If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Most schizophrenics are withdrawn, not violent. Most violent crimes are not committed by schizophrenics.
Most violent crimes are not committed by sociopaths. Most violent crimes are not committed by obsessive compulsive types. Most violent crimes do not adhere to a stereotype. So, that means nothing.
I agree, BUT you still need to know the DATE of the item BEFORE saying you are 100% right, I don't get that impression from people on here,they are saying THEY ARE 100% on the date of the shawl. JUST AS GUILTY AS Edwards.
Third, we have no idea what happened back then with police etc reports, documentation is not their strong point or anything else in law detection back then.
What is it that you think the police fell down on.
Now if you were saying that a lot of it is lost to us that would be different but to say that documentation wasn't their strong point, or anything else in law detection, you are so far off the mark that it's almost funny.
G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
I agree, BUT you still need to know the DATE of the item BEFORE saying you are 100% right, I don't get that impression from people on here,they are saying THEY ARE 100% on the date of the shawl. JUST AS GUILTY AS Edwards.
I must have missed the post from whoever said they know what date the shawl is. It wouldn't matter if it's from 1860 or 1960, it never got near Kate Eddowes.
Is it any wonder you got killed when you say things like:
What is it that you think the police fell down on.
Now if you were saying that a lot of it is lost to us that would be different but to say that documentation wasn't their strong point, or anything else in law detection, you are so far off the mark that it's almost funny.
I must have missed the post from whoever said they know what date the shawl is. It wouldn't matter if it's from 1860 or 1960, it never got near Kate Eddowes.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
Maybe it´s time to put Tumblety back in the frame - he´s the only guy I can see wearing the shawl.
I don't care what it is dismiss something if you don't know the fact of the item in question??
The burden of proof is always on the positive claimant. The claim here is that the shawl is in some way connected with the Ripper.
Russell Edwards claims that the shawl comes specifically from the Mitre Square murder site, that it is associated with Catherine Eddowes, and that it was used and discarded by his Ripper suspect.
It's not up to observers to substantiate this claim about the shawl. It is up to Edwards to do so. He has failed to do so.
Others are perfectly within their rights to reject the claims as they stand, as per the standards of rational discourse and logic.
we have an item, we know everything about it, no tests, we know, we are gods, we can't be wrong about anything, could be something missing, nope can't be we are always right LOL Then Scientists should never test the date of anything if they have some guy say where it came form , yeah okay that's how the science/ history community operates, maybe in the JTR world on here of smug know it alls
What you're losing sight of is that the burden of proof is on the guy who says "I've solved the case for 100% certain", and that guy isn't posting on this page. You have a right to be frustrated, but why take it out on the people who are saying "Give us what we paid for?" Nobody has to read our drivel on this thread, but if they choose to do so, they're not paying only to come in and be shortchanged.
Comment