Russel Edwards tv interview

[GUT]

Very interesting that in much of this interview Russell Edwards emphasises the religious dates of Michaelmas.

He then goes on to say that the murders were the early hours of the following day. Surely ALL religious days end at midnight, same as any other days.
That's like saying "It was Bonfire Night yesterday, so I'll set off a few fireworks today" (sorry, not the best example).
Based on such frivolous logic, credibility should then be given to theories supporting the location of the C5 murders (e.g. Mapping out the Jewish symbol of Kabballah etc).
You could go on endlessly searching for dates relevant to the suspects which coincided with the murders, perhaps a despised relatives birthday or a significant milestone date in their life...

Mr. Edwards seems well-practiced in his interview skills, but notice how defensive he gets when mentioning his critics.
Amanda

Not Jewish religious days, they run from sunset to sunset, thus it's not technically even the night of the 8th but the Jewish 9th. Now what the heck a good Jewish boy is doing commemorating a Christian Day is another question all together.

[Amanda]

Interesting..

Not Jewish religious days, they run from sunset to sunset, thus it's not technically even the night of the 8th but the Jewish 9th. Now what the heck a good Jewish boy is doing commemorating a Christian Day is another question all together.

Hi Gut,
Thanks for that piece of interesting info, had no idea it ran from sunset.
Hope you haven't opened that proverbial worm can...

Amanda

[Hercule Poirot]

Edwards states...The critics comments are "spurious" "nonsense" " non factual" "have no foundation" and "they don't need to answer the critics"...

Does that surprise anyone?

When someone has been presenting a 'Jack the Ripper Buffet Book' mixing everything at hand to such a high level one stops being able to distinguish between what critics have said and what he himself thinks. Having so many echos in his mind, one can't figure out which voice is his and which ones are those of the critics hence repeating whatever he hears. It's a symptom of what they call Gedankenlautwerden. LOL

[GUT]

Hello Amanda,

Not to mention that Liz Stride should have already qualified for the "event" and having done that dreadful deed, his "Jack" would not have needed to kill a 2nd woman...

Not to mention that his "Jack" completely ignored such horticultural celebration dates when killing Annie Chapman and Polly Nichols.

Not to mention that the shawl was presented in a radio interviem as "Eastern European" and is now "Russian"....

Not to mention how the shawl undergoes an ownership metamorphasis from being Eddowes shawl to Kosminski's shawl to Eddowes skirt (8ft x 2ft long) that cannot have been taken off the body on the way to the mortuary (radio interview) because the skirt was seen and listed AT the mortuary by a police inspector- who then presented the items of clothing removed from the body in a sworn written statement to the Coroner at the inquest.

All that and much much more BEFORE we get to the DNA problem.

In my opinion this man's theory cant fight its way out of a wet paper bag. It belongs in a bin marked "utter rubbish".

regards

Phil

G'day Phil

But if the facts don't fit with the train of thought [using that term loosely] don't change the way of thinking, change the facts, seems to be the way to do it.

[Hercule Poirot]

I just can't wait for his next statement. You know like :"The critics are all jealous of my findings". And you all know what comes next:

[Bridewell]

I would have thought that he would answer his critics on a rational and factual basis if he was confident of the veracity of his conclusions. The best thing he can do is surely to hurry up the process of getting the scientific evidence subjected to peer review. Once that's done he can shut all his critics up - or not as the case may be.

[Chris]

In the book Russell Edwards says "Fyaz Ismail felt that the dye also had characteristics similar to those he had seen before which came from Russia, notably the St Petersburg area."

In this interview it becomes "Look, this dye comes from St Petersburg."

One has to wonder what Dr Fyaz Ismail actually said to Russell Edwards.

[GUT]

In the book Russell Edwards says "Fyaz Ismail felt that the dye also had characteristics similar to those he had seen before which came from Russia, notably the St Petersburg area."

In this interview it becomes "Look, this dye comes from St Petersburg."

One has to wonder what Dr Fyaz Ismail actually said to Russell Edwards.

I suspect he may have said "there's some dye here"

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

In the book Russell Edwards says "Fyaz Ismail felt that the dye also had characteristics similar to those he had seen before which came from Russia, notably the St Petersburg area."

In this interview it becomes "Look, this dye comes from St Petersburg."

One has to wonder what Dr Fyaz Ismail actually said to Russell Edwards.

Chris, just before that he said "Dr Fyaz Ismail did perform mass spectrometry on the shawl".

Now it is my understanding, from posts here at the casebook.org, that Dr Fyaz Ismail performed Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectroscopy (completely different) on the dye. And if that dye is the "blue dye" which is indigo, then that can be found world wide in 30+ plants and in 1820 was produced in Brazil, Mexico, Haiti, as well as India and other countries in the far east and of course the UK itself.

I wonder what RE's reaction would have been if Dr Fyaz Ismail had told him that he had been recently testing an Inca artifact and seen the same dye in it? (Please post your own thoughts on his possible reaction or some new interpretation that RE might give to the shawl)

Either RE was nervous - or just hopeless with science. Or maybe both

cheers, gryff

[Hercule Poirot]

(Please post your own thoughts on his possible reaction or some new interpretation that RE might give to the shawl)

He probably would have said "Well since nobody can prove whatever I may conclude about this is absolutely wrong allow me to say I'm right, it's from St Petersburg".

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

WhiteChapel Society Conference

From RE's Facebook page:

Dr Jari Louhelainen and Russell Edwards are giving a talk at the Whitechapel Society Conference this afternoon.... The world can hear our side of the story..

And below it a picture of RE and two friends with a rather sad looking Paul Begg and this comment:

When I first started looking at the Ripper case, I bought one if the best books ever written which was by Paul Begg. 14 years later, here I am talking to him about my book!!

Hope there will be some feedback here about this afternoon's talks by RE and JL

cheers, gryff

[Rob Clack]

Don't expect too much. He's already banned one of his most vocal critics from attending his talk. And all questions have been screened beforehand so he can prepare his answers in advance.

It's a joke.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Don't expect too much. He's already banned one of his most vocal critics from attending his talk. And all questions have been screened beforehand so he can prepare his answers in advance.

It's a joke.

"banned" - the Whitechapel Society went along with that? That "most vocal critic" would be ... ???

As for the "screened beforehand" - that I figured out earlier when an announcement was made that RE would take "submitted questions".

cheers, gryff

[Rob Clack]

"banned" - the Whitechapel Society went along with that? That "most vocal critic" would be ... ???

As for the "screened beforehand" - that I figured out earlier when an announcement was made that RE would take "submitted questions".

cheers, gryff

It's on the Whitechapel Society Facebook page.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

It's on the Whitechapel Society Facebook page.

All I found was the top post with "Attachment Unavailable" that had 5 likes - one of which appears to be a certain Rob Clack.

The rest seems to be about Salisbury, Girl Guides, pubs and books by people other than RE.

Guess it will all come out eventually.

cheers, gryff