Hello Sauropod,
"I must admit I'm a little nonplussed at all the hostility toward Edwards."
Mick's post #325, pretty much some up my views, must be an Australian thing;-)
Edwards research went no further than simply repeating other peoples work, I would actually categorize his research as lazy, compared to some here.
He has provided one useful service, in that, he has sparked some genuine researchers to look into new areas.
All that said I. for one, have no hostility towards Edwards, but after seeing his website cashing in on the slaughter of innocent women and glamourizing the killer buy selling trivial, branded junk like yo yo's and lip gloss, I was morally disgusted. Do you think that's wrong to fell that way?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by RockySullivan View PostI don't thinks it suspect he's getting paid... It looks suspicious that there claiming he's not paid...
What does seem to be the case is that JL used his university's facilities to do these tests. He even said in a Finnish press interview, that some of his colleagues were upset about that. I can understand why they would be. If I were a UK taxpayer, I'd be asking the questions as well.
I would think that if money changed hands, the university would have something to say about it. It was their facilities used and they would want to get the financial benefit surely, even if JL did the work in his own time. I think it would be unlikely for an institution, or large company, to allow its staff to use its facilities to line their own pockets.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by RockySullivan View PostI don't thinks it suspect he's getting paid... It looks suspicious that there claiming he's not paid...
Leave a comment:
-
I don't thinks it suspect he's getting paid... It looks suspicious that there claiming he's not paid...
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by pinkmoon View PostMickreed you sound like a decent human being you are been very charitable in what you say.
And, for the record, I do feel that RE, deliberately or otherwise, plays very fast and loose with the facts. I do worry that JL seems still to be appearing alongside him in what I see as promotional events for the book. I do think that JL's reputation may be tainted by this association, but that's his problem, not mine.
As for RE's reputation, anyone who can use the fate of Kate Eddowes and the others, to sell JtR lip balm for 4 quid a go, deserves any flak going.
Last edited by mickreed; 10-06-2014, 03:49 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mickreed View Postc) the 'sperm head expert' couldn't find any and thought they 'should be there'. He went on to say that they epithelial cells could have come from anywhere. It was RE who ignored that claim to insist they were from semen, merely because they fluoresced, as do many other things, including the bleach that the previous owner (or his mother) used to try and remove stains.
cheers, gryff
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mickreed View PostYes, GUT. I don't like Rocky's insistence of lies and fraud. I certainly consider it most unlikely that JL would be involved in such things
The book is risible. It's not necessarily fraudulent. I do think that RE is intellectually dishonest, even if only with himself. He won't be the first to fall into that trap.
Dr L from all I can find is a respected scientist, with little to gain and a lot to be lost. I just can not but the proposition that he deliberately lied.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mickreed View PostYes, GUT. I don't like Rocky's insistence of lies and fraud. I certainly consider it most unlikely that JL would be involved in such things
The book is risible. It's not necessarily fraudulent. I do think that RE is intellectually dishonest, even if only with himself. He won't be the first to fall into that trap.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by GUT View PostWhy does it look suspicious for a professional to get paid to do a job.
If you have any proof that the Dr lied please produce it.
The book is risible. It's not necessarily fraudulent. I do think that RE is intellectually dishonest, even if only with himself. He won't be the first to fall into that trap.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by sauropod View PostI must admit I'm a little nonplussed at all the hostility toward Edwards. I realize he comes across as rather full of himself, and I know that ripperologists have been burned before (Maybrick diary, "Case Closed," etc.). Still, to dismiss his book so cavalierly strikes me as a bit peculiar. After all, the guy ...
Originally posted by sauropod View Postb) found a leading DNA expert to examine it
c) also obtained the services of a top expert in "sperm head" analysis (surely one of the most arcane specialties on earth)
d) went to great lengths to have the experts salvage and analyze mitochondrial DNA from the shawl
e) tracked down a matrilineal descendent of Eddowes and got her permission to take samples of her DNA
f) found a matrilineal descendent of Kosminksi and obtained her DNA also; and
g) obtained access to the records of Kosminski's institutionalization.
c) the 'sperm head expert' couldn't find any and thought they 'should be there'. He went on to say that they epithelial cells could have come from anywhere. It was RE who ignored that claim to insist they were from semen, merely because they fluoresced, as do many other things, including the bleach that the previous owner (or his mother) used to try and remove stains.
d) See (b) above. No great lengths required.
e) She'd already been found by FindMyPast and had featured on a TV show.
f) I think (and I may be wrong here) that M was found by a member of this forum.
g) These had already been found by Martin Fido and others. They are widely available.
Originally posted by sauropod View PostI've read a number of Ripper books, though fewer (I'm sure) than many of the posters here. I can't think of too many that involve this degree of detailed scientific investigation. Even if Edwards is wrong, he ought to be congratulated for his sustained efforts, which required considerable perseverance.
Originally posted by sauropod View PostAnd I'm not sure he is wrong. To believe he is, we have to assume that Dr. Louhelainen made a bush-league error regarding mutation 314.1C, which hardly seems likely. We also have to assume that blurry, low-resolution photos give us a better idea of the floral print on the shawl than direct visual inspection of the garment itself.
According to the book, none of the 'shawl experts' - Christies, Sothebys, and Thalmann ever say the shawl. All they had was photos on which to assess it. They all disagreed with the others.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by RockySullivan View PostI think the claim that jari wasn't paid for his work is telling. He was likely paid...very well and he's likely in on the con. He is in a way more to blame than Edwards because he has a scientific responsibility. I'm sure hair was paid very well to lie about the results but to admit so would make him look suspicious. All just my opinion of course
If you have any proof that the Dr lied please produce it.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Peter Griffith aka gryff View PostMick, as I have said before, Dr. JL will likely try to publish "on improved methodology/technology used to extract epithelial cells and not to an analysis and meaning of the actual results".
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by RockySullivan View PostI think the claim that jari wasn't paid for his work is telling. He was likely paid...very well and he's likely in on the con. He is in a way more to blame than Edwards because he has a scientific responsibility. I'm sure hair was paid very well to lie about the results but to admit so would make him look suspicious. All just my opinion of course
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: