Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Someone should just once and for all test the "item" scientifically to get its date and confirm what it is and then we go from there and subject it for second opinions. Then we never have to talk about it again.

And exactly what scientific method/test do you recommend?

cheers, gryff

[GUT]

And exactly what scientific method/test do you recommend?

cheers, gryff

G'day gryff

Well DNA seems to work for most tests.

[dropzone]

Someone should just once and for all test the "item" scientifically to get its date and confirm what it is and then we go from there and subject it for second opinions. Then we never have to talk about it again.

The problem is that there may be no way to scientifically test its age, and even tests of when those dyes were in use, for instance, can only give a span of years, if not centuries. As said before, carbon dating suffers a similar limitation of an error range in decades, and I don't think anybody has tried dating anything so recent that the top end of the range is sometime in the future.

We are left with fashion historians with books of antique swatches, sales catalogs, magazines, and their own knowledge of styles to give educated guesses of when it was made. They can be remarkably precise.

[NRTomasheski]

What what what????? Edwards collected the samples???
WHAT????

I had at least expected there to be independent scientists performing this function. By all the gods.

Oh, boy.
I assume it was 'just' a cheek swab, but still ... not a wise move.
My friend recently purchased one of those Ancestry.com DNA kits, and made a big deal about wanting me to collect the sample, since I'm trained. The kit is designed to be (forgive me) idiot-proof, but my friend wanted it done right. And this was just for a fun - if instructive - and non-forensic purpose.
Very ill considered on Edwards's part, and I'm sad that Louhelainen didn't call foul.

[mickreed]

Very ill considered on Edwards's part, and I'm sad that Louhelainen didn't call foul.

And that's why, if these reports are true, the thing can never go to peer-review, without proper testing, and a new analysis.

[GUT]

And that's why, if these reports are true, the thing can never go to peer-review, without proper testing, and a new analysis.

Probably too late even then.

[mickreed]

Someone should just once and for all test the "item" scientifically to get its date and confirm what it is and then we go from there and subject it for second opinions. Then we never have to talk about it again.

High quality discussion on this thread!

Krinoid, why don't you get in contact with Edwards and give him the benefit of your sage advice. Better still, buy the bloomin' thing off him, and get everything done yourself.

Then share the results with the world.

Jesus! I find myself being afflicted by the same quick-draw responses as half the other contributors to this discussion.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

And that's why, if these reports are true, the thing can never go to peer-review, without proper testing, and a new analysis.

mick, correct me if I am wrong, but did the DNA result for Kosminski come from the remains of the epithelial cells that had to be extracted from microscope slides as all the cell samples had been thrown away?

In which case, what is left for retesting?

cheers, gryff

[Jeff Leahy]

I'd rewrite the above thus in order to make it closer to the facts:

… you're still left with a suspect, named (only by his family name)

The only possible match who has ever been found in extensive search of records of whom is Aaron Kosminski

Iby the two men who may have known most about the case, but exonerated by one of them,

??? Incorect

Anderson siad "Unddiscovered crimes in London are rare, and the Jack the Ripper murders are not within that category and Swanson said

'Kosminski was the Suspect"

Are you confusing MacNaughten?

and wrongly claimed to have died by the other.

Obviously I'm aware of the few apparent errors in Swansons Marginalia. I have after all studied and photographed it at length.

We don't know why Swanson thought Kosminski died shortly after being incarcerated but there are a number of possibilities including having been miss informed when Kosminski was transferred and in a poor mental state.

The other two might be explained by Kosminski being placed in a Private Asylum in Surrey March 1889 and that there was a City Police witness swell as a Jewish witness

A suspect who lived in the area and seems to have suffered a form of mental illness that may have been schizophrenia, but may well have been something else …

Expert opinion is that Aaron Kosminski suffered a form of Schizophrenia

If your making this statement perhaps you could explain what other condition he had and put that theory to expert analysis

Until then I'll stick with the probability that he had schizophrenia

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

The book may say that, but that, in itself, is no more evidence than the countless posts on Casebook.

The comments that I've seen from people who've read the book, mostly seem to say the Kosminski DNA part is very loose indeed. The evidence it purports to report is claimed to be flimsy in the extreme.

Its still a building weight of evidence to add to the case rather than a diminishing weight of evidence, is it Not?

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

There are quite a few people who pass this test. And a hell of a lot who don't.

My response relates to pots and kettles.

My post simply relates to trying to understand the source I never claimed to be an expert as these sources are ofter difficult to understand. I accept that trying to read everything ever written by Anderson and attempt to get inside his head is going to be a tall order for the average ripperologist

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

Are you familiar with Tom's work on this?

Cheers.
LC

Tom is an old timer on casebook. I've agreed and disagreed with him over the years. If I see him post I tend to look at what he says because whether I agree or disagree, he's one of the few posters, on boards in general, who one would class as a consummated ripperologist.

To my detriment I must say I've not read his book. Not because I don't wish to, but because of other work commitments , time, and all those excuses that should never be made.

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

To Jeff

But Macnaghten knew that Aaron Kosminski was not dead, and not incarcerated soon after the Kelly murder--and did not seem to think much of self-abuse leading to homicidal insanity.

How did he know the 'suspect' was still alive, and yet his superior and junior did not?

I have never seen an advocate of the Kosminski-as-Jack theory deal with this, respond to this, never. I presume because for certain people it is just infuriating that they did not notice it?

[mickreed]

mick, correct me if I am wrong, but did the DNA result for Kosminski come from the remains of the epithelial cells that had to be extracted from microscope slides as all the cell samples had been thrown away?

In which case, what is left for retesting?

cheers, gryff

Hi Gryff,

I meant the subjects, Karen and M, should be retested, and then the analysis run again.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom is an old timer on casebook. I've agreed and disagreed with him over the years. If I see him post I tend to look at what he says because whether I agree or disagree, he's one of the few posters, on boards in general, who one would class as a consummated ripperologist.

To my detriment I must say I've not read his book. Not because I don't wish to, but because of other work commitments , time, and all those excuses that should never be made.

Yours Jeff

Thanks for that, Jeff. Very kind words. And for the record, I'm not certain what I've written that Lynn is suggesting you read. When you get around to reading my book, I'd be grateful for your feedback. It's not very long and isn't the kind of Ripper book you might expect.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott