Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[GUT]

The sad irony is that it's more likely the Ripper touched some of those letters Cornwell pawed than that he touched that shawl. At least those letters actually existed in 1888.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

What letters DNA

[Henry Flower]

Just call me bamboozled, how some attacked Cornwell over her DNA but now defend this DNA.

I'm not sure anyone's really 'defending' this - as far as I can see there are two camps - those who know the shawl is not what it is claimed to be and so dismiss the whole show on that basis, and those who find the results interesting but want more testing done. Nobody here is jumping up and down saying case closed. Even the very small number who have actually read the book we're all discussing are saying there are holes that need filling, problems with the science that need to be overcome, and nothing is solved so far. I think we're divided here between the unconvinced and the unconvincable.

Which makes it all the more troubling that intelligent and articulate adults are actually falling out with each other over who said what to whom, and what it meant.

[lynn cates]

conflation

Hello Christopher. Thanks.

We may be conflating notions here. I can certainly accept schizophrenia being present in at least one of the killers; with cannabis sativa, I might get comfortable with a 1990's style sexual serial killer. But simultaneously?

Cheers.
LC

[Henry Flower]

No, Lynn, No!

I might get comfortable with a 1990's style sexual serial killer.

Lynn, I wouldn't recommend doing that.

[dropzone]

Thanks for that further info. Now thinking its time to order the book myself. Largely because some time ago I looked into the notion that Jack attacked from behind using a garrotte and silk would have made a good material leaving few marks.

Eddows was strangled not stabbed to death.

What do you have to support strangulation? It has pretty obvious indicators, like a broken hyoid bone, and they are not mentioned in Eddowes' autopsy. A good ME, even in 1888, would know to check that. Further, that cloth is awfully long and wide to make a good garotte. A quick thought experiment would tell you it's too awkward to use.

Has it actually be confirmed that it was a shawl and not a tablerunner?

Can someone clarify the basis for referring to this thing as a table runner? Is there any proof of this at all? Or is it just the size, because if that is it, I think it just shows that people do not know what they are talking about.

Here is an example of a similar, though much smaller, tablerunner; http://www.rubylane.com/item/632271-...t-Table-Runner Note how the ends are a different pattern than the center section, like the cloth. The cloth is wider than is now fashionable, but would look nice with the two contrasting ends (assuming there is a missing other end) draped over the ends of a 96” x 44” table, like you see here: http://www.ziva-needlepoint-designs....e-runners.html And mostly, it really looks like a table runner would if the other end was cut off.

Well they managed to date the turin shroud why not this old piece of material instead of all this ifs, buts, and maybe`s that surround it?

Perhaps you should concentrate on that aspect instead of resorting to you own predictable form of personal defamation.

Carbon 14 dating is not that accurate. The late Victorian era and all of the Edwardian era are well within the margin of error.

The BBC has just had a lengthy item about the case on the Science programme on Radio 4. Dr Louhelainen was interviewed as well a DNA expert from Leicester University whose name I didn't catch. Dr Louhelainen distanced himself from the conclusions of the book (while at the same time saying that he personally thought that they were plausible).

From my experience with mtDNA guys, “it's plausible” is as close as they get to a firm yes or no.

If, as Mr Edwards avers, the shawl was the "chintz dress" mentioned in press reports, and the "chintz dress" was actually the "dark green chintz skirt, 3 flounces, brown button on waistband . . . patterned with Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies" reported in the official inventory of Eddowes' clothing and belongings, it [a] had to have been on Eddowes' body in Mitre Square and [b] gifted/stolen/lifted/appropriated from the mortuary after the inventory had been completed.
...
And what happened to the 3 flounces and the brown button on the waistband?

Bingo! I fear Mr Edwards has no idea what chintz is, how it isn't silk, and doesn't know a flounce from his Aunt Fanny. His inability to distinguish dark red and dark green would be something to take up with his mum.

If it's not proven a fraud it CANNOT be proven beyond a shadow of doubt for ALL people. Thus, this will continue, as it has, until......

someone invents a time machine and we find ourselves hiding in a dark corner of the yard in Hanbury Street as Dark Annie leads some annonymous chap back against the fence and goes about earning her doss money. We jump out with a flashlight, shine it in his face, and yell, "AHA!.....Wait......Who the hell are you?"

The problem with a time machine is that, like Schroedinger's cat, our observation of one murder and identification of Jack “collapses the waveform” and the JtR mystery is not only solved, it might not even occur!

[christoper]

Hello Christopher. Thanks.

We may be conflating notions here. I can certainly accept schizophrenia being present in at least one of the killers; with cannabis sativa, I might get comfortable with a 1990's style sexual serial killer. But simultaneously?

Cheers.
LC

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

I have not diagnosed the Ripper with any psychological condition.

You point blank out of the blue asked me why a schizophrenic might take a trophy, in response to your direct inquiry, I answered that some schizophrenics have taken organs.

Although I did my best to answer your direct question--I should clarify some things.

