Francis Spurzheim Craig

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
It should be a interesting read, and although old codgers like me, will take some convincing, I really hope something comes of it.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Sally my dear I never intended to offend you if I did I apologise .I'm just frustrated that again we have the magic words D.N.A mentioned and people are starting to believe we have"case closed" again .I think you and I know there is no way the authorities will allow anyone to be dug up on the strength of this once again I never intended to offend you I'm just a little frustrated regards jason xxxxxxxxxxxx.

Jason,

I'm not offended. I think that there is a chance that MJK was Elizabeth Davies. I think the MoJ will grant the licence to exhume if their stated conditions are met. I don't know what the consequence of exhumation will be and neither does anybody else. I have not read Prosector's book yet and can't say what I'll make of Francis Craig in the Ripper's shoes until I do.

The book will be out next week - then we'll know more. Until we do, I can't see the value in dismissing Prosector's research out of hand.

[Sally]

No place for Reason then?

[Fisherman]

It astounds me that some people are incapable of seeing the difference between what Prosector is doing and what the Shawl or Portrait of A Killer was.

Reflex, Dane - reflex.

[Dane_F]

Sally my dear I never intended to offend you if I did I apologise .I'm just frustrated that again we have the magic words D.N.A mentioned and people are starting to believe we have"case closed" again .I think you and I know there is no way the authorities will allow anyone to be dug up on the strength of this once again I never intended to offend you I'm just a little frustrated regards jason xxxxxxxxxxxx.

Where are people claiming this is case closed? Prosector himself has stated this is just his theory. It astounds me that some people are incapable of seeing the difference between what Prosector is doing and what the Shawl or Portrait of A Killer was.

No one is saying you should buy the book if you don't want to or to even support the author or his theory. The only thing being said is maybe show the author the slightest bit of respect to not call him an outright liar or attack his right to even write a book.

[Pcdunn]

Yes, I understand about the DNA having bit us once before, but I think Prosector has a legitimate claim as a descendant to try to identify a long-missing relative.
If they approach it from that angle, and play down the "Jack the Ripper" connection, surely permission should be granted for the exhumation?

[pinkmoon]

I don't expect anything, Pink. I'm simply pointing out that there is evidence to support the contention that Elizabeth Davies and MJK were the same person.

Obviously, were there not, there would be no book.

Evidence is not proof. There is as yet no proof as to the premise that Elizabeth Davies and MJK were the same person. If - and I think it is a considerable if - the identification of MJK's remains proves viable, there will be proof, one way or the other.

Regarding the exhumation: there appears to be a misapprehension here that the MoJ will not grant a licence to exhume. My understanding is that they have already indicated that they will, providing specific conditions are met.

Whether the identification of MJK is successful depends on factors outside the control of human agency. Sand and gravel, the underlying geology present in this case, is not ideal for the preservation of bone - and there is also the issue of extracting one specific set of remains from a public grave to consider. Having said that, you just never know when it comes to excavation - not until you do it. I've seen 200 year old bodies come out of the ground from mass graves in London which have still been, to use the vernacular, 'squishy' - against all prior expectation - with a level of preservation sufficient to enable the subsequent identification of individuals. With the best will in the world, it would be extremely difficult to predict the outcome of any attempt to exhume - there are just too many variables involved.

Sally my dear I never intended to offend you if I did I apologise .I'm just frustrated that again we have the magic words D.N.A mentioned and people are starting to believe we have"case closed" again .I think you and I know there is no way the authorities will allow anyone to be dug up on the strength of this once again I never intended to offend you I'm just a little frustrated regards jason xxxxxxxxxxxx.

[pinkmoon]

If the author obtained his evidence first he would recoup the cost because he could charge more for the book sell more copies and I'm sure a tv company would be very interested .

[Sally]

How dare you madam to expect a little thing like "proof" when it comes to this subject you are been so unreasonably.

I don't expect anything, Pink. I'm simply pointing out that there is evidence to support the contention that Elizabeth Davies and MJK were the same person.

Obviously, were there not, there would be no book.

Evidence is not proof. There is as yet no proof as to the premise that Elizabeth Davies and MJK were the same person. If - and I think it is a considerable if - the identification of MJK's remains proves viable, there will be proof, one way or the other.

Regarding the exhumation: there appears to be a misapprehension here that the MoJ will not grant a licence to exhume. My understanding is that they have already indicated that they will, providing specific conditions are met.

Whether the identification of MJK is successful depends on factors outside the control of human agency. Sand and gravel, the underlying geology present in this case, is not ideal for the preservation of bone - and there is also the issue of extracting one specific set of remains from a public grave to consider. Having said that, you just never know when it comes to excavation - not until you do it. I've seen 200 year old bodies come out of the ground from mass graves in London which have still been, to use the vernacular, 'squishy' - against all prior expectation - with a level of preservation sufficient to enable the subsequent identification of individuals. With the best will in the world, it would be extremely difficult to predict the outcome of any attempt to exhume - there are just too many variables involved.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Have to agree, if this book is hopefully intended to be factual, then the evidence should be provided , before the book is released,,if it is intended to be fiction, then that obviously does not apply.
In the last few years authors, are using the term D.N.A. to draw attention to their researches, the term, gives out vibes of authenticity .
It seems the way forward, in promoting new books on the subject, which is fair enough, but as I mentioned before,one should not turn a blind eye to previous research, and fit blinkers on looking at new theories.
I really wish the author , the very best of luck, and nothing would please me more, then saying. ''Well I never''..the reason I am so negative, is so much would have to be eliminated from this case, if this was found to be spot on.Fifty years of interest in this subject, has made me very stubborn and skeptical.
Regards Richard,

[pinkmoon]

There is evidence to support the premise that Elizabeth Davies and MJK were the same person. There is, as yet, no proof.

There is a clear distinction between the two.

How dare you madam to expect a little thing like "proof" when it comes to this subject you are been so unreasonably.

[pinkmoon]

At what expense? Who would pay for it and for the DNA testing? While in an ideal world that would be the proper order of things I understand the author not being able to finance such a project. When you combine that with the difficulty of possibly even finding the body I don't see how it is beyond the realm of expectation to allow the book to be released first and depending on if conclusive evidence is found to rule her out or not then exhuming the body.

No evidence then no book? Then we would certainly not have nearly any books on JTR at all. There have been entire documentaries made with less evidence presented, heck some even saying case closed. He is presenting a theory and has never indicated otherwise. It is only with extreme cynicism that people are not even willing to listen to his theory. To compare him to Patrica or The Shawl is very disingenuous. It's not even as if he is trying to milk the ripper community, the kindle edition is all of 5 pounds.

I stand by what I say evidence first and then book at the end of the day it's a family story it needs evidence to back it up .

[pinkmoon]

Pinkmoon, you astound me! On a different thread, you vigorously and enthusiastically defended the proposed book and the theory of Dale, who insists that Vincent Van Gogh was JtR, when it is quite clear he was not even in the country at the time of the murders, and now you are screaming for 'evidence or no book'?

Oh you know I was only joking about van Gogh some theories are so barmy you've just got to play along.As for this new theory I will stick to my guns evidence first then sell book No evidence then I sorry there should be no book.

[pinkmoon]

Pinkmoon, you astound me! On a different thread, you vigorously and enthusiastically defended the proposed book and the theory of Dale, who insists that Vincent Van Gogh was JtR, when it is quite clear he was not even in the country at the time of the murders, and now you are screaming for 'evidence or no book'?

Oh you know I wasn't been serious

[DJA]

Prospector

Hi Ho Hi Ho,it's off the work we go....

Couldn't help myself. Sorry