The problems we have always have had with Professor Derek Abbott

Start with this, a comment from I forget .. whoever he or she may be

Because people think the “high academic profile” means something.

His (Derek Abbott) expertise is in Electrical Engineering (or similar). His background has no more influence on how right or wrong he is about this stuff than any of our backgrounds. It’s one of the things that grinds my gears so much about him – that he seems to use his title to put weight on his opinions and views – but being a Professor in one field doesn’t make you an expert in all things. Just like claiming to be an ex-defective doesn’t make you an expert in all things.

Perhaps the one thing that bothers me most about DA is that in terms of SM his research doesn’t really come across as scientific in approach (but maybe this shows my disconnect with scientists). What I mean by that, is I like to think that scientific research consciously tries to remove biases, and is open to disproving what it sets out to prove, provided it results in an explainable conclusion. Abbot’s method seems a bit more haphazard – latching onto unproven ideas and following them with limited effort to prove the original assumptions. For example, from memory he was a supporter of the HC Reynolds ID. He even convinced a colleague to chime in an “prove” that SM was Reynolds – something that a more scientific approach would have shut down sooner, because the holes in the story would have ripped down the idea, rather than have been patched to make a stronger-seeming narrative.

To me, a scientist looks for any answer, but too often DA seems to look for a specific pre-supposed answer.

Then there is this, from Ruth Collins .. who fights to the bitter end ..

You’re completely wrong about Derek Abbott, the Reynolds I.D.. Prof. Maciej Henneberg and Derek Abbott were colleagues, both teaching at Adelaide University. Maciej gave the I.D. photo a positive facial comparative match to SM in June/July 2010 and Major Crime, and the Coroner’s Office were informed.

This happened months before Gerry Feltus published his book ‘The Unknown Man. So Abbott’s response to Maciej’s findings were actually the opposite to what you assert here.

Abbott not only rejected Maciej’s findings, but displayed such extreme and obsessive control over the subject, that it caused us to question his motives. He even paraded Rachel Egan before Maciej to check for any resemblance to SM, but Maciej found none.

Abbott then went about gathering whatever he could to disproving Maciej and the I.D., however he failed to produced a photo of the chap he claimed was H.C. Reynolds (who’d died in 1953). Abbott also called me . I’ll add that I found him a very condescending / rude man, and after all, we were surely serving the same cause, SM, and not adversaries.

Abbott then used Pelling as his proxy to knock the I.D. out of contention. Of course at the time we didn’t realise that Abbott’s obsession and insistence that SM fathered Robin Thomson was intertwined with his romancing / grooming Rachel Egan, hence a marriage and 3 children were dependant on maintaining and protecting his SM theory.

Abbott and Egan continued this deception when appearing on “60 Minutes”, (frauds / liars). Like most others, I hope SM’s identity’s been resolved, however owing to my past dealings with DA, his biased views and lack of integrity, I’ll wait on SAPOL for confirmation. DA has shown he can’t

………….

Thanks Ruth, appreciated.

Pete