Heartless?

[Elamarna]

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.

You also want to totally dismiss this article because parts of it are incorrect.

You also want to totally dismiss the Reid article for the same reason.

And you also want to dismiss the newspapers that also stated no organs were taken because we dont have sources. In that respect when the press are dealing with these type of cases much of the information they gather comes from sources who do not want to be identified hence the absence of sources. But that doesn't make the content unreliable does it?

We do know that parts of all the aforementioned are correct, and proven, but of course to prop up the old accepted theory that the killer took kellys heart you suggest that the relevant parts, which are correct and prove that the killer didnt should not be accepted, using the incorrect parts to negate what clearly is the truth.

In an ideal world it would be nice to prove everything we read in a newspaper or an autobiography, but we dont live in an ideal world.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What a post, you excel even yourself Trevor.

The post above demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about the differences between research and personal recreational reading.


It appears you have no understanding of how research should be conducted, if it is to have any value.

For research to be of use in advancing knowledge, it must have integrity, something which it seems you do not accept or understand.

The article you are talking about has Gross mistakes, not small ones in it,

Sometimes mistakes can be explained away as simple typos or depending on the time from the event, minor memory lapses, this is not the case here.


There is no way of knowing what Arnold has really said or seen?


Did for instance he say he had entered via the window or did that come from the journalist?


Did he say he had seen the kidneys and heart on the table? or was it the journalist?


Given the above issues how do we know the information reportedly gathered from Arnold, is not actually gather from other sources or simply rumour?


How can we be sure it is not partly or wholly an invention by the journalist?


The fact is that it is meant to be a first hand account and we cannot trust that it is!.


Do you really not see that there is no way of answering those question because of the gross mistakes in the article.
,
We cannot cherry pick what we want, either a source is reliable of it is not.
.


What was utterly unbelievable this afternoon was that you claimed that Arnold may have got the details wrong because of a memory issue, in an article published two days after the murder!.


The Reid article is questioned on entirely different grounds, to suggest they are the same is highly disingenuous..

Part of your argument for accepting it as being reliable, was your view that despite the article being 8 years after the events in Miller Court, Reid would of course have no no memory issues, he was there.

And yet today its was maybe Arnold got it wrong, because he was relying on his memory only some 2 days after the event.

Those alternative views are so funny.


You argue about newspapers protecting sources, but fail to understand that is not the same thing at all.
Your attempt to employ it really does demonstrate you apparent complete lack of understanding on how to use sources.


At the end of your post, you again try and compare research to everyday reading, the two actives are not the same.

One is a personal activity, the other is carried out with the intention of passing knowledge to others.that should be done with honesty and a degree of integrity.



steve

[Trevor Marriott]

If we want to present results that mean something, and allow our research to maintain a degree of integrity we must.

Steve

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.

You also want to totally dismiss this article because parts of it are incorrect.

You also want to totally dismiss the Reid article for the same reason.

And you also want to dismiss the newspapers that also stated no organs were taken because we dont have sources. In that respect when the press are dealing with these type of cases much of the information they gather comes from sources who do not want to be identified hence the absence of sources. But that doesn't make the content unreliable does it?

We do know that parts of all the aforementioned are correct, and proven, but of course to prop up the old accepted theory that the killer took kellys heart you suggest that the relevant parts, which are correct and prove that the killer didnt should not be accepted, using the incorrect parts to negate what clearly is the truth.

In an ideal world it would be nice to prove everything we read in a newspaper or an autobiography, but we dont live in an ideal world.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

But you cannot dismiss the whole content of the article

If we want to present results that mean something, and allow our research to maintain a degree of integrity we must.

Steve

[Fisherman]

But you cannot dismiss the whole content of the article

Then maybe you could pick out the odds and ends that we may rely on for Steve, Trevor?

[Trevor Marriott]

Not to me personally, but to the truth it certainly is.





Not because it goes against my beliefs, but because it goes against the known established historical facts!!

It would be equally unreliable no matter what it was about or what it said.
I find it inconceivable that a researcher does not understand this.







But he claims he entered by it, or rather the article claims not him, there is a difference.





So he may have had a memory lapse, a mere two days after the event?
The interview itself would be even earlier than the publication!

That really would make not just the article; but Arnold himself unreliable.

I really cannot believe you have said that.






It would be important if the article was reliable

It is not important, because the article is unreliable!



The article refers to going in via the window---wrong!

It claims the kidneys were on the table---probably wrong!

Those are major reporting inaccuracies to put it mildly.



I still cannot believe that have just attempted to explain one of those away as a memory lapse some 2 days after the event.



Trevor the fact is that the source, in this particular instances, is unreliable.

There is no way to know what, if any of it is truthful reporting, rather than repeating of rumours and stories in early circulation.

And yes it may be due to the reporter, it probably is.

It is not Arnold who is unreliable, but the article just because of several minor error

Arnold and Reid corroborate each other when they say the heart was not taken away. Both then corroborate the newspaper articles
Which say the same. All of that put together is pretty strong evidence against one ambiguous statement of Dr Bond with no corroboration to back him up.

Surely even with blinkers on you can see that ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Steve

But you cannot dismiss the whole content of the article

[Elamarna]

Yes I am using this article is that a problem to you ?

Not to me personally, but to the truth it certainly is.

I wonder if it had contained a statement saying the heart was missing would you be so quick to dismiss it ? You woulndt you would be ramming it down my throat. But because it goes against your beliefs, and others it is regarded as unreliable

Not because it goes against my beliefs, but because it goes against the known established historical facts!!

It would be equally unreliable no matter what it was about or what it said.
I find it inconceivable that a researcher does not understand this.

I accept that window part is incorrect, however we know the broken window was an important part of the finding of the body, and he does then say that the door was forced.

But he claims he entered by it, or rather the article claims not him, there is a difference.

What has to be remembered is that I suspect Arnold was speaking from memory,and Bonds observations were being written down at the time and that is where we have the ambiguity with Bonds statement.

So he may have had a memory lapse, a mere two days after the event?
The interview itself would be even earlier than the publication!

That really would make not just the article; but Arnold himself unreliable.

I really cannot believe you have said that.

But importantly Arnold does refer to the heart being present, and he is also correct about naming the other organs found in the room. So it is not correct to dismiss the full content of the article. Also taking into account errors perhaps made by the interviewer.

It would be important if the article was reliable

It is not important, because the article is unreliable!



The article refers to going in via the window---wrong!

It claims the kidneys were on the table---probably wrong!

Those are major reporting inaccuracies to put it mildly.



I still cannot believe that have just attempted to explain one of those away as a memory lapse some 2 days after the event.



Trevor the fact is that the source, in this particular instances, is unreliable.

There is no way to know what, if any of it is truthful reporting, rather than repeating of rumours and stories in early circulation.

And yes it may be due to the reporter, it probably is.

It is not Arnold who is unreliable, but the article.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

You are using this report are you not?

simple yes or no?

If not please provide the report of Arnold you are using?

No arguments here about memory lapses, primary or secondary sources. This report is clearly demonstrated to be unreliable by the mistakes it includes.

Or are you going to argue Arnold did climb in via the window and the kidneys were on the table?



Steve

Yes I am using this article is that a problem to you ?

I wonder if it had contained a statement saying the heart was missing would you be so quick to dismiss it ? You woulndt you would be ramming it down my throat. But because it goes against your beliefs, and others it is regarded as unreliable

I accept that window part is incorrect, however we know the broken window was an important part of the finding of the body, and he does then say that the door was forced.

What has to be remembered is that I suspect Arnold was speaking from memory,and Bonds observations were being written down at the time and that is where we have the ambiguity with Bonds statement.

But importantly Arnold does refer to the heart being present, and he is also correct about naming the other organs found in the room. So it is not correct to dismiss the full content of the article. Also taking into account errors perhaps made by the interviewer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Did Supt Arnold have an unfortunate split in his trousers ?

Thomas the Rrrrrrrrrrripper!

[Elamarna]

No based on several different witness corroborative statements, two from senior police officers who were at the crime scene. Insp Reid in charge of CID and Supt Arnold in charge of all H division.

Add to those the press reports. As I asked what else is needed for it to be accepted as fact.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

You are using this report are you not?

simple yes or no?

If not please provide the report of Arnold you are using?

No arguments here about memory lapses, primary or secondary sources. This report is clearly demonstrated to be unreliable by the mistakes it includes.

Or are you going to argue Arnold did climb in via the window and the kidneys were on the table?



Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Seriously?

Based on this report Jon?


Steve

No based on several different witness corroborative statements, two from senior police officers who were at the crime scene. Insp Reid in charge of CID and Supt Arnold in charge of all H division.

Add to those the press reports. As I asked what else is needed for it to be accepted as fact.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Steve, Abby ....... ;-)

Took you literally, silly me.

steve

[Abby Normal]

Steve, Abby ....... ;-)

got it.lol

[Jon Guy]

huh?

Seriously?
Based on this report Jon?

Steve, Abby ....... ;-)

[Abby Normal]

None, I think you`ve finally put the Kelly`s heart issue to bed, Trevor.

huh?

"...and the heart absent."

[Elamarna]

None, I think you`ve finally put the Kelly`s heart issue to bed, Trevor.

Seriously?

Based on this report Jon?


Steve