World Exclusive, ripper revealed?

[Robert]

"Just a side note, I have met Andy and Sue Parlour several times and they are both very nice people."

Yes, I had some correspondence with Andy a few years ago. Seems like a nice bloke.

[Sand87]

Deflect the issue why don't you. Tell you what, put your hands in your trouser pockets. Dig deep and try and find some balls.

Throwing out snide insinuations and slanderous comments without having the guts to name them isn't going to get you anywhere.

Still nothing new from you.

You need a better understanding of what is and what is not considered slanderous. Legally, I mean.
For instance, your assertions are actually more slanderous that his. Sounds strange but I gaurantee you it's true.

[PaulB]

You need a better understanding of what is and what is not considered slanderous. Legally, I mean.
For instance, your assertions are actually more slanderous that his. Sounds strange but I gaurantee you it's true.

Neither individual is guilty of slander. We are talking about libel. But it is probably silly to discuss either as nobody would take legal action. However, it is morally wrong to make allegations against someone and then be unwilling to back them up when called upon to do so.

[Rob Clack]

You need a better understanding of what is and what is not considered slanderous. Legally, I mean.
For instance, your assertions are actually more slanderous that his. Sounds strange but I gaurantee you it's true.

Thank you for your input.

Rob

[jason_c]

Sand87 getting on her high horse over slander or libel is a bit strange. I wish she had the same zero tolerance of such statements when it comes to the campaign she is involved in to free Luke Mitchell.

For legal purposes I make no allegations against her, rather against the campaign and its zealous supporters.

[pinkmoon]

Jason.
Do you really think that will ever happen?

I think there is more chance of Elvis filming Lord lucan sitting on the loch ness monster then people not attacking this but I think we should try and not to till all the facts are in he open.

[Sand87]

Sand87 getting on her high horse over slander or libel is a bit strange. I wish she had the same zero tolerance of such statements when it comes to the campaign she is involved in to free Luke Mitchell.

For legal purposes I make no allegations against her, rather against the campaign and its zealous supporters.

First, I am male.
Second, what campaign? I created a thread about this about two years ago. I haven't posted in it for I don't know how long.
Third, I didn't slander anyone in that thread. And if I did I invite them to go to the police.
Lastly, you come across as having a campaign against Luke far more than I do for Luke. One wonders why.

[Fisherman]

I think there is more chance of Elvis filming Lord lucan sitting on the loch ness monster then people not attacking this but I think we should try and not to till all the facts are in he open.

I think what Jon meant was that the facts probably will never be in the open ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

That shawl is as reliable a piece of evidence as the candlestick that has been passed around a room full of Cludo suspects.

It has passed through the hands of hundreds of people across the years and contains the most tenuous of 'links' to victim and suspect.

There are too many 'if's and 'buts' and too few reliability factors for this ever to be substantiated.

MtDNA is not reliable (especially on a contaminated bit of fabric) and the sudden appearance of a shawl with NO provenance means we remain at square one.

Now I wonder why the press when they knew they were going to publish this didn't take the time to speak to those that would have been able to put things in the correct perspective with regards to the shawl and Kosminski`s viability as a suspect.

We now have a situation where hundreds perhaps thousands of people around the world now believe what they have read. I guess its just a continuation of all the misleading books and documentaries they have seen and read and believed whats in them, nothing changes it seems

[Phil Carter]

Now I wonder why the press when they knew they were going to publish this didn't take the time to speak to those that would have been able to put things in the correct perspective with regards to the shawl and Kosminski`s viability as a suspect.

We now have a situation where hundreds perhaps thousands of people around the world now believe what they have read. I guess its just a continuation of all the misleading books and documentaries they have seen and read and believed whats in them, nothing changes it seems

Hello Trevor,

Even in little Norway the tabloids...all two of them, are screaming about it.

I have had 15 phone calls today myself. The tv companies are sniffing it too.

This is, if it isnt stopped really really quickly, going to be like THE DIARY or Cornwellian even.

Me thinks a few top-.notch Ripperologists should take contact with the tabloids and the tv there in GB..likewise in the States (where this will be gobbled up faster than a hot doughnut) and do a timely correction job.

Best regards


Phil

[jmenges]

Sadly, it's all click-bait in this day and age. Who needs facts and reason when there are advertising dollars to be made?

JM

[Sand87]

Me thinks a few top-.notch Ripperologists should take contact with the tabloids and the tv there in GB..likewise in the States (where this will be gobbled up faster than a hot doughnut) and do a timely correction job.

Best regards


Phil

The Daily Mail is not interested in the truth. It can barely go one article without a child like spelling mistake so getting to the bottom of a claim somebody makes is nowhere near their agenda. Their agenda goes like this:

1) Does it suit our political stance? If NO, how can we spin it so that it does?
2) Will it make us money? If NO, how can we spin it so that it does?

Of course that is true for all media but the daily ****-rag is up there with the best of them. Their editors and journalists should be made to stand in front of a Jury once a month.

[pinkmoon]

All the daily mail is bothered about like all other newspapers is how many copies they can flog I bought a copy for the first time in years so how many more like me?

[jmenges]

A glimmer of resistance is in this article.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/has-jack-the-rippers-identity-really-been-revealed-using-dna-evidence-9717036.html

When other labs have worked on the ancient DNA of important samples, such as the DNA extracted from Neanderthal bones or the remains of the Romanovs, the last Russian royal family, they have gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid the possibility of cross contamination.

They have also worked on “blind” samples to ensure they do know which sample they are analysing in order to avoid unwitting prejudice, and have even carried out duplicate blinded experiments in two different laboratories to replicate each other’s work.

None of this, as far we know, has been done in this case. Dr Louhelainen may be satisfied that he has found the culprit, but many other scientists are not, including Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, the man who invented the DNA fingerprint technique 30 years ago this week.

“An interesting but remarkable claim that needs to be subjected to peer review, with detailed analysis of the provenance of the shawl and the nature of the claimed DNA match with the perpetrator's descendants and its power of discrimination; no actual evidence has yet been provided,” Sir Alec told The Independent.

JM

[Fisherman]

Now I wonder why the press when they knew they were going to publish this didn't take the time to speak to those that would have been able to put things in the correct perspective with regards to the shawl and Kosminski`s viability as a suspect.

Being a journalist myself, I can tell you that the most common joke in the trade is "Never check a really good story - it may be proven wrong".

Think back to 1888 - did THEY check the really juicy parts before printing?

Nothing much has changed, Trevor - they still have to sell their papers to survive.

The best,
Fisherman