Morris Lewis Revisited

[Fisherman]

Well you can believe what you want, but it doesn't detract from the fact that he says no organs were taken from Kelly.Could he have been so wrong about such an important part of that murder, when he was one of the senior officers investigating the case ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Are we speaking of the self same Edmiund Reid who claimed about the Ripper murders that "at no time was any part of the body missing"...?

[Trevor Marriott]

Are we speaking of the self same Edmiund Reid who claimed about the Ripper murders that "at no time was any part of the body missing"...?

Yes that`s the one, but if you have read the article, then it is clear you have mis interpreted it by not reading and studying it thoroughly. The part of the interview that relates to Kelly is clear and concise, and can in no way be suggestive of him talking about any other murder or murders.

Are you a member of the "Protect the old ripper theory at all costs" brigade ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Well you can believe what you want, but it doesn't detract from the fact that he says no organs were taken from Kelly.Could he have been so wrong about such an important part of that murder, when he was one of the senior officers investigating the case ?

I notice you have failed to mention all the facts that he did get right they far outweigh the ones he got wrong.

I wonder how good your memory is going back 8 years detailing specific memorable events in your life? or perhaps you have never had any.

We're not talking about a memorable event in Reid's life, Trevor, we are talking about the details of a murder investigation on which he was engaged.

Aside from all the errors I've listed, and him not recalling that the Ripper murders took place in 1888, he was absolutely wrong to say that no parts had been removed from any of the victims. It is a matter of undisputed record that body parts were found to be missing when the corpses of Chapman and Eddowes were medically examined. So, if he actually focused on the medical evidence in 1888 (which he might not have done), he had obviously forgotten it in 1896. Thus, his credibility on the issue of the body parts is not good, to say the least.

Consequently, yes, he could well have been wrong about this aspect of the evidence in respect of Kelly's murder.

[Trevor Marriott]

well isn't that part of the point? hes working from faulty memory.

and first in with the uneccessary personal attacks again, per usual, Trevor.

personal attacks against whom ?

As to faulty memory I am only concerned with the part relative to Kelly. He got the rest of the part re Kelly right did he not, apart for one time error as previously stated. So where is his faulty memory then appertaining to Kelly ?

These claims of faulty memory are just futile attempts to prop up the old theory, Because this issue of Kelly`s heart is a major factor in the mystery, and if correct, changes a major part of this mystery, and to discredit a credible witness in the murders with primary evidence to corroborate him beggars belief.

He was in charge of Whitecgapel CID he would have known the full facts what part of that do you not understand? How could he ever get such an important issue so wrong?

I dont hear anyone saying that Macnagthten, Swanson, Anderson, Abberline and others all had faulty memories and wrote down false facts, Convenient now to say Reid did when what he says is vitally important and the ramifications equally as important.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

We're not talking about a memorable event in Reid's life, Trevor, we are talking about the details of a murder investigation on which he was engaged.

Aside from all the errors I've listed, and him not recalling that the Ripper murders took place in 1888, he was absolutely wrong to say that no parts had been removed from any of the victims. It is a matter of undisputed record that body parts were found to be missing when the corpses of Chapman and Eddowes were medically examined. So, if he actually focused on the medical evidence in 1888 (which he might not have done), he had obviously forgotten it in 1896. Thus, his credibility on the issue of the body parts is not good, to say the least.

Consequently, yes, he could well have been wrong about this aspect of the evidence in respect of Kelly's murder.

Wrong about such an important issue surrounding the worst of all the murders, not on your life. Believe me I can recall vividly many crimes I dealt with over the years, but none so horrific as was Kelly. So something like that would stick in anyone's mind who attended the crime scene and subsequently had to investigate it.

I cannot understand why some researchers do not want to accept anything new that goes against what I call "The old theories" why do we have to readily accept what has gone before without question, because this is a clear case of that. the rule of thumb is prove or disprove.

You and anyone else have to either accept an ambiguous statement from Bond or primary evidence from Reid. Because no one else for years after the post mortem mentions anything about the organ being removed. Such an important issue that sinks into oblivion, till someone decided that Bonds statement was sufficient to say the killer took it away to match up with the killer supposedly taking away the organs from Eddowes and Chapman.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Wrong about such an important issue surrounding the worst of all the murders, not on your life.

Well he was wrong about an important issue surrounding the murder of Chapman (absence of uterus) and wrong about two important issues surrounding the murder of Eddowes (absence of kidney and the ears being cut off) so why not in respect of an important issue surrounding the murder of Kelly?

No doubt he could recall the awful sight of the murder but the absence of the heart was something contained in the autopsy report. He forgot the details of the autopsy reports of Chapman and Eddowes hence nothing strange about a memory lapse relating to the details of the Kelly autopsy report.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well he was wrong about an important issue surrounding the murder of Chapman (absence of uterus) and wrong about two important issues surrounding the murder of Eddowes (absence of kidney and the ears being cut off) so why not in respect of an important issue surrounding the murder of Kelly?

No doubt he could recall the awful sight of the murder but the absence of the heart was something contained in the autopsy report. He forgot the details of the autopsy reports of Chapman and Eddowes hence nothing strange about a memory lapse relating to the details of the Kelly autopsy report.

You really need to read up on all the facts before you keep making these kind of statements.The autopsy report is ambiguous "heart absent from Pericardium"
And you are forgetting that doctors went back to crime scene after post mortem.

If you want to argue please argue constructively and not just for the sake of arguing

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

You really need to read up on all the facts before you keep making these kind of statements.The autopsy report is ambiguous "heart absent from Pericardium"

You are the one who needs to read up on the facts Trevor. The autopsy report is missing. It would have been prepared by Dr Phillips, the divisional surgeon. Dr Bond's notes of the post mortem examination actually say: "The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent" not as you have misremembered it.

[lynn cates]

assumptions

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

"A morning murder may point to a different killer?"

Indeed. It may also change many of our assumptions.

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

"A morning murder may point to a different killer?"

Indeed. It may also change many of our assumptions.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

I don't necessarily disagree- if she was killed mid-morning, for instance, there would no doubt be more light available than the early murders, which makes the lack of apparent skill employed even more difficult to explain- but why do you think this?

[lynn cates]

X2

Hello John. Thanks.

I am thinking about the dual stories about the morning sighting.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

"A morning murder may point to a different killer?"

Indeed. It may also change many of our assumptions.

Cheers.
LC

'Like' Button pressed!

[Bridewell]

Hello John. Thanks.

I am thinking about the dual stories about the morning sighting.

Cheers.
LC

To misquote Oscar Wilde: "To have one mistaken witness may be regarded as a misfortune; to have two looks like an mistaken assumption of inaccuracy."

[Bridewell]

On the subject of the fire in 13, Millers Court:


The three reasons advanced for its lighting are:-

Provision of Light

Provision of Heat

Destruction of Evidence.

The FBI view is that most, if not all, serial killers have earlier indulged in compulsive fire starting; it might, therefore, be the case that the killer lit a fire simply because he liked lighting fires.

[Elamarna]

On the subject of the fire in 13, Millers Court:


The three reasons advanced for its lighting are:-

Provision of Light

Provision of Heat

Destruction of Evidence.

The FBI view is that most, if not all, serial killers have earlier indulged in compulsive fire starting; it might, therefore, be the case that the killer lit a fire simply because he liked lighting fires.

Bridewell

that is a very interesting point.


Steve