Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[RockySullivan]

No, I don't. I think we should hold back on unwarranted accusations.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Fair enough it was only a question... I'm not accusing Wolfie of anything. It's interesting that someone names after Koz bro first post is drop the bomb about the shawl...smells like part of the pr stunt to me

[Tom_Wescott]

Hey Tom

I didn't name Paul, but I do agree about fraud claims, and I've argued against them several times in this forum. Fraud is a foolish claim to make. It's as wrong to claim fraud without evidence, as it is to claim anything else without evidence.

The real problem here is in the aggressive marketing of the book, in which the author appears all to keen to participate. Now anyone would want their publisher to market aggressively, but not on the basis of falsehoods or partial truths.

There seems to me to be various strands of Ripperology - and here I use UK comparisons.

1. There's the Independent, Guardian, Telegraph (and once upon a time, the Times) approach of Begg, Skinner, Evans, and many more. They try to present the truth as they see it, argue their case from evidence, and, whilst they will sometimes be wrong, the reader can feel assured that they've given it their best shot.

2. Then there's the well-meaning local rag. Under-resourced, unable to afford top journos, etc. Great for reporting a Council meeting or the local cricket, but without the skills, or resources generally, to get to the bottom of a complex story. This may well be RE.

3. Finally there's the Sun, the Mirror, the Mail approach. Who cares whether it's true or not? Sales are everything and if people buy our papers then that's all that counts. Some people may think that RE's book is being sold like that.

Well, I don't think that's the right way to do things. And so, I repeat, we shouldn't be bandying claims like fraud about. But on the other hand, we shouldn't go easy, just because somebody may truly believe in their own unsubstantiated claims.

There's an old saying about heat and kitchens.

Hi Mick. Begg's literally the only person who fit the description you gave. LOL. Unlike Ripper witnesses.

Newspapers. I remember those. That's a pretty good analogy.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Anybody else think wolfie1 is Edwards?

No, I don't. I think we should hold back on unwarranted accusations.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[RockySullivan]

Anybody else think wolfie1 is Edwards?

[mickreed]

Mick, that's great Ed and Monty are checking. I would imagine officer Simpson was checked out years ago and since nothing came up nothing was mentioned. After all, why confirm nothing.

The shawl's provenance is extremely poor, and its contamination factor is beyond bad, it's hilarious. Stewart Evans kindly explained all this in detail thousands of posts ago.

Roy

Yep, and I see no cause to argue with Stewart.

[Roy Corduroy]

So far as what is in the public domain, we don't know anything about his movements that night. Neil and Ed might know more.

Mick, that's great Ed and Monty are checking. I would imagine officer Simpson was checked out years ago and since nothing came up nothing was mentioned. After all, why confirm nothing.

The shawl's provenance is extremely poor, and its contamination factor is beyond bad, it's hilarious. Stewart Evans kindly explained all this in detail thousands of posts ago.

Roy

[mickreed]

Do we know he was on duty that night? Could he have been out for a bit of strange somewhere he wouldn't be recognized?

So far as what is in the public domain, we don't know anything about his movements that night. Neil and Ed might know more.

All I'd say is, Mitre Square was a dozen or more miles from Amos's home and in a rough part of London. He wouldn't, I imagine, have been able to get home until morning - or maybe trains ran all night. Watson, get me our Bradshaw! Even if he was off that night, what time was he on next day?

If he went there for a jolly or something, then he'd presumably have been in civvies, so the local coppers would have sent him packing, or locked him up as a suspect. If he was in uniform, they'd surely have said, 'get back to Cheshunt'.

It doesn't seem likely to me.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

Tell me something.

Why is anyone who disagrees with you—which is not difficult given your slender understanding of events—a conspiracy theorist?

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

mesmerised

Hello Tom.

"This one just happened to catch the public imagination and blow up."

Possibly because the magic words "DNA and "science" were bandied about. And these always mesmerise the inattentive.

