Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Krinoid]

Hello Mabuse.

"It's not up to observers to substantiate this claim about the shawl. It is up to Edwards to do so. He has failed to do so.

Others are perfectly within their rights to reject the claims as they stand, as per the standards of rational discourse and logic."



Cheers.
LC

It's not about rejecting the claim that I was pointing out, it was about arguing of the actual date or what the item is/was without any scientific proof. Just say unknown date/item until you have it and not hearsay from auction houses/museums,anyone..people did not read the post and suffer from reading comprehension skills.

[Henry Flower]

Phil, who are you claiming has "backed" this story? I haven't seen one person do so on this thread.

Chris, you must surely understand the dynamic by now. See pinkmoon's reply to my question. Having invented the straw-man of those who think it's case closed, and having been asked to name one person who has come out and said that, pinkmoon shifted the goalposts and declared him-or-herself frankly and honestly appalled- appalled! - that anyone should approach the story with an open and enquiring mind rather than dismissing it out of hand.

I stated earlier in the thread that we seem to be more reasonably described as being split between the unconvinced and the inconvincible. I would stand by that - I honestly cannot remember one single post arguing that the story had them convinced, case closed, no further research needed, turn out the lights.

But no. It seems those who aren't with us are against us. Haram. Verboten.

[Krinoid]

Hello Neil.

"There's a difference between missing documentation and "documentation is not their strong point or anything else in law detection back then.""

Yes, a HUGE one.

Cheers.
LC

yes, seize on one aspect of a an error that was taken back and nothing else .

[GUT]

Chris, you must surely understand the dynamic by now. See pinkmoon's reply to my question. Having invented the straw-man of those who think it's case closed, and having been asked to name one person who has come out and said that, pinkmoon shifted the goalposts and declared him-or-herself frankly and honestly appalled- appalled! - that anyone should approach the story with an open and enquiring mind rather than dismissing it out of hand.

I stated earlier in the thread that we seem to be more reasonably described as being split between the unconvinced and the inconvincible. I would stand by that - I honestly cannot remember one single post arguing that the story had them convinced, case closed, no further research needed, turn out the lights.

But no. It seems those who aren't with us are against us. Haram. Verboten.

G'day Henry

Just remind me the name o0f Mr Edwards' book again...

Oh that's right "Naming Jack the Ripper"

[Phil Carter]

Phil, who are you claiming has "backed" this story? I haven't seen one person do so on this thread.

"backed" as in supports it not distances themselves from it.
Someone else has offered to answer my questions. Get someone to answer yours to me. I wont. My standpoint is crystal clear on this, namely...

This shawl business is getting dangerously near the state of the Diary. And if it does- the field you, me and many others have given time and energy to over many years will find itself in the same position as it was 20 odd years ago,

So with such a poor story already- with the author changing goalposts AFTER the book release- to me it is as clear as daylight what is needed from this community, A united front against this kind of stuff- or is that just reserved for Tony Williams and Patricia Cornwell's offerings?

I DON'T want that Diary scenario to be repeated. Mark my words it will if this very shaky story isnt given the public heave ho- because the longer it goes on the worse it will get.

And Ripperology will then shake its head and wonder how this mess was allowed to expand.

Just like the Diary

And your time would be better served inho by doing something showing movement to oust this mess from the field . Before it gets totally out of hand, imho


Phil

[Henry Flower]

G'day Henry

Just remind me the name o0f Mr Edwards' book again...

Oh that's right "Naming Jack the Ripper"

G'day GUT. I'm not entirely sure why you've quoted my post and then addressed an entirely different issue in your reply.

Unless you just demonstrated that many people here have indeed declared their convinced support for the story told in the book. If you did, I confess you've been too cryptic for me.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

1. If it's a shawl, my Aunt Doris is a Chinaman. If it's a skirt we're looking for a woman with a huge waist and very short legs, or perhaps a miniscule waist and extremely long legs. Of course, it could always be a kilt belonging to the McDaisy or McLily clan.

