Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[The Good Michael]

Most schizophrenics are withdrawn, not violent.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.

Mike

[Krinoid]

The provenance of the shawl is horrible.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

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.

[GUT]

Okay, I have been a lurker on this site, tried to post in the past but got killed on here..and will again.

G'day Krinoid

Is it any wonder you got killed when you say things like:

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.

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Krinoid]

G'day Krinoid

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 am saying it was lost, see my later entry.

[Tom_Wescott]

I not buying anything from anyone on here..

Yikes, you've been a Casebook member since 2008 and you don't buy any Ripper books? Why, cuz you get it all free from us here? Smart girl.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

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.

The best,
Fisherman

[Krinoid]

. It wouldn't matter if it's from 1860 or 1960, it never got near Kate Eddowes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I guess you were there BECAUSE that is the ONLY way you can make a Direct statement like that!

[Mabuse]

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.

Then Scientists should never test the date of anything if they have some guy say where it came form

Edwards claims to have had definitive testing done on the age of the shawl. This is outlined in his book.

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Krinoid]

Yikes, you've been a Casebook member since 2008 and you don't buy any Ripper books? Why, cuz you get it all free from us here? Smart girl.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

One,I am male,

two I have tons of JTR books, I have not seen any of those authors on this thread like Bennett etc

[Krinoid]

One,I am male,

two I have tons of JTR books, I have not seen any of those authors on this thread like Bennett etc

thanks for reading my profile since you had to, looking for a date probably?

[Monty]

Oh really, we have everything, how come they have reported OFFICIALLY much is missing, LOL this is a riot.

There's a difference between missing documentation and "documentation is not their strong point or anything else in law detection back then.".

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Looks like Mabuse and I are on the same wavelength.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

I not buying anything from anyone on here..

Then wallow in your own ignorance.

Monty