Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[mickreed]

That's the rub. And, like the rest of us, I'm sure John, Chris and all associated cringe every time Russell Edwards makes that claim, however, just because they aided in the work, we must not assume they agreed nor endorse the conclusions reached.

Just my take.

Monty

And a bloody good take, Neil.

Maybe we can put all the nonsense about Chris, and the others, behind us. They seem to me to be good people. It's not on, and it should stop. Christ, some people will be blaming the midwife, who delivered RE, next.

[mickreed]

I don't think John ghost wrote the book

Just my take.

Monty

I wouldn't know whether he did or not, Neil. And it doesn't matter anyway.

However, as I posted a day or two back, the claim that John is co-writer is out there, and if untrue, should not be out there. See here:

About the Author

Russell Edwards is a successful property developer from North London who has a detailed knowledge of the Ripper crimes. His co-writer is a much published author and noted crime historian, John Bennett.

http://www.booktopia.com.au/jack-the-ripper-decoded-russell-edwards/prod9781447264224.html

[SirJohnFalstaff]

I don't think John ghost wrote the book, there are a few errors in it which John just would not include, but yes, Chris, John, Pat et al should not be lambasted for helping a guy out. That's what the majority of us do, if we believe in their theory or not. Some of us even help those out who have abused us in the past.

However, I do not like the arrogant 'case closed' statement by Edwards when the reality is far from it. Cornwell stated the same and got burned. You make such asinine statements then be prepared to back them up fully.

That's the rub. And, like the rest of us, I'm sure John, Chris and all associated cringe every time Russell Edwards makes that claim, however, just because they aided in the work, we must not assume they agreed nor endorse the conclusions reached.

Just my take.

Monty

hear hear

[jmenges]

His co-writer is a much published author and noted crime historian, John Bennett.

If him being called a co-writer is untrue, then I'm sure John would be wondering where such a thing came from and get to the bottom of it. If its true, then ITS NONE OF ANYONES FREAKING BUSINESS and if John wants to make a comment then he is perfectly able to do so.

JM

[mickreed]

If him being called a co-writer is untrue, then I'm sure John would be wondering where such a thing came from and get to the bottom of it. If its true, then ITS NONE OF ANYONES FREAKING BUSINESS and if John wants to make a comment then he is perfectly able to do so.

JM

Couldn't agree more, Jon.

If, as Tom thought possible, and Neil didn't think likely, John (or anyone for that matter) acted as ghostwriter, then that's neither here nor there in my book.

However, claims of co-writing are a bit different. I suspect it's unlikely since it would be stated on the title page I would have thought.

The place where it's mentioned (there may be others, I don't know) is an Australian online bookshop that I use quite often. If, somehow, I'd been living under a stone for the past few weeks, I'd have thought the book warranted attention simply because of John being the 'co-writer'.

If it's not the case, then, as you say, John can deal with it.

[anna]

I'm just waiting for this all to play out and end....yawn.

We are now into the second part of a very long thread about some DNA which is obviously now a ruse to sell a book..like the locket before it. Mr Edwards would have been well aware of it's dodgy past when he purchased it from the auction house in Suffolk. He is a property developer,they are a money making machine,that fights like hell to get what they want..they don't take no for an answer,and will twist and turn things to get to their ultimate goal..then when that has been achieved...they leave...which is exactly what he has now done.

Leaving everyone here to discuss some "magic DNA" that was supposedly found deep down in a thin bit of silky highly contaminated material. Laughingly filmed under lab conditions by guys in forensic suits for his tv interview.

Mr Edwards has moved on...with his forensic team,he is going to solve cold cases...look out CSI.

[anna]

Just saying....

It is the business of people to wonder why someone who obviously knew the background of this item,and the annoyance it was cause here,would want to be involved in the first place.

IF John did do that...it appears he was taken in by Mr Edwards,just like all those who still discuss and those that believe in the crap he came up with,to get the copies of his book shifted.

[Monty]

It is the business of people to wonder why someone who obviously knew the background of this item,and the annoyance it was cause here,would want to be involved in the first place.

IF John did do that...it appears he was taken in by Mr Edwards,just like all those who still discuss and those that believe in the crap he came up with,to get the copies of his book shifted.

For what I know of John, he would try and help anybody if he could. He also doesn't fool easily.

He'd be curious, and supportive, even if he disagreed.

And there is nothing wrong in that.

Monty

[anna]

There you have it Monty...

Mr Edwards is clever in what he does...which is why the word" successful" is quoted before his chosen career when it is described.

The real loser in the end is Dr Jari....poor man.

He thinks he is working on a book,and has become the target of countless criticism of his work.

There are people on here who would like him to prove this case..and for them,as they are nice guys...I hope he comes up with what they desire.

Until then we just have to sit back and wait to see what happens.

[Monty]

Such negativity Anna,

You have my sympathies.

Monty

[anna]

Thank you Monty


I shall treasure them with all my heart.


Anna.

[Trevor Marriott]

I don't think John ghost wrote the book, there are a few errors in it which John just would not include, but yes, Chris, John, Pat et al should not be lambasted for helping a guy out. That's what the majority of us do, if we believe in their theory or not. Some of us even help those out who have abused us in the past.

However, I do not like the arrogant 'case closed' statement by Edwards when the reality is far from it. Cornwell stated the same and got burned. You make such asinine statements then be prepared to back them up fully.

That's the rub. And, like the rest of us, I'm sure John, Chris and all associated cringe every time Russell Edwards makes that claim, however, just because they aided in the work, we must not assume they agreed nor endorse the conclusions reached.

Just my take.

Monty

Did you not wonder why Edwards or any of those advising him didn't consult you with regards to your back ground or me for that matter. I am sure that if he had then he would have been told in no uncertain terms that his evidence he sought to rely on was far from conclusive.

Now after the event we have to regularly tell the press and the public exactly that and explain why it is inconclusive.

Yet those that he did consult were happy to perhaps encourage him to publish the book. Should they not have sought to clarify some of the major issues with him first. Or were they so blind they could not see? or did they genuinely want Kosminski to be the elusive Ripper?

If Edwards was told and still went ahead with the publishing then he fully deserves all the ill feeling towards him that some might want to levy

[Fantasio]

Maybe we can put all the nonsense about Chris, and the others, behind us. They seem to me to be good people.

Chris' wonderful researches are one of the reasons I've been reading Casebook since many years. It's a pity there aren't many others like him.

[Patrick S]

So, we are back to questioning the motives of those who Edwards consulted in writing his book. Wonderful. Classy, as well.

It seems obvious that Edwards was/is no expert when it comes to the Whitechapel murders, Jack the Ripper, the victims, the "suspects", etc. Therefore, it seems reasonable that he might consult someone recognized as such to help him flesh out detail and provide some background. Is the expectation that he would sumbit a description of the techniques used to extract the DNA from the shawl, the DNA comparisons, and results to every individual consulted for review and approval? I'm not sure how many books of this type would be published if the authors sought unanimous approval from everyone listed in the credits.

I'm not sure how Edwards book is - ultimately - any diffrent from any of the other 'suspect' books we've seen. Paley draws a conclusion and selects a "Ripper" that the majority do not endorse. Yet, 'The Simple Truth' is fairly well regarded for it's construction and detail. House's book on Kozminski, while not quite as sensational or agenda driven, profiles the same suspect. Yet, it's hailed on these pages, even managing to convince a few that Kozminski was the killer, if some of the posts I've read are to be believed.

Cornwell, took a lot of heat for her (in my view) absurd conclusions. Yet, I don't think quite this much. Alas, she - like Edwards - is a compartive outsider, not part of the community. Perhaps she committed the same sins as Edwards: not praying at the right alters and paying the appropriate tributes before publishing?

Thus, we've nearly ceased to discuss the content of the book, or even the science involved. Yet, we do have several Ripperological experts posting quite actively here, whereas previously they'd been fairly quiet. Clearly, they view Edwards as 'not one of us' and his book not a serious contribution to the Ripper library.

Again, I'm defending a book that I didn't particulary enjoy (although, that's typical of many of the Ripper books I've read over the years) and am quite skeptical of. Yet, what I've been reading lately on this thread smacks of petty jealousy and a childish sense of ownership of a topic that many feel they've a patent on.

It's clear to anyone willing to pay attention that Edwards' book is a net positive for everyone with an interest or stake in anything 'Ripper' related. Instead of asking, "Why didn't he talk to me!?", why not wait your chance to engage the author, speak with the scientist, and see what actual DNA experts have to say once the media sensationalism has died down?

The guy may have written a lousy book. I think that's somewhat subjective. Alas, it seems he's guilty of something far, far worse: never having heard of some who regard themselves as kings of the Jack the Ripper castle.

[Monty]

Did you not wonder why Edwards or any of those advising him didn't consult you with regards to your back ground or me for that matter. I am sure that if he had then he would have been told in no uncertain terms that his evidence he sought to rely on was far from conclusive.

Now after the event we have to regularly tell the press and the public exactly that and explain why it is inconclusive.

Yet those that he did consult were happy to perhaps encourage him to publish the book. Should they not have sought to clarify some of the major issues with him first. Or were they so blind they could not see? or did they genuinely want Kosminski to be the elusive Ripper?

If Edwards was told and still went ahead with the publishing then he fully deserves all the ill feeling towards him that some might want to levy

Honestly? no I'm not.

Its none of my business what anyone does.

I must admit, the evidence leads, however in this case, it looks as if the suspect has been followed.

Monty