Heartless?

[PaulB]

On another note this is being blown up out of all proportion. The purpose of the exercise was to show that there were other references which shows that the heart was not taken away.

The article you cite does not show that there were other references which show that the heart was not taken away. The newspaper gives the same detail as other newspapers reported on 10th November, which, as I keep pointing out, was before the speculation began that the heart was missing.

The purpose of the exercise as far as you are concerned may have been to add another source to the one you have that the heart was not taken away, but newspaper reports are not uncritically accepted as true. Your report was looked at and tested and it was found not to be what you claimed, either in its details or as evidence that the heart was present.

[PaulB]

I couldn't give a toss as to whether I am treated seriously on here.

Tell me, if you don't give a toss whether you are treated seriously on here or not, why do you keep posting to the forums? Nobody takes you seriously here or on the other site, so are you some kind of perv who enjoys being ridiculed?

I dont expect to be especially by you. Your posts make it quite clear that you are not my number one fan.

Being your fan or not has no bearing on anything. I try to evaluate theories, test them, see if there is any mileage in them. I do this as objectively as possible. It would be great if you actually came up with something new and original, but you never do. It's not just me who says this, pretty much everyone says it, on both forums.

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.

I see you are out of your depth again, unable to present a sensible answer to anything and resorting to the exhausted 'prop up the old theories' argument. I can't help but wonder why you think any of your nonsense would change the face of Ripperology or make the books worthless? But you don't really think that at all, do you? You like to represent yourself as an iconoclast challenging the cherished thinking. Let's look at the blurb for your book about mysteries; you claim that 'wild speculative theories' have been repeated by books and television programmes, that you 'set out to re examine all that has gone before' and the result of your investigations was to 'cast a major doubt' over these theories and 'caused new questions to be asked', those questions being answered in your book. Does that sound familiar? It's rubbish though, isn't it? All you did was trawl the internet, copy your material from various sites, change the wording (when you remembered). There was no re-examination, there's no discernible evidence that you'd read a single book on the subjects you cover, let alone done any original research. You didn't cast any doubts, cause any questions to be asked, or answer them.

The Ripper is the same thing for you. You present yourself as the iconoclast, you make extravagant claims, you profess original thinking, and you dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as them propping up the old theories.

You have found your niche now reviewing books

Yeah, but it involves reading books, so unfortunately it's not something you could do. By the way, not that it matters even a tiny bit, but my first book review was published in 1967. I have been a reviewer ever since then, and not just books, and not just Ripper.

take my advice stick to that and leave the investigative work to those who know what they are doing.

I appreciate the advice, but I will pass on taking it. I think I am pretty good at investigative work. I hope you find someone who knows what they are doing who can help you be the same.

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

You know, if you searched the internet a little harder, you might find a joke that's actually amusing.

And now, with all this nonsense out of the way, how about trying to support the case you are trying to make. You cited Supt. Arnold as saying something he never said. You claimed that information was given by him in an interview, but it wasn't, it is derived from other press reports. You assert that the statement that the heart was on the bedside table is further evidence that the heart wasn't missing, but the same thing was said by other newspapers on the 10th, notably The Times, this being before the speculation about the heart being missing began in the press. On the face of it, you appear to be talking through your bottom, so maybe instead of being rude and silly, you might find it more profitable to either admit you were wrong or show why everyone else is.

[PaulB]

Thats you opinion for what its worth

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No it isn't. But I don't expect you to understand. History and research not being your forte.

[Elamarna]

Now you are being silly now. If I came into your house and I scattered 12 items around your living and then invited you in for a time to look at them, and then two days later asked you to remember them all, and where they were located would you be able to name all of them and remeber where each was. I would suggest you wouldn't. You might if you knew I was going to ask in 2 days time

Not at all, the only silly reply here is yours.

If you really think that is sensible answer to the issues raised in post #67 or the issue of the suggested memory lapse by Arnold, you are sadly mistaken.

You claim that Reid remembered it all 8 tears later; yet Arnold cannot after 2 days because some how he was not prepared.


We are not talking about my home but probably the worst sight arnold saw in his life. please be realistic


All of which misses the actual point:

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the article to say that Arnold says anything about what was in the room.
He says nothing about the body parts including the heart, that is what you will/do not understanding.

Well the article reveals many aspects of the crime scene that were not readily known, so the source if not Arnold must have been close to the crime scene. I am sure the press man didnt just invent it.

Which aspects?

Be specific ?

Vague generalizations such as that, do not answer the question:

"What information suggests to you that Arnold was specifically the source of any information at all in this article?"

Which it seems you do not wish to do.

On another note this is being blown up out of all proportion. The purpose of the exercise was to show that there were other references which shows that the heart was not taken away.

That is just what you have not done!

It is completely baffling that you cannot see that.

The article has nothing to do with Arnold other than erroneously claiming he went in by a window and correctly that he ordered the door forced. [B]Absolutely nothing else.

Al these references have now all mounted up, as I said before they cant all be wrong can they?

Lets just be logical about this, number as no effect on the truth.

So it does not matter how many we have saying one thing, it does not mean they must be right, and certainly not when one of them is demonstrably wrong.

This article is.


Of course no response to the issues raised by Kattrup and Joshua

And yet one more item you are ignoring

In post #74, you posted a question which you answered yourself, prematurely it seems.


"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"


You got a reply in post#86 and of course no response at all.



Steve

[Debra A]

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

I note that in the article Supt Arnold states that the heart was found in the room

To state is to make a statement. It doesn't only have a legal definition.You said in your posts that Arnold 'states.'

Not that this will make any difference as everyone else participating here has already told you this but in for a penny..; the article was made up from different sources and none of the comments directly attributable to Arnold. You could just check back through the newspapers yourself to see what McCarthy and others said to the newspapers those early account the 9th November and come back with proof if you still don't agree that those early accounts are the source.

To take only what you want from a source without taking into account the errors made or not doing your own research to find out exactly how the source stacks up against other similar material is cherry picking, Trevor. Plain and simple. Every single person with an interest in the case could make the sources agree with any half-baked theory they could dream up if that were an acceptable way to go about things.

[Trevor Marriott]

Keep going

Simply he is never quoted as saying anything at all.

At no point in the article does it claim he has said something(in case they missed the quotation marks).


Everyone else who makes a statement or interview is given either verbal recognition in the text of the article and or quotation marks

Now that I have answered you, why not give me your reasons for?

While you are about it, why not answer Kattrup, and Joshua?

And the points in post#67?

And lest we forget, please explain how Arnold may have had a memory lapse 2 days after the event, and how this squares to you view on Reid's memory not failing because he was there, like Arnold?
Steve

Now you are being silly now. If I came into your house and I scattered 12 items around your living and then invited you in for a time to look at them, and then two days later asked you to remember them all, and where they were located would you be able to name all of them and remeber where each was. I would suggest you wouldn't. You might if you knew I was going to ask in 2 days time

Well the article reveals many aspects of the crime scene that were not readily known, so the source if not Arnold must have been close to the crime scene. I am sure the press man didnt just invent it.

On another note this is being blown up out of all proportion. The purpose of the exercise was to show that there were other references which shows that the heart was not taken away.

Al these references have now all mounted up, as I said before they cant all be wrong can they?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

What do you have to suggest he wasn't ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Simply he is never quoted as saying anything at all.

At no point in the article does it claim he has said something(in case they missed the quotation marks).


Everyone else who makes a statement or interview is given either verbal recognition in the text of the article and or quotation marks

Now that I have answered you, why not give me your reasons for?

While you are about it, why not answer Kattrup, and Joshua?

And the points in post#67?

And lest we forget, please explain how Arnold may have had a memory lapse 2 days after the event, and how this squares to you view on Reid's memory not failing because he was there, like Arnold?



Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

What information suggests to you that Arnold was specifically the source of any information at all in this article?


steve

.

What do you have to suggest he wasn't ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

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

Trevor,

What information suggests to you that Arnold was specifically the source of any information at all in this article?


steve

.

[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

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.

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk