Woodland, I dont think people are advocating for incorrect info. This will always be an issue (I think) on a forum like this where anyone can bring up new information that no one has heard of or information that isnt substantiated by legitimate sources. Its our responsibility to always ask for the source of that information if it isnt provided and if one is not satisfied, then we need to place that information in the category of:
INTERESTING, BUT CANT DO ANYTHING WITH THAT
Yes, Woodland, I agree with you. This case is polluted enough with contradictory facts and errors. Just look on this thread where I compared the different versions of the Sunderland crime scene as presented in REDRUM and the KAUFMAN REPORT. (Post #57) Clearly, there are errors in those two documents and we have no way to disseminate which one is wrong and where. They probably both contain errors.
Also, the way we paraphrase the information we do have here on this thread can lead to misinterpretation by others. I think weve already seen that happen. We need to be all of us as accurate as possible when we drop facts. If one must hit the books to double-check something in the middle of writing a post then one should do so. Most of my posts are written in Microsoft Word so that I have the freedom and time to do the due-diligence when its necessary
and only when Ive got my facts straight do I copy and paste into the thread. Thats my personal practice. I feel a responsibility to get my facts as correct as I can. And I re-read my posts too, and edit my writing for clarification if, on second reading, I think Im being unclear, or theres room for potential confusion. That's just me.
My ultimate point is: the introduction of hear-say facts is going to happen. Information without verifiable sources is going to happen. I dont think we can stop it or keep it out. But, we must address it. I think were all intelligent and savvy enough to recognize something new or contradictory immediately and jump on it (and if were not weve got you, Woodland). (Joke.)
In terms of the Ken Jessop as Towserdog stuff that was posted on UC
I read all of that stuff there carefully, and Ive read it again now. I cant be sure that that is Ken. In my opinion, I think we need to be cautious with that stuff. Theres some controversy over whether or not that was really him or if all of it was him or, if some of it was him.
There are a number of facts presented by Towserdog that fly in the face of the accepted version presented in both Redrum and Kaufman (and, yes, I know RR and KR are not gospel I said that at the beginning of this thread).
Let me pick just one paragraph by Towserdog that is almost completely contradictory to what is accepted as true:
Christine was found sitting up. Legs splayed apart. She was not face up, or face down... She was decapitated. Her head was found rolled up in her upper clothing(shirt, sweater etc.) Her head was PLACED between her legs.
Sitting up? (Kaufman says she was on her back, Makin says her back was facing up.)
Her head was placed between her legs? (Kaufman says her head was pointed north and her feet south, Makin says the head was to the right of the body.)
See post #57 for my complete comparison.
And thats just one small part.
So, what do I do with all of this Towserdog stuff? Read it with a big grain of salt. Until I can meet Ken Jessop and say, Hey, was that you? Did you write that? And he says, Yes. Then I can do something with it.
For now
Interesting, but cant do anything with that.
