Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[Trevor Marriott]

Don't take it so hard. One day someone will give you an acknowledgment, I'm sure.

I already have a drawfull going back 30 years

[Chris]

Doesn't it bother you and all the others to think that you all have been involved in a book which the press hype on it alone has resulted in god knows how many people buying his book and being bamboozled into thinking that the case had been solved.

If you didn't meet him, or talk to him, why has he given you an acknowledgment?

Don't take it so hard. One day someone will give you an acknowledgment, I'm sure.

[Robert]

I once knew a man who married a radiographer, and I didn't know what she saw in him.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Doesn't it bother you and all the others to think that you all have been involved in a book which the press hype on it alone has resulted in god knows how many people buying his book and being bamboozled into thinking that the case had been solved.

If you didn't meet him, or talk to him, why has he given you an acknowledgment?

Question added
Did you have any contact with him then ?

[PaulB]

Not that it should matter to anyone, but John is moving flats and has no internet connection. He is also very busy preparing to get married in Spain. God knows what Laura sees in him, lovely girl that she is, but I hope they will be very happy together.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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