World Exclusive, ripper revealed?

[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.

[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.

[jmenges]

Can we please hold fire with our destruction of this untill we know all the facts and that the facts have been tested by independent scientists.Don't get me wrong if it turns out a load of old crap then I will be the first to ridicule Mr Edwards and assasinate his character but untill then let's have an open mind.thank you.Jason.

Don't expect any independent scientist to replicate their tests. If we look at the Crippen "exoneration" of a few years ago (which was also media driven) we can expect this to calmly fade away, with no follow up test, until it is just another 'Case Solved' volume collecting dust on our bookshelves. I was in regular contact with the scientist behind the Crippen tests, and I can say that in that instance, and it goes for this one as well, there is no need to ridicule or character assassinate anyone.

Anyway, ridicule and character assassination should be reserved on these boards for well known Ripperologists, and especially those with connections to the Black Museum. Phil Carter is the expert on that.

JM

[c.d.]

It is not surprising that experts more often than not produce a result that is in line with what the individual paying them wants.

c.d.

[Rob Clack]

I first heard of the shawl in Sue and Andy Parlours book which was published back in 1997, so it's not as if it has just turned up. It was DNA tested a couple of years back on a t.v. documentary on Deeming and nothing conclusive was found to link it to Deeming. The impression I got was that nothing useful was achieved from the testing so it will be interesting to see what the book has to offer.

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

Rob

[Robert]

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xxxiBAAAQBAJ&pg=PP9&lpg=PP9&dq=russell+edwards+shawl&source=bl&ots=gySkhdelK9&sig=dQuA7ch2GxfScO-NYT39ZVpf2oQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TVUMVLLSJMqVatyggfAE&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAjgU#v=onepage&q&f=false

[richardh]

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.

[Wickerman]

Can we please hold fire with our destruction of this untill we know all the facts and that the facts have been tested by independent scientists.

Jason.
Do you really think that will ever happen?

[pinkmoon]

please show some respect

Can we please hold fire with our destruction of this untill we know all the facts and that the facts have been tested by independent scientists.Don't get me wrong if it turns out a load of old crap then I will be the first to ridicule Mr Edwards and assasinate his character but untill then let's have an open mind.thank you.Jason.

[Rob Clack]

Actually, I think you labour under a misapprehension. I think you may find that you do not have to name anyone, just give sufficient information for an individual to be identiable to others. In this case, you suggest that a well-known Ripperologist with close links to the Black Museum is pulling the strings behind the scenes and implying also that Mr Edwards is less than honest. How many well-known Ripperologists with close links to the Black Museum will spring to the minds of those reading these boards? And aside from the legal aspect, it is offensive to slimily insinuate nefarious deeds, and even slimier when you don't expand on what you mean when asked to do so.

I wish I had your gift for words. I have narrowed it down to three. But as we both know, Phil does not have the full facts about who is involved and who is not.

Regards

Rob

[PaulB]

Mr Begg, Mr Clack,

First of all, this is said in pleasant tone. So we set the scene... hopefully you will realise it :-)

I can say and think what I wish without either your good self, Mr Clack or anybody else trying to in any way make more out of a written thought that slanders NO NAMED PERSON. It refers not to a titled person (as in work/job title either). It therefore is not slander nor is it insinuated slander. That's in law. I will not go into all manner of quotes and references. Please forgive me. :-)

Now you may be a fine author Mr Begg, a knowledgable historian to boot as well, but I am sure you realise that the comment I made was carefully done in order that no single party could consider themselves injured, nor was it personally injurious to any known person. I will therefore stand by the written thought. Ces't la vie.

Oh, and I...ME, I alone, will chose when and where I "put up or shut up" as you so eloquently suggest. That is entirely MY business.

Now it seems that if all you have to do is try and play little "let's corner Phil" games, then go ahead. You will be doing it alone (or with Mr Clack perhaps, if he so continues to do so?..I have no idea), and you are imo, (not that it matters much) wasting everyone's time and deflecting and de-railing the actual thread's meanings. Therefore, neither of you will recieve further response from me on the subject. I, personally, am not going to be further responsible for contributing towards commenting upon the substance of one comment on the thread that takes over the meaning of the thread itself. If you, Mr Begg, wish to talk with me about any of this, you are most welcome to pm me.

As for the extremely pleasant and endearingly charming prose offered by Mr Clack, who is the owner of the ever growing list of personal insults directed at me in thread after thread, I have replied enough. Very pleasantly said in conclusion... his happy, smiling written retorts are not considered worthy of any further consideration. Ces't la vie.


Now, Paul, if I may call you that (forgive me..it has been a while since we met), do have a pleasant afternoon.
I have work to do that is most pressing. It involves writing serious reports in a foreign language upon children with behavioural difficulties, bullying and using foul and abusive language with additional physical and written traits that are most unpleasant, including ganging up on others. I am sure you realise that any further time wasted on this subject will be to the detrement of innocent children and their futures. (I endeavour to stop bullies before they get to adulthood you see. It becomes something that is easy to recognise in adult behaviour.)

Again, have a pleasant afternoon.



