Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Simon Wood]

Hi Robert,

To paraphrase—

Jari wasn't aware how famous the mystery was and was surprised by its widespread interest.

Please tell me you are having a laugh.

Regards,

Simon

[mickreed]

Hi Mick,

Tread carefully.

Take a look at who is mentioned in RE's acknowledgements.

Regards,

Simon

I know Simon, but thanks anyway.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

"They are, you only require an A to Z. Perhaps we should all chip in and send a copy?"

But I should think that, with his new found wealth, Mr. Edwards could afford to buy his own copy?

Cheers.
LC

Come on Lynn… I just have lost the mojo to argue. Read the book. Take it all on board, and come to a conclusion.
If your half the per on I think you are we'll await everyone else's findings..

In the mean tine we;ll have comment but probably kept to a minimum as we are old gits…hping I'm not the JL in question?

xxx

PS but that is after an evening drinking with my beautiful fiancé so parting to be happily pissedxx.. things could be worse..and hopefully catch face to face on the 19th October 2014

[mickreed]

Not really what I was hoping for, certainly.

Yes Chris and Debs, it's not really informative for us.

[Tom_Wescott]

Exactly Tom. The "I proved it" when he clearly hasn't yet is what makes this a fraudulent claim. Lots of people keep saying it's not fraud....but that's a fraudulent claim!!! It is fraud by definition!!
It's not the he faked the DNA...it's that he faked what the DNA amounts to in the media.

I don't think that's the definition of fraud. To be fraud, Edwards would have to know that what he was selling wasn't true, and I've seen no evidence that he faked anything or doesn't believe that what he's saying is true. He's just overstated his case.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Mick,

Tread carefully.

Take a look at who is mentioned in RE's acknowledgements.

Regards,Simon

Yeah lets all make a conspiracy theory… tosh

[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

[lynn cates]

levity

Hello Rocky, Simon. Thanks.

A bit of levity for Mitwoch.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

jackpot

Hello Mick. #3912 is a jackpot.

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]

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

[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]

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

[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

[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.