Cheers.
LC

[mickreed]

I don't think that's what Paul's saying. I think he's just uncomfortable with how freely accusations of fraud are being made. I am as well. That's a very serious charge. Authors put out 'solution' books all the time, and rarely are there people lining up to yell fraud en masse. This one just happened to catch the public imagination and blow up.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hey Tom

I didn't name Paul, but I do agree about fraud claims, and I've argued against them several times in this forum. Fraud is a foolish claim to make. It's as wrong to claim fraud without evidence, as it is to claim anything else without evidence.

The real problem here is in the aggressive marketing of the book, in which the author appears all to keen to participate. Now anyone would want their publisher to market aggressively, but not on the basis of falsehoods or partial truths.

There seems to me to be various strands of Ripperology - and here I use UK comparisons.

1. There's the Independent, Guardian, Telegraph (and once upon a time, the Times) approach of Begg, Skinner, Evans, and many more. They try to present the truth as they see it, argue their case from evidence, and, whilst they will sometimes be wrong, the reader can feel assured that they've given it their best shot.

2. Then there's the well-meaning local rag. Under-resourced, unable to afford top journos, etc. Great for reporting a Council meeting or the local cricket, but without the skills, or resources generally, to get to the bottom of a complex story. This may well be RE.

3. Finally there's the Sun, the Mirror, the Mail approach. Who cares whether it's true or not? Sales are everything and if people buy our papers then that's all that counts. Some people may think that RE's book is being sold like that.

Well, I don't think that's the right way to do things. And so, I repeat, we shouldn't be bandying claims like fraud about. But on the other hand, we shouldn't go easy, just because somebody may truly believe in their own unsubstantiated claims.

There's an old saying about heat and kitchens.

[lynn cates]

findings

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

"Read the book. Take it all on board, and come to a conclusion."

Were I to buy the book, I would feel guilty of a moral lapse. WOULD read a scientific paper, though.

". . .we'll await everyone else's findings."

Gladly. But now, this looks to be NOT going to happen. Procedures were breached.

Cheers.
LC

[dropzone]

Hi, Chris
Before I moved to America I was an antique dealer.
I owned and sold many Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian artifacts. As I've stated elsewhere on this forum I'd date the shawl to around the early 1820's-1840's and, as I've not handled it or seen it with my own eyes, give a margin of around 5 years either side.
The way that designs were applied to textiles varied considerably in the 19th C. From the images I've seen I'd agree that the design is unlikely to be woven in to the fabric. Machine printing is not the only method of determining a uniform pattern. I owned and sold many hard wood block print patterns that where designed to be overlaid upon material in repetitive ways.
So to fulfill a pattern there could be one block for every colour. One for green leaves, one for red petals, etc. All carved to match up to a full design and all laid upon the material separately in succession, by the persons producing the item.

Thank you for providing real background data. I was always suspicious of my own hypothesis because the photos I saw were too unclear.

Yes, it has been discussed, but the point is really not how likely it is that the policeman, Amos Simpson, was able to take this garment.

The big issue is that he should not have been at the crime scene. The evidence we currently have suggests he could not have been there. He was stationed miles away.

Do we know he was on duty that night? Could he have been out for a bit of strange somewhere he wouldn't be recognized?

[lynn cates]

jackpot

Hello Mick. #3912 is a jackpot.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

levity

Hello Rocky, Simon. Thanks.

A bit of levity for Mitwoch.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

And that's all some of us are complaining about. Frankly I'm astounded that prominent participants in this discussion, including people who've written some of the very best books on this topic, seem to be saying things along the lines of 'what's wrong with believing stuff and saying it loudly?', to which the answer is 'bugger all', but that is not what RE is saying.

If he said, 'Look, here's my theory, and here's how I arrive it', then that's fine. But he's not. He's saying, unambiguously, 'I have cracked this case'. And I've seen him in interviews saying it even more strongly to the effect that anyone who disagrees is a bigot or an idiot.

That says to me that the bloke is not to be taken seriously.

I don't think that's what Paul's saying. I think he's just uncomfortable with how freely accusations of fraud are being made. I am as well. That's a very serious charge. Authors put out 'solution' books all the time, and rarely are there people lining up to yell fraud en masse. This one just happened to catch the public imagination and blow up.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott