Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[mickreed]

Neither does your calling Pink 'mate'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

All I can do Tom, is repeat what I've just said

As for the MATE bit, you'll have to put that down to my southern English working-class background, and my having lived in Australia for 20 years. Even the Prime Minister here calls people, 'mate', as have several of his predecessors.

[mickreed]

Good afternoon Mick,



That's not at all what you said in Post 16 of this thread, which is also by the way, where all on your own you introduced negativity into this thread by decontextualizing a portion of my post to Chris and going off about something bad you've heard about contributors. Which sort of soured my question even before Chris was kind enough to answer it.

Thanks loads, MATE

Roy

This probably doesn't apply to you Roy, but I have noticed (and received by pm) some suspicious remarks about those named in the acknowledgements in the book.

I don't share these suspicions. I'll help anybody (and have many times over the years) with a research query and hope, sometimes vainly, that they will acknowledge that help.

But what they do with that help is nothing to do with me, and I wouldn't expect to be held in any way responsible for what conclusions they may draw.

Of course, if they claim my help as their own work, then I do get pissed off.

Sorry Roy. I get confused sometimes, must be me age.. Post 16 is above. It was in the context of negative references by some about those named in the acknowledgements to RE's book. This may have been in the earlier part of the thread which had just been closed. I thought I was defending those so named, and I thought I'd probably excluded you from such thoughts in my first sentence. But you can't win them all.

As for the MATE bit, you'll have to put that down to my southern English working-class background, and my having lived in Australia for 20 years. Even the Prime Minister here calls people, 'mate', as have several of his predecessors.

[Tom_Wescott]

I see where you're coming from, mate, but it doesn't quite stack up.

Neither does your calling Pink 'mate'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Roy Corduroy]

Good afternoon Mick,

You should use the questionnaire that I always do Chris.

1. Why TF do you want to know this?
2. What TF are you going to do with the information?
3. Are you going to publish a book, and will it be any good?
4. If the book is NBG will I still get mentioned?
5. If I am mentioned, will you note fully the help that I gave you? If not, why TF not?
6. If you make loadsamoney, can I have some?

That's not at all what you said in Post 16 of this thread, which is also by the way, where all on your own you introduced negativity into this thread by decontextualizing a portion of my post to Chris and going off about something bad you've heard about contributors. Which sort of soured my question even before Chris was kind enough to answer it.

Thanks loads, MATE

Roy

[mickreed]

Mr Edwards has chosen to base his whole theory on a piece of "evidence" that can never be proved to have any connection with anyone involved in the ripper case so I can't see how it is possible to claim case closed people can argue all they want but we will always come back to this point.

I see where you're coming from, mate, but it doesn't quite stack up.

I, and others, have said that RE is arrogant in the confidence he makes his claims. I think I've said he's insufferably so.

He may really believe this stuff, which, on the evidence he has in the book, seems ludicrous, but he still may. Someone said earlier that he might be delusional and so he might, I suppose. I do incline to the notion that he's a bit short of intellectual honesty, if only with himself.

That's a long way from him being a true fraud. Although he may be. I don't know.

[Hatchett]

Hi Pinkmoon,

Just because you cannot "see" it, I dont believe it gives you the right of accusing people of deception.

[pinkmoon]

Hi,

That wasnt excalty what you were saying, Pinkmoon was it. You were saying that the guy believed that he was wrong and was deliberately trying to fool people.

Mr Edwards has chosen to base his whole theory on a piece of "evidence" that can never be proved to have any connection with anyone involved in the ripper case so I can't see how it is possible to claim case closed people can argue all they want but we will always come back to this point.

[Hatchett]

Hi,

That wasnt excalty what you were saying, Pinkmoon was it. You were saying that the guy believed that he was wrong and was deliberately trying to fool people.

[pinkmoon]

[QUOTE=Hatchett;312551]Hi Pinkmoon,

And I take it that you know the author personally and he has told you that he knows that his theory is wrong?

Is that right?[/QUOTe
The end result can't be true because the beginning is false.

[mickreed]

Would you? Well, I didn't even know there was going to be a book until I read the article in the Mail On Sunday on 7 September.

You should use the questionnaire that I always do Chris.

1. Why TF do you want to know this?
2. What TF are you going to do with the information?
3. Are you going to publish a book, and will it be any good?
4. If the book is NBG will I still get mentioned?
5. If I am mentioned, will you note fully the help that I gave you? If not, why TF not?
6. If you make loadsamoney, can I have some?

[Hatchett]

Hi Pinkmoon,

And I take it that you know the author personally and he has told you that he knows that his theory is wrong?

Is that right?

[pinkmoon]

keeping it simple

Right time to put things into a simple context here we go.... when you write a book and claim that you have solved the most famous unsolved murder case in history you have to be sure that is what you have done you must have no doubt and hard evidence to back your claims up when you have by all means publish your book and enjoy the revenue it generates however you do not publish if you know your evidence is not definate .

[mickreed]

Yeah, Mick. Tell your IQ to pick on quotients its own size.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

It struggles to find one small enough, Tom.

[Chris]

I would have expected them to have been fully aware and briefed by Edwards as to what the content of the book was going to be about and what the major issues were going to be, and what he wanted from them.

Would you? Well, I didn't even know there was going to be a book until I read the article in the Mail On Sunday on 7 September.

It only goes to show how wrong you can be, doesn't it?

[Tom_Wescott]

Come on Mick please don't insult my intelligence.

Yeah, Mick. Tell your IQ to pick on quotients its own size.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott