Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[Purkis]

A researcher is employed to provide information for a writer. The interpretation and presentation of this information is entirely the responsibility of the writer.
If a climate is created where researchers are held responsible for the conclusions of a writer, well then a lot of important work is not going to get done any more.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Hercule,

If one questions the 'finite' comment an author makes, such as in the present scenario of Mr Edwards' 'case closed', and upon that questioning it becomes abundantly clear that 'case closed' is not at all applicable, then by weight of reason one will naturally ask who (for like almost everyone who has written an historical book) has been of help to said author and to what extent.
Simply because in this case, the original story from the ONLY descendant ever interviewed who met Amos Simpson, has not only been changed but expanded upon and even added to by the author. There isnt a mention of Kosminski in her statement I believe. (Please correct me if I am wrong)

So exactly who said what and/or helped Mr Edwards to reach this certainty and introduce Kosminski and NO OTHER SUSPECT is of great import imho. Why? Well to this naive soul, it is simple.

When a major worldwide-promoted-theory is such a certainty, then shown again and again to be the total opposite upon examination of the words of the book and the authors own words afterwards, one asks quite naturally, who aided Mr Edwards in the making of the book that falsely claims such a certainty. One looks to the book to find the answer.

Therefore imho I personally find it most disturbing when the comments and the manner of the comments coming from the Met Police Crime Museum in the book are along the lines of "We have known it was Kosminski for ages and have the evidence but Joe Public isn't allowed in here to see it."

Now just who is prromoting what here? And- a better question perhaps imho, is why?

Does THAT opinion could cause inuendo? (if one wants to push the depths of forming reason)

Regards

Phil

[pinkmoon]

Anyway back to the serious stuff as the odds of eddowes been in possession of the shawl when she was butcherd seem to be astronomical let's work on the theory that Kosminski took it with him to the murder scenes so as a result he would have the d.n.a of the other victims on the shawl so why not test the shawl for this and we will have a genuine case and case closed as Mr Edwards tells us.

[pinkmoon]

I once knew a man who married a radiographer, and I didn't know what she saw in him.

My mate married a science teacher it didn't last the chemistry just wasn't right anyway she was cross eyed and as a result she was sacked because she couldn't control her pupils.

[Chris]

Are you sure they're not rejection slips?

Or possibly writs from those mentioned on Mr Marriott's acknowledgment pages.

[Fantasio]

I keep asking myself why Casebook's administrators/moderators tolerate these innuendos and insinuations

I'm asking myself that, too.

[PaulB]

If one of the persons targeted by this question answers "No". I'll bet my shirt he'll get a "You should have" response hence acted wrongly.

You see this one of the subtle ways some have of creating innuendos.

your posts are appreciated.

[PaulB]

I already have a drawfull going back 30 years

Are you sure they're not rejection slips?

[Hercule Poirot]

No one is suggesting they acted wrongly. I would simply like to know if any advice was given to Edwards with regards to the subject matter of the book.

Its as I said yesterday if you or I had been told by Edwards what he was planning to do I am sure we would have put things to him in the correct perspective.

If one of the persons targeted by this question answers "No". I'll bet my shirt he'll get a "You should have" response hence acted wrongly.

You see this one of the subtle ways some have of creating innuendos.

[PaulB]

Doesn't it bother you and all the others to think that you all have been involved in a book which the press hype on it alone has resulted in god knows how many people buying his book and being bamboozled into thinking that the case had been solved.

If you didn't meet him, or talk to him, why has he given you an acknowledgment?

Question added
Did you have any contact with him then ?

I haven't been involved with the book. I rather thought I'd made this clear in my previous message.

Had I been involved with it and I believed Russell Edwards sincerely believed what he was putting forth then I would have had no qualms about helping ensure that he got his facts right. I may not have agreed with what he said, but I would defend his right to say it. That's free speech, you see. If, on the other hand, I didn't believe him to be sincere, but just trying to make a spurious reputation for himself, as I believe you are, then obviously I would not help.

I believe Russell Edwards acknowledged me because he made use of my books.

Why do you require repeated reassurance? No, I had no contact with him. I am looking forward to meeting him next month.

[Monty]

I am sure they have but the questions were simple to those whose names appear in the book, what was their involvement with Edwards and the subject matter of the book.

Why the secrecy ?

No one is suggesting they acted wrongly. I would simply like to know if any advice was given to Edwards with regards to the subject matter of the book.

Its as I said yesterday if you or I had been told by Edwards what he was planning to do I am sure we would have put things to him in the correct perspective.

I wouldn't be so arrogant as to enforce my opinion. If asked, I shall give it, if not, I shall still support. I am able to engage with those whose views oppose mine.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Nick Connell is acknowledged in my book. Never met him but I have read his work, and know the in depth research he conducts, so I acknowledged that.

I'm sure Paul, Stewart et el have been noted in a similar way.

Monty

Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley of KISS are acknowledged in my book.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Hercule Poirot]

Innuendos and insinuations

With all due respect, I keep asking myself why Casebook's administrators/moderators tolerate these innuendos and insinuations coming from some members who, after being incapable of making their point on a topic/comment, attack the credibility/integrity of those who expressing a different opinion.

I'm a member of many forums covering other domains and this behaviour is not accepted at all. They closely follow a topic to make sure none of this 'cheap' way of exchanging happens and often suppress comments made after warning the concerned individuals either directly or through a PM.

Grow up people. Attack the problem with serious arguments, not the person because all you're proving is that you're immature.

[Trevor Marriott]

Nick Connell is acknowledged in my book. Never met him but I have read his work, and know the in depth research he conducts, so I acknowledged that.

I'm sure Paul, Stewart et el have been noted in a similar way.

Monty

I am sure they have but the questions were simple to those whose names appear in the book, what was their involvement with Edwards and the subject matter of the book.

Why the secrecy ?

No one is suggesting they acted wrongly. I would simply like to know if any advice was given to Edwards with regards to the subject matter of the book.

Its as I said yesterday if you or I had been told by Edwards what he was planning to do I am sure we would have put things to him in the correct perspective.

[Monty]

Doesn't it bother you and all the others to think that you all have been involved in a book which the press hype on it alone has resulted in god knows how many people buying his book and being bamboozled into thinking that the case had been solved.

If you didn't meet him, or talk to him, why has he given you an acknowledgment?

Nick Connell is acknowledged in my book. Never met him but I have read his work, and know the in depth research he conducts, so I acknowledged that.

I'm sure Paul, Stewart et el have been noted in a similar way.

Monty