JTR Museum

[MrBarnett]

Like so many things context can mean a lot.

When I was a kid calling some one a B..... [illegitimate] was an insult that could lead to fists flying calling him an old B.... was a term of endearment.

Similarly ' the dog's B's' (appendages) means the best of its kind, whereas 'a load of old B's' is the worst. The best can be called just 'the dog's' or 'the B's' and the worst just 'B'.

So, to sum up:

B and a load of old B is negative.
The dog's B's, the dog's or simply the B's is positive.

I am being uncharacteristically coy about the B word here. Anyone who doesn't know the word I'm referring to can google 'Sex Pistols: Never Mind The B..... to find it.

[pinkmoon]

Don't get you started on the Michelmas daisies. Believe me, it doesn't need you much to "get started", where Mr Edwards is concerned. Edwards produced a book, not dissimilar in inaccuracies to many Ripper authors, it's the genre. Get over it. He produced a book made some money. I'll tell you what, I'll start a thread discussing Stephen Knights book, and you can pull that to bits as well.

Stephen knight's book was entertaining Mr Edwards book was as about as entertaining as putting your head up a dead bears bum

[Amanda]

If memory serves me well you certainly did, and yes I'll dredge the shawl threads, when I get the time.

There's flack and there's flack. And yes, for once, you have got something correct, Mr Edwards, in all probability, can stick up for himself

Hi Observer,
Don't think we've communicated before, but I've watched your last few posts with interest.
Just wondering why you insist on blatantly defending Mr.Edwards in something that can be at best be described as a sham & at worst a fraud?
You've been around here for quite some time & must have read all of the expert thesis disproving the DNA results, coupled with the excellent research that shows PC Amos Simpson was nowhere near the crime scene.
For someone so seemingly intellectual, it beggars belief that you still defend a man who is attempting to scam some poor fool out of millions.

This is is no way meant to be offensive, just an observation that I would appreciate your answer to.
Amanda

[pinkmoon]

You don't like Mr Edwards do you

I don't like him the man's a cad in fact if this was two hundred years ago I would call him out for a duel.

[GUT]

Stephen knight's book was entertaining Mr Edwards book was as about as entertaining as putting your head up a dead bears bum

You really should get out more Pink if that's what you find entertaining.

[GUT]

Similarly ' the dog's B's' (appendages) means the best of its kind, whereas 'a load of old B's' is the worst. The best can be called just 'the dog's' or 'the B's' and the worst just 'B'.

So, to sum up:

B and a load of old B is negative.
The dog's B's, the dog's or simply the B's is positive.

I am being uncharacteristically coy about the B word here. Anyone who doesn't know the word I'm referring to can google 'Sex Pistols: Never Mind The B..... to find it.

Likewise inflection and emphasis can change the meaning of words, it is one difficulty in communcating online.

[Steadmund Brand]

Stephen knight's book was entertaining Mr Edwards book was as about as entertaining as putting your head up a dead bears bum

To be fair.....I am sure there are those who would find that quite fun.. or at least worthy of putting on a reality show....


Steadmund Brand

[Harry D]

I think the difference is that Edwards is the first Ripper author who has actually claimed to have solved the case with forensic science.

[Steadmund Brand]

I think the difference is that Edwards is the first Ripper author who has actually claimed to have solved the case with forensic science.

Unless you count Patricia Cornwell... not to reopen that can of worms


Steadmund Brand

[Panderoona]

jari is that you?


I think every one on Casebook and a certain other Ripper board would be really pleased to hear from either Jari or Russell to be honest. Many are those who frequent those boards and have written books which have been pulled apart by the ripperologists.
I don't know much about Dna to be fair, but I do know Pc Amos Simpson was based at Cheshunt both before and after the ripper murders. Not only do police records show this, the census records and baptisms of Amos children back it up.
I also know That no Jew would have attached any relevance to the Christian michelmas.

[Rosella]

Few Christians in 1888 would pay attention to Michaelmas either, especially urban dwellers who rarely went to Church or chapel. By the 1880's all the Lady Day and quarter day stuff that had been relevant to servants, tenants etc was dying out as far as working class people were concerned. I have read Edwards book and much of it is grasping at straws stuff, like the so-called significance of the Michaelmas daisies.

[GUT]

Few Christians in 1888 would pay attention to Michaelmas either, especially urban dwellers who rarely went to Church or chapel. By the 1880's all the Lady Day and quarter day stuff that had been relevant to servants, tenants etc was dying out as far as working class people were concerned. I have read Edwards book and much of it is grasping at straws stuff, like the so-called significance of the Michaelmas daisies.

And if those are daisies ... well ... no gardener I know thinks they look anything like daisies ... straws maybe that R.E. was clutching at.

But I guess I'm just sticking the knife in again.

[Rosella]

God knows what the flowers are, Gut, and as I would bet a large amount that the 'shawl' was never within a sniff of either Eddowes or Kos, they don't really matter! Nevertheless, RE has probably made a packet on his novel, and that is really annoying!

[GUT]

God knows what the flowers are, Gut, and as I would bet a large amount that the 'shawl' was never within a sniff of either Eddowes or Kos, they don't really matter! Nevertheless, RE has probably made a packet on his novel, and that is really annoying!

I actually don't go that far, contrary to what one poster seems to think.

However

Let's assume the DNA is right and we have DNA potentially from Kate and Aaron. An assumption that has major holes but for the sake of argument I am willing to work with for now.

What does that prove?

Nothing more than that at some point in time the piece of material came into contact with genetic material left by each of them. So what?

DNA testing can not tell us when genetic material was deposited.

The biggest gap in this story is tying the thing to the murder site, otherwise it means nothing. On that issue you have a rather vague story, that presupposes a police officer being where he had no right to be and committing a couple of criminal of fences, versus historical records showing pretty conclusively that no such item was anywhere near the murder scene.

Then you have an author going down the not uncommon path of over egging the pudding with all the Michaelmas Daisy BS, that calls for a deranged Jew to observe a Christian holiday that by this time was pretty much out of vogue based on flowers that look nothing like Daisies.

[Pcdunn]

Off daisies, shawls, and amazing coincidences

God knows what the flowers are, Gut, and as I would bet a large amount that the 'shawl' was never within a sniff of either Eddowes or Kos, they don't really matter! Nevertheless, RE has probably made a packet on his novel, and that is really annoying!

All I know is that is that from the moment this story broke about the shawl and "scientific" analysis (I heard of it on another forum, not related to JtR, and discovered this one as a result of looking for more info), I was very cautious, to say the least.

When I learned an inventory of the victim's belongings included a mention of a clothing piece patterned with "Michelmas daisies", I became suspicious.
Then I saw an old newspaper drawing of the discovery of the body, and lo and behold! There was a shawl-like piece of cloth lying in the foreground! What an amazing coincidence! How much foresight could that constable have had to pick it up and take it home, just so it could later be sold at auction ... NOT.