Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Phil Carter]

I think there's a limit to the number of questions people can expect those who've read the book to answer about its contents - particularly if they're refusing to read it themselves.

Hello Chris,

Then answering questions 2 and 3 will be very simple for you to initiate and or inform the world who haven't bought the book and are only reading these posts quietly?


best wishes

Phil

[Henry Flower]

Any blood on the 'shawl' certainly had nothing to do with this crime.

That's a level of certainty I don't think we're quite entitled to yet. It seems as misplaced and authoritative as Mr Edwards' wilder claims.

Before anyone can speculate what's on the 'shawl' surely we need to know it was at the crime scene in the first place?

I don't think Dr Louhelainen is speculating. Neither do I think Dr David Miller is speculating.

Until that is established, and I can't see how it can be as there is no record of it, anywhere, back in 1888, then everything else, surely, can only be hypothesis and conjecture? If not moot....

I agree instead with the primer on the Casebook homepage: IF it is proven to be the DNA of Eddowes and Kosminski, provenance becomes moot.

After all, the shawl's provenance is a gap, it's an empty space. You can't prove it wasn't there. It's a gap, not a definitive minus. DNA evidence, if confirmed and solid, would be a positive. A gap in provenance wouldn't cancel out biological evidence. That evidence would exist!

Re the shawl's provenance we have absence of evidence, which is not quite the same as definite evidence of absence. That absence of 125 year old documentary evidence could not cancel-out definite biological evidence of Eddowes' blood in arterial spray on a piece of fabric that had Kosminski's DNA in semen stains.

I don't disagree with you - I think this thing will remain very much unproven, and Edwards has hyped the results way beyond what the actual science will bear. But I think your logic is wrong. Provenance is surely moot IF the shawl has on it arterial blood spray, semen, and the confirmed DNA of a victim and a chief suspect.

But that's a big IF. At the moment we're entitled to say that it doesn't, and as it doesn't we're entitled to give the lack of provenance primacy as evidence.

[Phil Carter]

@Mr Phil Carter: Here is a link to the documentary

Jack The Ripper: Prime Suspect

The meeting of Napper, Edwards and Dr. Louhelainen is around 31.40. (Napper also meets with the Parlours a few minutes earlier in the video.)

cheers, gryff

Hello PG aka gryff,

Most kind :-)


Thank you


best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

[Message deleted]

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Why are so many Ripperologists busting their nuts in an attempt to invest the Eddowes/Simpson shawl story with a semblance of respectability?

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Hi All,

Why are so many Ripperologists busting their nuts in an attempt to invest the Eddowes/Simpson shawl story with some degree of respectability?

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

Moi aussi.


best wishes


Phil

[Patrick S]

That's a level of certainty I don't think we're quite entitled to yet. It seems as misplaced and authoritative as Mr Edwards' wilder claims.



I don't think Dr Louhelainen is speculating. Neither do I think Dr David Miller is speculating.



I agree instead with the primer on the Casebook homepage: IF it is proven to be the DNA of Eddowes and Kosminski, provenance becomes moot.

After all, the shawl's provenance is a gap, it's an empty space. You can't prove it wasn't there. It's a gap, not a definitive minus. DNA evidence, if confirmed and solid, would be a positive. A gap in provenance wouldn't cancel out biological evidence. That evidence would exist!

Re the shawl's provenance we have absence of evidence, which is not quite the same as definite evidence of absence. That absence of 125 year old documentary evidence could not cancel-out definite biological evidence of Eddowes' blood in arterial spray on a piece of fabric that had Kosminski's DNA in semen stains.

I don't disagree with you - I think this thing will remain very much unproven, and Edwards has hyped the results way beyond what the actual science will bear. But I think your logic is wrong. Provenance is surely moot IF the shawl has on it arterial blood spray, semen, and the confirmed DNA of a victim and a chief suspect.

But that's a big IF. At the moment we're entitled to say that it doesn't, and as it doesn't we're entitled to give the lack of provenance primacy as evidence.

That about sums it up.

[Chris]

Why are so many Ripperologists busting their nuts in an attempt to invest the Eddowes/Simpson shawl story with a semblance of respectability?

I can't see anyone doing that. Who did you have in mind?

[Garry Wroe]

Of course, one major problem is that we don't know when the DNA fragments were deposited on the garment and whether they were deposited at the same time, or even same decade or same century!

Dr Jari stated in the BBC radio interview, John, that he illuminated the stains with forensic lighting and gained the impression that they weren't of recent origin. The blood, he thought, looked like it might have been contemporaneous with the murders.

[Henry Flower]

Ever considered forming a double act with Henry?

[Chris]

Dr Jari stated in the BBC radio interview, John, that he illuminated the stains with forensic lighting and gained the impression that they weren't of recent origin. The blood, he thought, looked like it might have been contemporaneous with the murders.

He also said such estimates could only be very vague, didn't he?

[moonbegger]

I think it's Edwards certainty in a very uncertain situation , garnished with the sensational headlines that grind folk the wrong way .. And at its very best , all we have , is possible evidence of Kate's Shawl with a trace of AK's seamen .. A well known seller of vice and a most likely buyer , rubbing shoulders in a very small and tight district .. far from an unlikely union by any stretch of the imagination .

By the same rule of thumb , every man who paid for her services and left a trace of seamen on her clothing was Jack the Ripper .

Was it just his unfortunate familiarity with prostitutes in the area that brought him under Police suspicion at the time ? And that being the case is it just these two flimsy bits of circumstantial evidence tied together that have Mr Edwards claiming he was 100% JTR ?

In all fairness to Ed & Fish , at least we know their man was there at a murder scene , alone with a freshly killed victim 100% . And although I don't buy into their theory , you cant argue with that particular fact , which for my mind is a lot stronger evidence than the unknown provenance and uncertain DNA findings surrounding the shawl at this moment in time .

And as far as the provenance goes .. Hanbury street and Leather apron , no one missed that !

moonbegger .

[Phil Carter]

Hello Simon,

So let me get this right... this Finnish Dr Jari swab tested the shawl earlier and found nothing.

He re-tested the shawl afterwards using a different method and found all manner of things that didn't /would not have shown up with the swab tests.

All this after Edwards had shown the shawl to Napper on a previous occasion when Napper was trying to fix Deeming as the Ripper. ON THIS PROGRAMME it says that Edwards has a personal reason for interest because "Deeming lived in Liverpool (in my home town)"

Napper..A (retired) policeman and DNA expert when on the force convinces Edwards to get the shawl tested. Deeming's DNA has no DNA shown belonging to Deeming. Results are inconclusive.

So can someone please explain to me why Edwards has suddenly DROPPED the Deeming "personal interest" and jumped on Kosminski?

Who suggested this away-from-a-personal-interest-in-Deeming theory to Edwards?





best wishes

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Most Relevant Quote

The most relevant quote made at the time the 'shawl' was auctioned was -

"A shawl like this would normally go for about Ģ100 without any story." - Lacy Scott spokesman. (East Anglian Daily Times, Monday, April 30, 2007)

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil!

I couldnīt say who had the original article. Iīve found two articles in Helsingin Sanomat, and I am providing you the links - it is, as you may know, the biggest paper in Finland. It seems they are not the same article, however, but if you can make anything of them, Iīd be interested to hear it!
They are from the 8:th and the 9:th, so they may not have the information about having been taken advantage of.

The best,
Fisherman

http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/Professori+Viilt%C3%A4j%C3%A4-Jackin+dna-tunnistus+kuulostaa+todelta/a1410058426957

http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/Dna-j%C3%A4...a1410155460248

Hello Christer,

Very initially, looks like just linked articles.. I will look at it in detail. Many thanks.


best wishes

Phil