2. A pathetic attempt to rationalise why CE might have been lugging around this length of material.

3. Not that I noticed.

4. I have a hunch the material may once have been used to wrap the Diary.

5. They've watched too many naff TV documentaries which have fingered Kosminski.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

Thank you .

Your answers are in agreement with my own thoughts...


BOTH BEFORE and After I read the book.......

(Yes Chris --now go on and ask me where I got it from to read WITHOUT paying a penny- I dare you)



kindest whiskies

Phil

[Henry Flower]

"backed" as in supports it not distances themselves from it.
Someone else has offered to answer my questions. Get someone to answer yours to me. I wont. My standpoint is crystal clear on this, namely...

This shawl business is getting dangerously near the state of the Diary. And if it does- the field you, me and many others have given time and energy to over many years will find itself in the same position as it was 20 odd years ago,

So with such a poor story already- with the author changing goalposts AFTER the book release- to me it is as clear as daylight what is needed from this community, A united front against this kind of stuff- or is that just reserved for Tony Williams and Patricia Cornwell's offerings?

I DON'T want that Diary scenario to be repeated. Mark my words it will if this very shaky story isnt given the public heave ho- because the longer it goes on the worse it will get.

And Ripperology will then shake its head and wonder how this mess was allowed to expand.

Just like the Diary

And your time would be better served inho by doing something showing movement to oust this mess from the field . Before it gets totally out of hand, imho


Phil

Yes Phil, if only the public could be exposed instead to comically misguided conspiracy theories and absolutely basic errors of evidence interpretation (ie, that's not Eddowes, that's another woman, in a boat (!!!!!!), her injuries aren't the same as those of Eddowes etc.) We mustn't let charlatans like Edwards muddy the waters.

After all, the only reason the serious Casebook research community hasn't yet cracked the case is that publicity-whores like Edwards keep stealing the limelight and making us cry. Damn him!

[lynn cates]

times

Hello Henry. Wonder if the difference in times with Annie and Kate might be due to the vastly different skill levels shown in the cuts?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

provenance

Hello John. Thanks.

Yes, the provenance.

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

Someone else has offered to answer my questions. Get someone to answer yours to me. I wont.

It's hardly a surprise that you're unable to substantiate your insinuations.

[Phil Carter]

Chris, you must surely understand the dynamic by now. See pinkmoon's reply to my question.

Henry,

Personally I wouldnt lump peoples individual "dynamics" together- as I have seen many different that oppose the authentication of this story,

Still- at least the inconvincible have one weapon nobody can defend against,

Mr Edwards changing key elements of the story AFTER the book release.

There can be only one reason for that. SEE Simon Wood's answer.

And that should be ringing alarm bells.
(whilst anyone sits on the fence waiting that is)

Phil

[Natasha]

Hi All

I'm not really sure about the DNA found on the shawl, I don't really think Eddowes possessed this, but I think there is something else that may connect Kosminski to Eddowes.

Kosminski died from gangrene of the leg in 1919, now I know that seems like a long time from 1888, but what was really interesting was that Eddowes had some kind of infection, (check the PM report, the Dr talks about a strange discoloration that he monitored over a few days) not an STD, but an infection which I believe was cellulitis.

Cellulitis is a skin infection that can turn into gangrene if not treated. Kosminski may have developed a skin infection from the cut, and subsequently developed gangrene over a period of time.

If Kosminski was Eddowes murderer, then he may have cut his leg (Kosminski died from gangrene of the leg) when killing Eddowes. The apron found in GS may have been tied around his leg, and he may have lost it without realising it.

[lynn cates]

He's buying.

Hello Phil.

"kindest whiskies"

You're buying then? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Henry Flower]

And that should be ringing alarm bells.
(whilst anyone sits on the fence waiting that is)

Phil, the parade of paperbacks claiming definitive solutions will never end, and you know it. That shouldn't affect you, though. Tom Wescott rejects the shawl out of hand, but says his own excellent book has enjoyed an uptick in sales due to increased public interest in the case.

So instead of trying to stamp it out like some foul contagion that infects the Ripperological community, why not research, publish, ride the wave generated by the next 'solution' charlatan? Sure beats whining about it