Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Shawl Controversy

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    and you all continue to do yourself no favors, because all you all seem to be doing is moaning and groaning and posting criticisms on here about her work, and her press reports and not where they should have the most impact.
    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    That may be, but it's not causing a "public relations disaster" either.

    There's not much moaning and groaning here, just quite a lot of legitimate criticism. Where do you suggest it would have the most impact?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Paul View Post
      I think that's all rather idealistic, Mr P. If "Ripperology" isn't open to everybody, it will rightly be accused of being elitist, there will be a factual basis for those stupid accusations that there was a ruling clique or cartel! "Ripperology" is just an interest, for some it is just a mystery to ponder and theorise about, whilst to others it is a legitimate micro-history. There's no central organisation determining strategy, nor, reasonably, can there be.
      I agree as its to being idealistic......but otherwise, in regard to its general perception, the field - in so far as it can be identified as one - is heading towards a ditch as the fringe elements become those that are the most visible.

      2019 was a bad year.... Rubenhold played ripperology like a fiddle and singlehandedly, with help from one or two, brought ripper studies into the limelight as a misogynistic, inward looking, vaguely lunatic bunch of nutjobs. It even made the newspapers. True or not, thats the general public view now of anyone interested in the case.

      P

      Comment


      • I doubt if even one in a hundred of the adult population know of, remember or care about Trev's vibrator, Hallie Rubenhold, the shawl or the main two JTR sites.

        Comment


        • Thats true.

          But of those that have heard of ripperology, Id bet a dollar that the majority dont have an entirely positive view of it thanks to certain people.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
            I agree as its to being idealistic......but otherwise, in regard to its general perception, the field - in so far as it can be identified as one - is heading towards a ditch as the fringe elements become those that are the most visible.

            2019 was a bad year.... Rubenhold played ripperology like a fiddle and singlehandedly, with help from one or two, brought ripper studies into the limelight as a misogynistic, inward looking, vaguely lunatic bunch of nutjobs. It even made the newspapers. True or not, thats the general public view now of anyone interested in the case.

            P
            Then Rubenhold, Trevor, et al, have done a considerable disservice to history, at least insofar as the preservation of documents, photos, and other materials are concerned. If the general public think we're nut jobs because of them, they almost certainly won't want to share their stuff with us.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
              I doubt if even one in a hundred of the adult population know of, remember or care about Trev's vibrator, Hallie Rubenhold, the shawl or the main two JTR sites.
              Well, lots of people have a vague notion that Jack the Ripper had something to do with the Royal Family and have a similarly vague idea that DNA has identified the Ripper, so I have no doubt that the Ripper's victims not being prostitutes will set up shop in some people's minds. Trevor's vibrator will hopefully be consigned to the rubbish bin and Mr P's forecast for the future of Ripperology will prove unduly pessimistic.

              Comment


              • Should we take into account that some very well respected and knowledgeable people that some might even describe as reasonable looked like they would always take provenance over DNA?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                  Should we take into account that some very well respected and knowledgeable people that some might even describe as reasonable looked like they would always take provenance over DNA?
                  Well if by "DNA" you mean a hypothetical DNA result no scientist was objecting to and by "provenance" you mean the extant information as to where the shawl came from......then I dont think the word "reasonable" could be applied anymore and the word "knowledgeable" in relation to them would have to be revised in that they would be accepting "lack of knowledge" (the provenance) over "knowledge" (the hypothetical DNA result).

                  p

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                    Should we take into account that some very well respected and knowledgeable people that some might even describe as reasonable looked like they would always take provenance over DNA?
                    Yes Debra I agree. Stewart Evans comes to mind immediately when speaking of the well respected and knowledgeable. He was right there when the thing first surfaced years ago.

                    The shawl book is in my public library and I could read it for free but I won't. Why should I? I pay good money for an internet connection and had the luxury of going online when Mr. Evans was gracious enough to post. I'm in high cotton. There are still top experts like yourself posting, Debs. Life is good.

                    Wishing you and everyone a Happy Holidays well in advance.

                    Roy

                    Comment


                    • For those unaware of it, here is Dr. Jari Louhelainen giving a lecture on the supposed Kosminski shawl in October 2016--some two years before the Journal of Forensic Sciences paper appeared.

                      I will let people draw their own conclusions, but I think it is fair to point out that two or three of Dr. Louhelainen's statements directly contradict what was reported in Edwards' book.

                      For instance, at the 44:42-45:25 mark, Louhelainen claims that Dr. Miller was able to find 'semen heads' in the alleged semen sample on the 'shawl.' Yet, in the book, Edwards was careful to report that no such heads were found, and, in fact, that "David Miller was concerned about the absence of sperm in the sample" (p. 193ff) of what could only be identified as "squamous cells from the epithelium."

                      It seems like a highly significant contradiction to occur in a scientific lecture.

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=843XjYqhzdg&t=1590s

                      Comment


                      • Its odd how you conclude that Edwards was suddenly "being careful" in this instance.

                        Out of interest....what parameters or attributes did you use to decide Edwards was being careful in his reporting?

                        Does he refer or quote to another document or something?

                        Im simply curious as to why you conclude Edwards was being careful in his reporting.

                        P

                        Comment


                        • But it's a sham, not a shawl. We know that with absolute certainty. Stewart Evans posted about it when the Russell Edwards thing broke. Stewart knows of it's non-provenance right from when the item first surfaced some years ago, and he explained it on Casebook. I was there. I paid my money to my internet service provder. I don't need to go to a funhouse and look in a goofy mirror. I don't need to question a thing about it or watch a single episode of YouTube.

                          Get real.

                          Roy

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Roy Corduroy View Post
                            But it's a sham, not a shawl. We know that with absolute certainty. Stewart Evans posted about it when the Russell Edwards thing broke. Stewart knows of it's non-provenance right from when the item first surfaced some years ago, and he explained it on Casebook. I was there. I paid my money to my internet service provder. I don't need to go to a funhouse and look in a goofy mirror. I don't need to question a thing about it or watch a single episode of YouTube.

                            Get real.

                            Roy
                            Good for you Roy! Thats how progress is made! Of course youre having "been there" and paid for your internet endows your choosing to remain in ignorance with a real sheen of ripper-respectability.

                            Keep it up!

                            P

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
                              Its odd how you conclude that Edwards was suddenly "being careful" in this instance.

                              Out of interest....what parameters or attributes did you use to decide Edwards was being careful in his reporting?

                              Does he refer or quote to another document or something?

                              Im simply curious as to why you conclude Edwards was being careful in his reporting.

                              P
                              Just a passing thought, but wouldn't Russell Edwards have taken care to accurately report the findings and concerns of Drs L&M? I imagine Dr L may also have read the ms before it was sent for publication. And could care be implied by Edwards' statement that no heads were found and by citing Miller's concerns?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Paul View Post
                                Just a passing thought, but wouldn't Russell Edwards have taken care to accurately report the findings and concerns of Drs L&M? I imagine Dr L may also have read the ms before it was sent for publication. And could care be implied by Edwards' statement that no heads were found and by citing Miller's concerns?
                                No offence to him, but while there are many ways to describe Edwards.....is careful really one of them?

                                I appreciate why one needs him to be careful in this instance so a point can be strung together....but really? Careful?

                                Are we now going to have reams of posts argueing why he was a careful and diligent recorder of things simply to lend weight to a fairly light-weight attempt at making something out of probably nothing.

                                P

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X