Heartless?

[Elamarna]

Does there have to be a specific statement?

Of course there does if it is a first hand report.
It can either be as a separate statement or an interview. or even just having him quoted as saying something.

It is obvious that the article as stated was from an interview, as was the article in The NOW Reid interview.

Please demonstrate how it is obviously an interview?
It merely says he entered via the window and later gave the order for the door to be forced.

None of the information given after his name is either directly claimed to be from him in the article, or given in quotes which are used throughout in the rest article.

However the article DOES contains statements or interviews with:

Mr. John McCarthy
Joseph Barnett
Lizzie Albrook
A Mrs. Paumier,
Maurice Lewis
Mrs. Maxwell
A woman named Kennedy


In all case quotation marks are used

The only time such appear in relation to Arnold are in McCarthy's statement when referring to the forcing of the door.

All of this information is right in front of you; yet you seem not to understand it.

Where are you going to get a statement from ? There was no need for him to make an official statement at the time.

So you accept there is no statement.

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.

Of course it can.

The part of the article which deals with the description of the organs is more incorrect than correct:

Not a single description of where the items are in the room is correct.
several Items are just ignored completely.

Please read post# 67, you might then see this is so.

It doesn't work that way in the real world, each part has to be analysed and judged on its merits.

That is exactly what people are doing, judging the article on its merits.


Steve

[PaulB]

Well where did the newspaper reporter get the information from which is in sufficient detail to suggest that Arnold was the source.

In any event the point is that there is another reference to show that the heart was not taken in addition to Reids interview and the newspaper reports and the lack of corroboration to Bonds ambiguous statement.

As to primary and secondary sources I still stand by my interpretation, and as you know I am not alone in that line of thinking.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,
Supt. Arnold did not have the window to Kelly's room taken out nor did he enter Kelly's room through the window. Supt. Arnold did NOT provide the information that this was how he entered the room. Nor is there any reason at all to suppose that the rest of the story was obtained from Supt. Arnold, therefore Supt. Arnold did NOT say the heart was on the bedside table. It doesn't matter where the reporter obtained this information, the information was wrong. Your question is therefore a waste of time. A simple diversionary tactic to avoid admiting that you are wrong.

There is not another reference to the heart not having been taken by the murderer. Supt. Arnold did not say anything about the heart. Nothing about the heart can be attributed to him. As has been shown to you, several newspapers on 10 November commented on the location of the heart, including The Times and The Star. Your report evidently came from the same source. But the fact is that speculation about the heart being missing appeared in the press after 10th November. Your report belongs to this early reporting.

Nobody else thinks as you do about what primary and secondary sources are, Trevor. Not a soul. Even your friend said you were wrong. What's bizarre is that you were a copper with little or no grasp of what history or research is all about. I, on the other hand, have worked with history and research all my life. What primary and secondary sources are and how to identify them is something students are taught in high school or college. It's basic stuff. You don't know what it is. You are told that what you think it is is wrong. You NEVER explain why you are right. You NEVER define primary and secondary sources. You never cite or quote a book or web definition that supports you. You simply assert that you are right and live in the fantasy world that others share your opinion. You are very sad.

[Trevor Marriott]

Actually, yes there does have to be a specific statement. Why? Because you said there was one. You said Supt. Arnold said something. He didn't. At the very least that's extremely sloppy reading and understanding on your part.

And it is not 'obvious' that the article was derived from an interview. In fact, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that it was froman interview at all. It is a summation of details given in daily newspaper reports.

Thats you opinion for what its worth

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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!)

I couldn't give a toss as to whether I am treated seriously on here. I dont expect to be especially by you. Your posts make it quite clear that you are not my number one fan. That doesn't bother me because it is quite clear that you and others are so desperate to prop up the old theories and by belittling me you think that will make others sit up and take notice of your constant ramblings and desperate attempts to suppress new facts which clearly if true change the face of Ripperology and in doing so then make all your published books not worth the paper they a written on.

You have found your niche now reviewing books take my advice stick to that and leave the investigative work to those who know what they are doing.

On a final note how did Halloween go? I hope all those skeletons in your cupboard didn't manage to escape.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

Does there have to be a specific statement? It is obvious that the article as stated was from an interview,

Actually, yes there does have to be a specific statement. Why? Because you said there was one. You said Supt. Arnold said something. He didn't. At the very least that's extremely sloppy reading and understanding on your part.

And it is not 'obvious' that the article was derived from an interview. In fact, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that it was froman interview at all. It is a summation of details given in daily newspaper reports.

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

Well where did the newspaper reporter get the information from which is in sufficient detail to suggest that Arnold was the source.

In any event the point is that there is another reference to show that the heart was not taken in addition to Reids interview and the newspaper reports and the lack of corroboration to Bonds ambiguous statement.

As to primary and secondary sources I still stand by my interpretation, and as you know I am not alone in that line of thinking.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[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.

https://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