Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[Roy Corduroy]

Apology accepted, Mick

Well I bought the A to Z a few years ago and you can read about the shawl there.

And yes, Tom's book is coming any day now in a big brown truck. I got a good deal. Paid almost as much for the truck trip as the book. But Tom is gonna talk about the shawl too I hear. He said that.

Roy

[mickreed]

Apology accepted, Mick

Well I bought the A to Z a few years ago and you can read about the shawl there.

And yes, Tom's book is coming any day now in a big brown truck. I got a good deal. Paid almost as much for the truck trip as the book. But Tom is gonna talk about the shawl too I hear. He said that.

Roy

Good on yer, Roy. Tom's book is a goodie, but those trucks are pricey. The shawl story is in the A to Z, O'Donnell's book on the Parlours' work, and Whittington-Egan's to name but three. The O'Donnell version of the story(which I got yesterday) has Amos Simpson's gt-niece (in a face-to-face interview) saying this about the shawl:

No-one knows [where he got it]. He was on duty then. He must have taken it off her. It got into his hands anyway. [p. 215].

I have to check, but I don't recall Edwards being quite so nuanced about the shawl's provenance.

[drstrange169]

Hello Mick,

>>I have to check, but I don't recall Edwards being quite so nuanced about the shawl's provenance.<<


She remains the ONLY person interviewed who actually knew Amos Simpson.
A claim that should give her account a priority that seems missing.

The new "old" family history about Simpson accompanying the body to the mortuary, also lacks some nuance.

[mickreed]

Hello Mick,

>>I have to check, but I don't recall Edwards being quite so nuanced about the shawl's provenance.<<


She remains the ONLY person interviewed who actually knew Amos Simpson.
A claim that should give her account a priority that seems missing.

The new "old" family history about Simpson accompanying the body to the mortuary, also lacks some nuance.

Dusty, that's right.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hey Jeff

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.

I must admit I can't see anything on Facebook but there are a number of community groups there.

The criticism I've seen so far of RE's book seem to be about the shawl, his suspect theory and his use of DNA evidence to support that theory.

I've not heard anyone as yet addressing factual errors.

Not that any of us should be surprised, the odd one always happens..I believe the first broadcast of 'Definitive' had the wrong date for Emma Smiths murder, a basic school boy error, these things happen. We apologised and made the correction.

If John advised on factual content then I would imagine the FACTS would be correct as they were given to RE.

RE. mentioned a number of authors he admired and from that I understood him to be familiar with the work of Begg , Evans and Rumblow.

So my guess is RE has at least a basic grasp of the FACTS surrounding the case. The names of the various supposed victims, dates, times , witness accounts etc Is it being said that RE's book contains a lot of factual errors?

Yours Jeff

[mickreed]

So my guess is RE has at least a basic grasp of the FACTS surrounding the case. The names of the various supposed victims, dates, times , witness accounts etc Is it being said that RE's book contains a lot of factual errors?

Yours Jeff

I couldn't find the Facebook reference either Jeff, but I didn't try very hard.

So far as I noticed, RE's basic grasp of the 'facts of the case' didn't ring alarm bells with me. Minor errors of fact in some other respects, but nothing of substance. Eg, Amos's wife born in 1848 when it should be 1847. As you say, we can (and do) all make those.

No, the problem is that he claims as facts, many things that are not. If you say something could be so, or it might have happened, or maybe it did, RE will claim that it was so, it did happen, it definitely did happen. And he'll often give your version in one sentence and then his version straight after. It's very disconcerting.

[Jeff Leahy]

I couldn't find the Facebook reference either Jeff, but I didn't try very hard.

So far as I noticed, RE's basic grasp of the 'facts of the case' didn't ring alarm bells with me. Minor errors of fact in some other respects, but nothing of substance. Eg, Amos's wife born in 1848 when it should be 1847. As you say, we can (and do) all make those.

No, the problem is that he claims as facts, many things that are not. If you say something could be so, or it might have happened, or maybe it did, RE will claim that it was so, it did happen, it definitely did happen. And he'll often give your version in one sentence and then his version straight after. It's very disconcerting.

I did have a look on Johns Facebook, but don't won't him thinking I'm some weird kind a storker..

All I can say is John would be meticulous about did happen and might have happened. Speculation isn't his thing at all.

Now if I'd been involved it would have bin dead and buried by now

But this is John Bennet your talking about. I just think it unlikely he'd do something like that, it would go against everything I know about his views on the subject. Any speculation would be heavily qualified and supported with references..

Paul Begg once described good historical writing as like a top chef creating a culinary delight. Mixing sources, taking from the archive, stirng it gently with some new discoveries, and bringing to the boil with fuitful observation and a tinge of seasoning…..(I added my own poetic licence).

John and Paul are very much in the same 'vain' so my guess is John only helped RE out with info and research, I doubt he'd write something without heavy supporting qualifications to any mights or may be's, wheres or where fores, but I've been known to be wrong. And frankly its not my place to speak on someone else's behalf.or stork them on Facebook.. so I'll leave it there..

Yours Jeff

PS My guess is he is extremely busy at present as he is soon to marry fellow Spanish ripperologist Laura. May they both live long and prosper.

[mickreed]

PS My guess is he is extremely busy at present as he is soon to marry fellow Spanish ripperologist Laura. May they both live long and prosper.

I'll second that, Jeff.

[Trevor Marriott]

I did have a look on Johns Facebook, but don't won't him thinking I'm some weird kind a storker..

All I can say is John would be meticulous about did happen and might have happened. Speculation isn't his thing at all.

Now if I'd been involved it would have bin dead and buried by now

But this is John Bennet your talking about. I just think it unlikely he'd do something like that, it would go against everything I know about his views on the subject. Any speculation would be heavily qualified and supported with references..

Paul Begg once described good historical writing as like a top chef creating a culinary delight. Mixing sources, taking from the archive, stirng it gently with some new discoveries, and bringing to the boil with fuitful observation and a tinge of seasoning…..(I added my own poetic licence).

John and Paul are very much in the same 'vain' so my guess is John only helped RE out with info and research, I doubt he'd write something without heavy supporting qualifications to any mights or may be's, wheres or where fores, but I've been known to be wrong. And frankly its not my place to speak on someone else's behalf.or stork them on Facebook.. so I'll leave it there..

Yours Jeff

PS My guess is he is extremely busy at present as he is soon to marry fellow Spanish ripperologist Laura. May they both live long and prosper.

John and Paul are much in the same vain, but both conspicuous by their absence. The silence speaks volumes especially from Mr Begg ! who as a rule can wait to seize the opportunity to destroy anything new that comes into the world of Ripperolgy in order to ensure his own work remains intact.

Now the worm has turned Mr Begg it is you that is under scrutiny

[PaulB]

John and Paul are much in the same vain, but both conspicuous by their absence. The silence speaks volumes especially from Mr Begg ! who as a rule can wait to seize the opportunity to destroy anything new that comes into the world of Ripperolgy in order to ensure his own work remains intact.

Now the worm has turned Mr Begg it is you that is under scrutiny

I would have thought you would have avoided describing yourself as a worm, but I suppose if the category fits...

I have a fairly good track record in this field, Trevor, which is something you can only aspire to, and I don't try to destroy anything nor do I try to keep my own work intact, whatever you mean by that.

So scrutinise away.

As far as Russell Edwards book is concerned, for your Information I didn't write it. Unlike you, my name appears on the covers of books with my words in them. I didn't contribute to it is any way and I have never met Mr Edwards or exchanged communications of any sort with him. I would have been happy to have helped him, however, as I have been happy to help a lot of people over the years, none of whom had theories I shared.