Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2014 Ripper Conference In The U.K.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
    MP, your effective and merciless exposure of Monty has ruined his reputation. And just as his book is being released! How can you lived with yourself?

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott
    Apparently, controversy sells Tom,

    Why do you think I'm involved in this sorry farce? Just ask Edwards.

    Monty

    Comment


    • Hi Tom

      I can live with myself just fine.

      And judging by Montys inability to differentiate between ímply'and ínfer', I dont think I'll be buying his book.

      His lack of "book learnin'" would make it a difficult read I guess (or is that Ï infer?)

      P

      Comment


      • Lets move on people.
        ............... back to the events at the Convention.
        Anyone care to discuss Trevor Bond's presentation at the Convention ?
        To Join JTR Forums :
        Contact [email protected]

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
          Hi Tom

          I can live with myself just fine.

          And judging by Montys inability to differentiate between ímply'and ínfer', I dont think I'll be buying his book.

          His lack of "book learnin'" would make it a difficult read I guess (or is that Ï infer?)

          P
          Don't worry Lars,

          I put pictures in especially for you.


          I hear you How, so out of respect...

          Monty

          Comment


          • slack

            Hello Debs.

            "Neither Chris Philips nor Mick Reed accused Dr Louhelainen of lying."

            Right. many of us cut a good bit of slack for the professor and showed grace. But that time has run out. The longer he dodges, the more will be thought and said.

            Cheers.
            LC

            Comment


            • Lets make these the final words on the matter involving Dr. J...

              " Let's try and make things even clearer. Not only have I not accused Dr Louhelainen of lying. I haven't insinuated or hinted that he has lied either. In fact I can't fathom what statement of Dr Louhelainen's people are thinking of which could plausibly be a lie.

              The whole point is that because he had made a mistake, he believed the 315.1C feature of the matching "Eddowes" sequence was rare. It wasn't - it was extremely common. But he didn't know that at the time, so he wasn't lying. "

              -Chris Phillips-

              Finis.
              To Join JTR Forums :
              Contact [email protected]

              Comment


              • Did I really wake up this morning to read six pages added to this thread that actually said nothing?
                Thanks for your time,
                dusty miller

                Comment


                • I did.
                  At the conference... Dr Jari (to call him only by his first name) said that he would publish a peer review paper when tests were completed and they still had a lot to go through. He did not want to issue an interim peer review paper.
                  Although a review paper of his methodology would come first - as that is complete.
                  He also said there are 12 points of comparison (markers?) to determine a match.
                  The one they mentioned by name (315.1C or whatever) was just one of the twelve, which was presented as an example, was found late in the process and included in the book at the last minute.
                  This is one that they seem to have mistakenly thought was more rare than it was. I believe they are looking at the others.
                  Whether the others narrow the field down to Eddowes remains to be seen but they seem confident that it will.
                  I also heard it said that they were reluctant to go into greater detail on the DNA for legal reasons - presumably in relation to publisher contracts.

                  Some of this comes from Dr Jari's talk, some from the Q and A and possibly some from private discussion - it is difficult to unravel.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Dusty Miller View Post
                    Did I really wake up this morning to read six pages added to this thread that actually said nothing?
                    You wanna try writing it mate.

                    Ed, a quick question, was a timeline given on this paper?

                    Monty

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                      Whether the others narrow the field down to Eddowes remains to be seen but they seem confident that it will.
                      I'm not holding my breath.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen"
                      (F. Nietzsche)

                      Comment


                      • Neil, Ed, Lars, Tommy etc...

                        You folks are perfectly free to discuss the DNA/shawl saga...thats what the Forums are for.......but I kindly ask that there not be a re-opening of the previous argument.
                        Thanks in advance...
                        To Join JTR Forums :
                        Contact [email protected]

                        Comment


                        • Understood How,

                          Just curious as to the when? Seeing as its complete.

                          Monty

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Edward Stow
                            The one they mentioned by name (315.1C or whatever) was just one of the twelve, which was presented as an example, was found late in the process and included in the book at the last minute.
                            This is one that they seem to have mistakenly thought was more rare than it was. I believe they are looking at the others.
                            Whether the others narrow the field down to Eddowes remains to be seen but they seem confident that it will.
                            This means that Jari is acknowledging he's made an error.

                            Originally posted by Edward Stow
                            I also heard it said that they were reluctant to go into greater detail on the DNA for legal reasons - presumably in relation to publisher contracts.
                            I.e. if the truth contradicts the book and hampers sales, then the publisher will not allow them to tell the world the truth.

                            Yours truly,

                            Tom Wescott

                            Comment


                            • They didn't say - there will be two peer review papers, one on the hoover methodology (quite soon as there is nothing further to test) and another on the data (later when more tests are done, but the impression I got was not anytime soon).

                              Comment


                              • Oh

                                Robert Anderson’s talk on syphilis in 1888 Whitechapel was to me (and I think others) surprisingly interesting and contained new and original research into the prevalence of the disease, even if some of his extrapolations were slightly contrived in my opinion.

                                Dr Louhelainen’s talk on his new methodology was quite heavy going but interesting none the less.

                                Trevor Bond’s talk on the McCarthy family also contained new and original research, which was of interest.

                                Lastly Sarah Wise – a very well respected historian gave an excellent talk focussing mainly on Forbes Winslow and his involvement in the asylum business. Again plenty of new material.

                                But these worthy academic topics are not truly representative of the Whitechapel Society, a group better known for the drunken socialising engaged in by a few members. Apparently.

                                Someone is doing a review in the Whitechapel Society Journal on the talks so no doubt a fuller account will appear there alongside tales of drunken revelry.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X