Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[Hatchett]

Hi All,

Don't you think that all of this is going over the top? A guy has written a book with a theory. In his book he says he has DNA evidence.

Apart from the modern approach with the DNA, is this any different from all the other suspect books that have been written?

The plus side of a book like this. whether the theory is accepted or not, surelly is that it will bring further interest into the case, the same as the other books did.

If the DNA is flawed that with come out. As to the definate solution, that will waver when the next book comes out.

None of this is a great threat, or indeed a threat indead. In my opnion.

Best wishes.

[Cogidubnus]

I need help (my missus has said so for years)...

Come on Mick please don't insult my intelligence

Is this a tautological request, a paradoxical statement, or pure irony?

All the best

Dave

[mickreed]

I need help (my missus has said so for years)...


Dave

A good many years I should think. As chief of the Regni, and possibly resident at Fishbourne palace, you've been around a while, Dave.

[Tom_Wescott]

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

I seriously doubt he's that interest in satisfying your curiosity. He has virtually nothing to say regarding the books his name is on the cover of, so it's not surprising that he's not on here talking about Edwards' book.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Mick

A good many years I should think. As chief of the Regni, and possibly resident at Fishbourne palace, you've been around a while

All the best

Dave

[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

[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?

[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.

[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 .

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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]

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 Pinkmoon,

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