Originally posted by Hercule Poirot
View Post
-
I also has to agree with what he says at 4:30 in
"It just has no foundation, no fact to it whatsoever" "Just nonsense really".
He did mean his little idea [I refuse to grace it as a hypothesis], didn't he?Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Phil Carter View PostHello all,
Browsing youtube the other day I saw this and had to pass it on to others who have not seen it.
The final minute or so is very, very revealing.
Edwards states...The critics comments are "spurious" "nonsense" " non factual" "have no foundation" and "they dont need to answer the critics"...
(they being RE and Dr JL.)
For all of you who have not seen this.... The tv show is Australian.
The facts spouted are wrong (including St. Petersburg being in Northern Russia...)
Judge for yourselves. The likes of good researchers hard work has been labelled non-factual. Tells me all I need to know about the man and his book.
Phil
But I love the one comment:
And he doesn't even know KJK's name?If one believes Coka Cola's Santa Claus is real and is also one of the century's biggest discovery, one will probably believe what the book says. I read it and found he was making affirmations based upon speculations. For example, Christie's and Sotheby as well his European expert, Diane Thalman, never saw the shawl, only photos and she only concluded it was possibly from the Victorian era. The shawl has never been listed by the police records or coroners as one the victims belongings. His constable was never identified in the Official police records as being at or near the crime scene, His DNA expert not only used methods not acknowledged by a peer review but committed an error in identifying a rare DNA component as 314.1C when in reality it was a very common component (315.1C). Sadly, he could have turned it into an interesting historical fiction but decided to published as a non-fiction which fell into the hands of many Ripper experts contradicting everything he came up with.Leave a comment:
-
Now we know what happens when one smokes to much camel sh.. thinking one is tasting good ole hashish. Changing pushers is usually something a non-amateur does on a frequent basis hence were facing a real junior. LOLLeave a comment:
-
This interview was done before the whole thing really blew up, so Edwards wasn't specially referring to the dna debacle. The JTR conference is going to be VERY interesting. Maybe a few of us Aussies should charter a flight.Leave a comment:
-
314.1c.
Hello Phil. Thanks for posting that.
Cough, cough--314.1C. (heh-heh)
Cheers.
LCLeave a comment:
-
Unfortunately the entire police force failed to latch on to the Michaelmas clue, and so Kelly's murder took them by surprise. If only Batman had been around in those days - he'd have worked it out for sure.Leave a comment:
-
Russel Edwards tv interview
Hello all,
Browsing youtube the other day I saw this and had to pass it on to others who have not seen it.
The final minute or so is very, very revealing.
Edwards states...The critics comments are "spurious" "nonsense" " non factual" "have no foundation" and "they dont need to answer the critics"...
(they being RE and Dr JL.)
For all of you who have not seen this.... The tv show is Australian.
The facts spouted are wrong (including St. Petersburg being in Northern Russia...)
Judge for yourselves. The likes of good researchers hard work has been labelled non-factual. Tells me all I need to know about the man and his book.
Phil
Leave a comment: