Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[mickreed]

I think the fact that the blue dye was so soluble is a pretty strong indication that this isn't a shawl for outdoor use, but a decorative household item.

It also means that it's not at all strange that it hasn't been washed. If it were washed in water the dye would come out of it.

Good point Chris. But you'd only know it was soluble if you tried to wash it. Maybe they did. I can remember when washing anything red other than on its own was sure to be a disaster

[mickreed]

I think the fact that the blue dye was so soluble is a pretty strong indication that this isn't a shawl for outdoor use, but a decorative household item.

It also means that it's not at all strange that it hasn't been washed. If it were washed in water the dye would come out of it.

And wasn't it raining on the night in question? Lawnde said it was. Would it be possible to tell whether the dye had ever got wet?

[GUT]

Good point Chris. But you'd only know it was soluble if you tried to wash it. Maybe they did. I can remember when washing anything red other than on its own was sure to be a disaster

Isn't it still?

I own a very pretty pink shirt that started life as white.

[mickreed]

Thanks Chris

if he had stuck to the "facts" about the DNA it would have been one thing, but all the BS just makes the rest look silly.

He couldn't have written the DNA bit without Jari who, I would be confident wouldn't go near it except in an academic context.

Ergo, no BS, no book.

[mickreed]

Thanks Chris

Maybe Pansies or even clover, but daisies?

This seems to be the biggest problem with Mr Edwards' book, if he had stuck to the "facts" about the DNA it would have been one thing, but all the BS just makes the rest look silly.

Daisies
Shawls
Police taking evidence
The shawl's a skirt or was that the skirt's a shawl?
It was Kosminski's shawl
etc etc etc

The more I'm hearing about this the more I'm regretting pre-ordering this silly book and thereby handing the author his quid. There will be nothing of real lasting value until we get Jari's work.

[Henry Flower]

raining on your parade

And wasn't it raining on the night in question? Lawnde said it was. Would it be possible to tell whether the dye had ever got wet?

Mick, here's a proposition for you:

Set aside a month to read again through the 16,000 posts on this thread, and ask yourself; given the debate over every detail and every finding, the rancour, the repetition, the brazen refusal to understand the science, the carping dismissals of a book that hasn't been read, cautious curiosity mischaracterised by opponents as blind acceptance, and mere assertion presented as argument - (I think that's Trevor Marriott's M.O. covered) - and ask yourself: what on earth would such a test prove or disprove?

We're presented with DNA results from two established scientific experts - albeit results that need verification, and more explanation - and you're saying it might clarify things if we can find out whether..... the dye..... ever got wet......?

[lynn cates]

yes

Hello EB.

"But if the shawl had been discarded away from the crime scene, how would the MET PC and/or Simpson have known that it was Eddowes's?"

Exactly.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

wet

Hello Mick.

"And wasn't it raining on the night in question? Lawende said it was. Would it be possible to tell whether the dye had ever got wet?"

According to reports, the rain ended about 11.30.

But HERE'S the joker in the deck.

1. It is often argued that whoever killed Liz killed Kate.

2. It is often argued that whoever killed Liz was spotted by Gardner and Betts.

3. It is often argued that this took place during a heavy downpour.

4. If 1-3 are true (well, their consequents) where was the shawl? If it was in Kosminski's possession, surely it got wet (unless it were wrapped up).

Cheers.
LC

[MrBarnett]

Hi Chris,

The flowers on the shawl are obviously not Michaelmas daisies. They look very much like pansies to me.

Pretty stupid of Mr Russell to bring the subject up in the first place, unless he is severely botanically challenged. And as for there being a message hidden in the pattern of the shawl, I think that idea must have come to him after a few sherbets.

MrB

[mickreed]

Mick, here's a proposition for you:

Set aside a month to read again through the 16,000 posts on this thread, and ask yourself; given the debate over every detail and every finding, the rancour, the repetition, the brazen refusal to understand the science, the carping dismissals of a book that hasn't been read, cautious curiosity mischaracterised by opponents as blind acceptance, and mere assertion presented as argument - (I think that's Trevor Marriott's M.O. covered) - and ask yourself: what on earth would such a test prove or disprove?

We're presented with DNA results from two established scientific experts - albeit results that need verification, and more explanation - and you're saying it might clarify things if we can find out whether..... the dye..... ever got wet......?

G'day Henry. How's it going?

I haven't a month and I'm not really saying it might clarify things, although without provenance nothing is definite whatever the science says.

What I am saying, is that I'm not quite sure what the scientists actually are saying. Now I haven't yet got the book 'cos I'm in Australia, so it's arguable that I (and others) should wait until we have got it before passing judgement. What I do know is that Jari, in his radio interview, was rational, cautious, aware of other options, and seemingly unwilling to commit to the conclusions drawn by Russell Edwards.

Then we have the latter saying - it's all over. I found JTR. His book (which I await) is said to include emails from Jari. I ask, does it include chapters written exclusively by Jari and his team. I doubt it, because we are told there is not a single citation in the book. In other words, is the science mediated through Russell Edwards? If so, then we don't really know what the scientists are saying.

Cheers mate.

[tji]

Hi Chris

Not that it matter's much but I have come to exactly the same conclusion!

I think they could be be pansies - this is a shawl form around 1800's

http://www.kci.or.jp/archives/digital_archives/detail_44_e.html

Tracy

[mickreed]

Hi Chris

Not that it matter's much but I have come to exactly the same conclusion!

I think they could be be pansies - this is a shawl form around 1800's

http://www.kci.or.jp/archives/digital_archives/detail_44_e.html

Tracy

I found similar items when I was looking Tracy. They look like pansies to me, except that many of them only have three 'petals' and therefore look like a clover shape. Someone must know somebody with genuine botanical AND fabric design knowledge. It ain't me though.

[Henry Flower]

G'day Henry. How's it going?

I haven't a month and I'm not really saying it might clarify things, although without provenance nothing is definite whatever the science says.

What I am saying, is that I'm not quite sure what the scientists actually are saying. Now I haven't yet got the book 'cos I'm in Australia, so it's arguable that I (and others) should wait until we have got it before passing judgement. What I do know is that Jari, in his radio interview, was rational, cautious, aware of other options, and seemingly unwilling to commit to the conclusions drawn by Russell Edwards.

Then we have the latter saying - it's all over. I found JTR. His book (which I await) is said to include emails from Jari. I ask, does it include chapters written exclusively by Jari and his team. I doubt it, because we are told there is not a single citation in the book. In other words, is the science mediated through Russell Edwards? If so, then we don't really know what the scientists are saying.

Cheers mate.

I share your concerns Mick. I'm inclined to ignore Mr Edwards and his theories altogether. I found that in his BBC interview Dr L was not only more cautious in his conclusions, but sounded almost as though he were not telling us what he really thought of Edwards' conclusions - when a scientist describes something as being 'a personal journey' for someone else, it comes across as a polite way of saying 'the guy has an agenda and is using my science to sell books based on conclusions that I can't support'.

So, as most have now concluded, there's not much more to be said absent a proper scientific paper from Dr Louhelainen.

[Henry Flower]

They may be pansies. But can anyone PROVE that Kosminski didn't mistake them for Michaelmas Daisies when planting them in/near Mitre Square in order to give the police an inaccurate (and extremely obscure) clue about when his next murder would occur and thus increase his chances of being captured?

No.

No, I'm not being serious.

[lynn cates]

no paper

Hello Henry.

"there's not much more to be said absent a proper scientific paper from Dr Louhelainen."

And now it looks like that will not happen. He claims:

1. He is too busy.

2. He lacks funding.

Cheers.
LC