Phil

Actually, I think you labour under a misapprehension. I think you may find that you do not have to name anyone, just give sufficient information for an individual to be identiable to others. In this case, you suggest that a well-known Ripperologist with close links to the Black Museum is pulling the strings behind the scenes and implying also that Mr Edwards is less than honest. How many well-known Ripperologists with close links to the Black Museum will spring to the minds of those reading these boards? And aside from the legal aspect, it is offensive to slimily insinuate nefarious deeds, and even slimier when you don't expand on what you mean when asked to do so.

[Rob Clack]

Mr Begg, Mr Clack,

First of all, this is said in pleasant tone. So we set the scene... hopefully you will realise it :-)

Typically patronising tone from Phil.

I can say and think what I wish without either your good self, Mr Clack or anybody else trying to in any way make more out of a written thought that slanders NO NAMED PERSON. It refers not to a titled person (as in work/job title either). It therefore is not slander nor is it insinuated slander. That's in law. I will not go into all manner of quotes and references. Please forgive me. :-)

So you think it is okay to slander someone on a public message board without naming them? You must be thinking of someone specific otherwise why mention it? But again, this is typical of you, and you are well known for your it.

Now you may be a fine author Mr Begg, a knowledgable historian to boot as well, but I am sure you realise that the comment I made was carefully done in order that no single party could consider themselves injured, nor was it personally injurious to any known person. I will therefore stand by the written thought. Ces't la vie.

If you are not going to name names then what you are saying is pointless. Of course your just a little **** stirrer. Trying to cause trouble.

Oh, and I...ME, I alone, will chose when and where I "put up or shut up" as you so eloquently suggest. That is entirely MY business.

I suppose that will be when you get a new backbone.

Now it seems that if all you have to do is try and play little "let's corner Phil" games, then go ahead. You will be doing it alone (or with Mr Clack perhaps, if he so continues to do so?..I have no idea), and you are imo, (not that it matters much) wasting everyone's time and deflecting and de-railing the actual thread's meanings. Therefore, neither of you will recieve no further response from me on the subject. I, personally, am not going to be further responsible for contributing towards commenting upon the substance of one comment on the thread that takes over the meaning of the thread itself. If you, Mr Begg, wish to talk with me about any of this, you are most welcome to pm me.

This isn't about you Phil. You have made serious allegations against someone and you have refused to back up these claims. So don't accuse me and Paul of derailing this thread. You started this with unfounded allegations, and when called to task about it you clam up because you know they are baseless.

As for the extremely pleasant and endearingly charming prose offered by Mr Clack, who is the owner of the ever growing list of personal insults directed at me in thread after thread, I have replied enough. Very pleasantly said in conclusion... his happy, smiling written retorts are not considered worthy of any further consideration. Ces't la vie.

Your welcome

[Phil Carter]

Now back to the shawl

Phil

[paul g]

Both

Now back to the shawl

[Phil Carter]

The question remains, Phil; precisely who are you referring to? Why are you suggesting something nefarious? There comes a time to put up or shut up.

Mr Begg, Mr Clack,

First of all, this is said in pleasant tone. So we set the scene... hopefully you will realise it :-)

I can say and think what I wish without either your good self, Mr Clack or anybody else trying to in any way make more out of a written thought that slanders NO NAMED PERSON. It refers not to a titled person (as in work/job title either). It therefore is not slander nor is it insinuated slander. That's in law. I will not go into all manner of quotes and references. Please forgive me. :-)

Now you may be a fine author Mr Begg, a knowledgable historian to boot as well, but I am sure you realise that the comment I made was carefully done in order that no single party could consider themselves injured, nor was it personally injurious to any known person. I will therefore stand by the written thought. Ces't la vie.

Oh, and I...ME, I alone, will chose when and where I "put up or shut up" as you so eloquently suggest. That is entirely MY business.

Now it seems that if all you have to do is try and play little "let's corner Phil" games, then go ahead. You will be doing it alone (or with Mr Clack perhaps, if he so continues to do so?..I have no idea), and you are imo, (not that it matters much) wasting everyone's time and deflecting and de-railing the actual thread's meanings. Therefore, neither of you will recieve further response from me on the subject. I, personally, am not going to be further responsible for contributing towards commenting upon the substance of one comment on the thread that takes over the meaning of the thread itself. If you, Mr Begg, wish to talk with me about any of this, you are most welcome to pm me.

As for the extremely pleasant and endearingly charming prose offered by Mr Clack, who is the owner of the ever growing list of personal insults directed at me in thread after thread, I have replied enough. Very pleasantly said in conclusion... his happy, smiling written retorts are not considered worthy of any further consideration. Ces't la vie.


Now, Paul, if I may call you that (forgive me..it has been a while since we met), do have a pleasant afternoon.
I have work to do that is most pressing. It involves writing serious reports in a foreign language upon children with behavioural difficulties, bullying and using foul and abusive language with additional physical and written traits that are most unpleasant, including ganging up on others. I am sure you realise that any further time wasted on this subject will be to the detrement of innocent children and their futures. (I endeavour to stop bullies before they get to adulthood you see. It becomes something that is easy to recognise in adult behaviour.)

Again, have a pleasant afternoon.



Phil