A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[GUT]

Hi Archaic and Rocky

I tried to have discussions with someone who would have been very helpful in this debate. He refused to discuss it for several reasons. One of which was that Casebook was 'uncivilised and unprofessional'.

Mmmm wonder where he got that idea.

[drstrange169]

Would he be prepared to be interviewed in a perceived less hostile environment?

[mickreed]

Would he be prepared to be interviewed in a perceived less hostile environment?

I don't know Dusty. It's irrelevant now given the news that has broken over the weekend. My point is that posts that are perceived as abusive do none of us any good.

I made the point a while back actually, after I was knocked back, can't recall the post number (and can't be arsed to check). Informality is fine, banter is fine, but plain bad manners and abuse gets us nowhere at all, and undermines the excellent work that people like Chris have done.

No need for it.

[mickreed]

[QUOTE]

Well, I'm away from my computer for a few days - and suddenly this issue hits the news and the pressure maybe on RE and the good doctor.

From The New Zealand Herald (with credit given to The Independent)
/QUOTE]

Hi Gryff,

Every paper I've seen gives credit to the Independent - bar one.

Guess which - the Daily Mail of course which puts it out under its own byline as if written by one of it own journalists. There's a quick précis of the Independent article, introducing two new mutations, 314.4C and 315.5C and that's it.

I mean, the morality of these people! No wonder RE's publishers went to the Mail when they launched the book last month. They clearly knew that they'd get no hard questions from that quarter.

They ought to have realised the the Mail would stab them in the back as quick as a flash if it suited.

[GUT]

[QUOTE=mickreed;314720]

Hi Gryff,

Every paper I've seen gives credit to the Independent - bar one.

Guess which - the Daily Mail of course which puts it out under its own byline as if written by one of it own journalists. There's a quick précis of the Independent article, introducing two new mutations, 314.4C and 315.5C and that's it.

I mean, the morality of these people! No wonder RE's publishers went to the Mail when they launched the book last month. They clearly knew that they'd get no hard questions from that quarter.

They ought to have realised the the Mail would stab them in the back as quick as a flash if it suited.

G'day Mick

I was actually a little surprised that The Mail reported it at all. I thought with their standards it would have been CYA.

[Chris]

I was interested to see that the Independent article is currently the paper's "most shared" story.

[drstrange169]

Hello Mick and Gut,

Mediawatch last week covered the topic of the Daily Mail's recycling.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Informality is fine, banter is fine, but plain bad manners and abuse gets us nowhere at all, and undermines the excellent work that people like Chris have done.

It is funny Mick, as a rookie here who joined just to comment on the original thread about the RE book, I was quite surprised at some of the nastiness. This thread though has been much more pleasant - not sure why. Maybe the very technical nature?

I'm very impressed with the efforts of Chris et al. - my congratulations to them. It slowly seems to be bearing fruit.

And by the way, I thought your synopsis up thread was very good, and I hope whatever review you are preparing will be readily available - sure it will be a good read.

cheers, gryff

[drstrange169]

"No wonder RE's publishers went to the Mail when they launched the book last month. They clearly knew that they'd get no hard questions from that quarter."

The original "breaking" story was written by a R. Edwards.

[GUT]

"No wonder RE's publishers went to the Mail when they launched the book last month. They clearly knew that they'd get no hard questions from that quarter."

The original "breaking" story was written by a R. Edwards[I].

Isn't it cool when the paper's let you write the story yourself.

At least you can hope that it won't be too critical.

[mickreed]

It is funny Mick, as a rookie here who joined just to comment on the original thread about the RE book, I was quite surprised at some of the nastiness. This thread though has been much more pleasant - not sure why. Maybe the very technical nature?

I'm very impressed with the efforts of Chris et al. - my congratulations to them. It slowly seems to be bearing fruit.

And by the way, I thought your synopsis up thread was very good, and I hope whatever review you are preparing will be readily available - sure it will be a good read.

cheers, gryff

It will indeed be readily available I think, Gryff. Mind you it's sort of overtaken by this weekend's news. And thanks for the kind words.

Yes, it's a shock when you first join sometimes. Most people are fine really, and respond to a bit of engagement. Those that don't usually don't last long. Don't let the bastards grind you down.

[GUT]

Hello Mick and Gut,

Mediawatch last week covered the topic of the Daily Mail's recycling.

I didn't wee that Dusty, I'll see if I can get it online.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Isn't it cool when the paper's let you write the story yourself.

Unfortunately, it is cheap filler content. Pad out an issue with what amounts to advertising that looks like news.

Appreciate your cool approach, as opposed to rabid not trendy, to issues on here GUT.

cheers, gryff

[mickreed]

[/I]The original "breaking" story was written by a R. Edwards.

He's sure not talking about the latest news on his Facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/JackTheRipperOfficialTour

For that matter, neither is JL

https://www.facebook.com/Dr.Jari.Louhelainen

[GUT]

He's sure not talking about the latest news on his Facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/JackTheRipperOfficialTour

For that matter, neither is JL

https://www.facebook.com/Dr.Jari.Louhelainen

G'day Mick

I am really shocked that they're not shouting from the rooftop "We stuffed it".

But boy isn't RE's page busy [not].