Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[Trevor Marriott]

I do apologise - I keep forgetting.

You have to click on that red thing at the bottom of the message, and then you see the answer.

For the record I was not singling you out

[Debra A]

I am not questioning him or his dna research I realize he has been putting a great deal of work into it.

What I am trying to asceratin is that could all of this have been avoided if those advising him had been aware of the issues that have now arisen. Surely John Bennett astute as he is should have seen the warning signs and heard the warning bells ringing? Or was it a case that everyone was taken in by Dr Jari?

There has to be answers !

I don't know that it is any researcher's place to advise an author on what they should or shouldn't write? Nobody 'owns' this case. Edwards just wrote a suspect book with added DNA?!

[Robert]

Debs is that a suspect book or a suspect book?

[Jeff Leahy]

I am not questioning him or his dna research I realize he has been putting a great deal of work into it.

What I am trying to asceratin is that could all of this have been avoided if those advising him had been aware of the issues that have now arisen. Surely John Bennett astute as he is should have seen the warning signs and heard the warning bells ringing? Or was it a case that everyone was taken in by Dr Jari?

There has to be answers !

Having a go at John... Trevor is a cheap trick.

John is a well known tour guide and the guys that do the job all know each other well.

If someone asked John for help I'd imagine he'd give that help because that the kind of guy he is…He also knows this subject better than any other ripperologist I Know..

Its fairly well known john doesn't have a suspect 'BIAS'. I've never heard him put forward a suspect theory and I very much doubt he'd advance Kosminski.

I would imagine if John was involved it was simply to make sure the historical context and info was accurate…Its what he does best,,not suspect ripperology

That said, my dealing with John is that he is a gentleman, a great researcher and humorous writer (Also one of the best guitarists I've come across) He also does a great and very humours impersonation of a number of leading ripperologists. Worth buying him a print alone.

This sort of snide back stabing is surely beneath even you Trevor?

Yours Jeff

[Debra A]

Debs is that a suspect book or a suspect book?

Yes, a suspect suspect book, Robert.

[pinkmoon]

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

Good post trevor and bang on its a case of money first facts later.

[mickreed]

Having a go at John... Trevor is a cheap trick.

Yours Jeff

Now, I'm thinking this is my fault. So far as I recall, John was never once mentioned in this debate until I pointed out that an Australian book store - Booktopia - states on its web site, that John Bennett was a co-writer with Edwards.

All my intention was to ask if this was true, which I think is a reasonable question, especially since John really is an authority on the Ripper. I never got even a hint of an answer. Co-writer means something more than 'helper' or even 'ghost-writer'. It means - to me - co-author. Now if John was really co-author, surely his name would be on the title page along with RE's? It's not, so I guess the statement isn't right. It does raise the question of where Booktopia got its information.

From what was intended as an innocent question on my part, conclusions seem to have been jumped to so that, now, John is being accused by some and others are leaping to his defence. This seems like Chinese whispers to me.

So, I think it's pathetic to be accusing/blaming or otherwise trying to take John to the cleaners, only on the basis of a statement on an Aussie bookshop's web site.

[mickreed]

Trevor says:

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?

Come on mate, that's not fair. Someone asks me for help on a research matter - and they do all the time, although not Ripper research - then I don't interrogate them. I just try and help.

You don't necessarily know they are writing a book or anything. If someone asks you the way to Tipperary, do you want to know why the hell they are going there in the first place? Or WTF are they gonna do when they get there?

Mind you, here in Oz, that might be exactly what we'd be asked, with new security proposals in the pipeline.

[Jeff Leahy]

Now, I'm thinking this is my fault. So far as I recall, John was never once mentioned in this debate until I pointed out that an Australian book store - Booktopia - states on its web site, that John Bennett was a co-writer with Edwards.

All my intention was to ask if this was true, which I think is a reasonable question, especially since John really is an authority on the Ripper. I never got even a hint of an answer. Co-writer means something more than 'helper' or even 'ghost-writer'. It means - to me - co-author. Now if John was really co-author, surely his name would be on the title page along with RE's? It's not, so I guess the statement isn't right. It does raise the question of where Booktopia got its information.

From what was intended as an innocent question on my part, conclusions seem to have been jumped to so that, now, John is being accused by some and others are leaping to his defence. This seems like Chinese whispers to me.

So, I think it's pathetic to be accusing/blaming or otherwise trying to take John to the cleaners, only on the basis of a statement on an Aussie bookshop's web site.

Hi Mick

Frankly I have know idea whether John had involvement in the book or not. And frankly I don't need to to know that, as John is a consummate ripperologist with no suspect bias. Its irrelevant.

I did speak to Russell Edwards who said how much he admired Johns work.

But thats hardly surprising as so many people do..

If john was involved and I have know idea if he was or not. Then the Historical accuracy would have been 100%. I don't need to read the book to state that, as I worked with John Closely a few years ago..and he's one of the best.

I'll leave it at that..Yours Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

I don't know that it is any researcher's place to advise an author on what they should or shouldn't write? Nobody 'owns' this case. Edwards just wrote a suspect book with added DNA?!

Yes with the help of Ripperologists but to what extent ?

And if you were asked to assist with a book would you

1. first ask what the book is about,

2. What assistance was required, and what that assistance would lead to

3. If you did not agree with what you were being asked to assist with would
you not withdraw your services, and not want anyhting to do with it.

[mickreed]

Hi Mick

Frankly I have know idea whether John had involvement in the book or not. And frankly I don't need to to know that, as John is a consummate ripperologist with no suspect bias. Its irrelevant.

I'll leave it at that..Yours Jeff

Hey Jeff

You know John, I don't. I do know his books though, and based on those, I agree with everything you say.

In view of that, when I saw John's name as a co-writer with RE my eyes lit up. This gives the book potentially great kudos in my eyes, and I'm sure many others.

So, and this is my point, seemingly missed by many. It doesn't matter what JB did, or did not do, to help RE. Irrelevant, as you say.

It does matter that John is being cited as a co-writer if he isn't. It matters because it might encourage people to buy the book who otherwise wouldn't.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor says:



Come on mate, that's not fair. Someone asks me for help on a research matter - and they do all the time, although not Ripper research - then I don't interrogate them. I just try and help.

You don't necessarily know they are writing a book or anything. If someone asks you the way to Tipperary, do you want to know why the hell they are going there in the first place? Or WTF are they gonna do when they get there?

Mind you, here in Oz, that might be exactly what we'd be asked, with new security proposals in the pipeline.

Come on Mick please don't insult my intelligence. There are probably not many other researchers who are so knowledgeable and involved in the ripper as those. 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.

No one is trying to suggest John Bennett did anything wrong but it would have been nice for him to make his position clear in all of this, if in fact he did have a position.

[Tom_Wescott]

No one is trying to suggest John Bennett did anything wrong but it would have been nice for him to make his position clear in all of this, if in fact he did have a position.

He posted on facebook.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

He posted on facebook.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Well that's little consequence to those on here is it ? or those that are not facebook members

[mickreed]

Come on Mick please don't insult my intelligence. There are probably not many other researchers who are so knowledgeable and involved in the ripper as those. 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.

No one is trying to suggest John Bennett did anything wrong but it would have been nice for him to make his position clear in all of this, if in fact he did have a position.

I'm not intending to insult you Trevor. I've read the book, and I think it's very poor, but I don't hold those named in the acknowledgements responsible for that. As I said, that's not how it works in my world. You're asked for help, you give it. Maybe that's not the best way, but it's the way I, and everyone I know, operates. You look in plenty of (slightly older) academic books about 19th-century rural England, and you'll find my name, as well as many others, in the acknowledgements. We didn't demand to know where the author was headed in their research. If it worked like that, nobody would ever write anything.

it would have been nice for him to make his position clear in all of this, if in fact he did have a position.

This bit may seem insulting. The above quote is a classic straw man argument - innuendo better phrased thus:

IF he had a position, then he should tell us.

And if he didn't …?