Francis Spurzheim Craig

[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.

[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,

[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.

[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 .

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Sally]

No place for Reason then?

[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.

[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.

[RockySullivan]

I just wonder if the exhumation will actually take place or if its a publicity stunt inspired by the attention that the shawl dna recieved. Aren't there a number of "Uncle Jack" books?

[Dane_F]

I just wonder if the exhumation will actually take place or if its a publicity stunt inspired by the attention that the shawl dna recieved. Aren't there a number of "Uncle Jack" books?

Normally when people do publicity stunts it is to increase the income earned. While I'm sure Prosector is happy that he got an article in the Informer the price of his book both physical and kindle edition leads me to believe his main motive is not money. If it was all a publicity stunt why not sell the book for 2x the price? Or the kindle edition for 3-4x the price? Amazon lists the price as 12£ and 5£ respectively. Why doesn't he claim to have photos or knives passed down that he could really make some cash on later?

I just don't see this as all some big stunt where we are all being deceived. I'm not saying it's true by any means. I think he is simply presenting a theory that he believes to be possible.

[pinkmoon]

I just wonder if the exhumation will actually take place or if its a publicity stunt inspired by the attention that the shawl dna recieved. Aren't there a number of "Uncle Jack" books?

You took the words right out my mouth my dear Rocky

[pinkmoon]

Like I said book two will deal with the authors struggle against the authorities who won't allow an exhumnation.