arnold very similar to the comments made to the press by John McCarthy on 10th November on what he saw when he looked through the window?

[Elamarna]

I think you need to rethink you logic.

Here we have Bond making an ambiguous statement, which does not conclusively prove that the heart was missing from the room.

We have no corroboration from anyone directly involved with him or anyone independent to back up the inference researchers have drawn from Bonds statement to suggest that it was missing.

We dont even have anything from anyone else involved in later years who reports the killer took away the heart, its not ever mentioned and why is that?


And of course like normal you are attempting to move the goalposts, the current debate is not about thew heart per se.
It was and is about the reliability of a newspaper report and if it can be regarded as being a first hand account of Arnold.


On the other side we have two senior police officers who were directly involved stating that no organs were taken away by the killer.


Yes we have a source for Reid saying so. which has been questioned on differing issues.

Please name a reliable source for the second officer Arnold, one where he is actually reported as saying this?

You have claimed this is the report of an interview with Arnold, can you please point out where the article gives that impression.

It reads like a press report, with information presented, which has been gathered from several different sources.


In addition we have a number of newspaper articles which also report nothing was taken away.

So even if you dont want to accept outright that nothing was taken away based on what is known, and the balance of probability tells us that nothing was taken away. The evidence to back this up is overwhelming.

As to Bond you cite him as a historical source, to my mind so are all the others mentioned above

Bond's report is a primary source, THE primary source for the post mortem!

While there are some problems over its provenance, it is considered by most to be genuine.

Are you putting Bond's report into the same category as the article we have been discussing?

Can you confirm or deny that please?


I note, not surprisingly, that there has been no response from you to post # 67

And of course you are still not addressed the issues raised about you suggestion, that Arnold may have had a memory issue within 48 hours of the event, or how this is at odds with you view on Reid and his memory 8 years after the same event.



Steve

[PaulB]

Trevor,
Whilst I have no desire or real interest in this turgid and increasingly desperate arguments of yours, Kattrup pointed out that Superintendent Arnold did not state that the heart was in the room. In fact, he appeared to have made no reference to the heart at all. I think Kattrup deserves a reply

The article states:
"Mr Arnold entered by the window, and a horrible and sickening sight presented itself. The poor woman lay on her back on the bed entirely naked. And throat was cut from ear to ear, right down to The spinal column. The ears and emotions have been cut clean off. The breasts had also been cleanly cut off and placed on a table which was by the side of the bed.. The kidneys and heart had also been removed from the body, I'm placed on the table by the side of the breasts."

A little while back you replied to Steve in the following way: "So according to your thinking, we should dismiss every article we read in every daily newspaper that is published, or do our own research into all those articles and quotes that appear in those papers to prove them correct, before we accept them."

The answer to that is that no source is accepted or dismissed without being fully and properly assessed, so, no, we do not dismiss every newspaper article. However, we do undertake our own research into all the newspapers and quotes that appear in those newspapers in an effort to establish accuracy or not. That means actual work, not trawling the internet for whatever we can find, as you do.

It is ironic that you should have said that to Steve because you have ceaslesly berated everyone for uncritically accepting what the sources tell us, which, of course, none of us do. Except, apparently, you. And one reason for that is to make sure we don't make dumb errors.

You see, if you go through the newspapers, particularly the early reports and those weekly newspapers which in the main drew upon those early reports (as analysis would have shown you), you will see plantiful reports where the heart is located, including on the bedside table (note The Times): it was placed between Kelly's legs: (Boston Daily Globe, 10 November 1888), placed beside the mutilated trunk (New York Herald, 10 November 1888), placed on the table beside the bed (The Star, The Times, 10 November 1888). It was subsequent to those reports that speculation about the heart emerged.

So, not only are you wrong to assert that the presence of the heart was attested by Supt. Arnold (he never commented on it), you are wrong that the newspaper report in this respect is reliable and up-to-date. Good research would help you a lot.

And now that your friend has put you right, do I take it that you now fully accept that you have been wrong all these months about what primary and secondary sources are?