I do not have insights into schizophrenia, I have not diagnosed the Ripper as a schizophrenic or with any other psychological condition. I do not diagnose anyone's mental condition, I am not a psychiatrist, nor do I have any desire to play one on the internet.

[Poch]

I think we're divided here between the unconvinced and the unconvincable.

Elegantly put.

Out of interest, do you have the link for the BBC podcast with Juri in it? I don't know if it's just me but I can never find what I'm looking for on the iPlayer radio site. I heard the small section on the today show from radio 4 and it was a bit of a shambles honestly, but your post about the science podcast earlier sounds much more interesting.

[Sox]

It's a long time since I've been here, and it seems like things have not improved, did I really read a post from someone saying Stewart Evans knows nothing about this subject Sad times.

Anyway, Mr Edwards has a book out, a book that is being released before any independent testing of this shawl has been carried out. Almost every report we read on this subject tells us that 'DNA' found on the garment 'proves' Kosminski was Jack the Ripper....and almost every report (or to be more exact every interview with Mr Edwards) utterly fails to inform us that it's mitochondrial dna, and that really is no proof of anything.....other than Kosminski could have been the killer, and we are already aware of that.

All that this really proves, is that Mr Edwards is a wily entreprenuer, because look here, almost two hundred pages, including posts from some people more or less defending these claims as already established facts. If he has people here believing these claims, then I imagine his book and his 'store' are going to be doing a roaring trade over the coming months.

Deja vu anyone? I am amazed that such reputable researchers as are on these boards are even giving a second thought to this nonsense. Remember Cornwell's dna 'proof'...remember the Diary?

[GUT]

G'day Dropzone

The problem with a time machine is that, like Schroedinger's cat, our observation of one murder and identification of Jack “collapses the waveform” and the JtR mystery is not only solved, it might not even occur!

Using Schroedinger's cat to explain things is you real name Sheldon by chance.

[Henry Flower]

This should work - the slightly extended version of the Jari interview is here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/inscience

It's not the most scintillating interview I've ever heard - clearly Dr L is not accustomed to media attention, and he resorts to saying "yeah" quite a lot, but anyway...

'Enjoy' - if it's still possible after tonight to enjoy anything Ripper related

[Poch]

This should work.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/inscience

It's not the most scintillating interview I've ever heard - clearly Dr L is not accustomed to media attention, but he resorts to saying "yeah" quite a lot, but anyway...

'Enjoy' - if it's still possible after tonight to enjoy anything Ripper related

Ha, yes I got that impression from the 30 seconds they gave him to explain everything he worked on whilst on the today show lol. Regardless, thanks for the link, very much appreciated.

[Wickerman]

I'm not sure anyone's really 'defending' this - as far as I can see there are two camps - those who know the shawl is not what it is claimed to be and so dismiss the whole show on that basis, and those who find the results interesting but want more testing done. Nobody here is jumping up and down saying case closed. Even the very small number who have actually read the book we're all discussing are saying there are holes that need filling, problems with the science that need to be overcome, and nothing is solved so far. I think we're divided here between the unconvinced and the unconvincable.

Which makes it all the more troubling that intelligent and articulate adults are actually falling out with each other over who said what to whom, and what it meant.

Mr Edwards has failed to provide sufficient accuracy on a number of issues quite separate from the DNA claims.
Also, Mr Edwards is certainly not an expert on DNA, nor much else on the WM issue by the sounds of it.
If you remove the DNA from the book, what value is left for the reader?

All that matters is the analysis report from Dr Louhelainen, should he ever provide one.
That is the only document worth reading on this matter.

[Sox]

If you remove the DNA from the book, what value is left for the reader?

Exactly! He is not claiming that Kosminski could be Jack the Ripper, he's saying that he 100% was the killer.

''I discovered there were two dates for it: one, September 29, in the Western Christian church and the other, November 8, in the Eastern Orthodox church. With a jolt, I realised the two dates coincided precisely with the nights of the last two murder dates. September 29 was the night on which Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were killed, and November 8 was the night of the final, most horrific of the murders, that of Mary Jane Kelly''.


Does anyone find that train of thought even remotely credible? (even ignoring the wrong date)


''But could the Ripper have brought the shawl with him and left it as an obscure clue about when he was planning to strike next? It was just a hunch, and far from proof of anything, but it set me off on my journey''.

.....just LOL!!

[Henry Flower]

Mr Edwards has failed to provide sufficient accuracy on a number of issues quite separate from the DNA claims.

This has been noted by almost everyone.

Also, Mr Edwards is certainly not an expert on DNA, nor much else on the WM issue by the sounds of it.

Presumably that's why he spent a great deal of money hiring the services of experts on DNA?

If you remove the DNA from the book, what value is left for the reader?

The book's cover is quite good by Ripperology standards?

OF COURSE the DNA is what all the fuss is about. I thought that was bleedin' obvious. He's not claiming he's solved the case by proving that the Michaelmas daisies were hand-painted rather than screen-printed!

All that matters is the analysis report from Dr Louhelainen, should he ever provide one.
That is the only document worth reading on this matter.

That's what almost everyone - except the convinced disbelievers - has already said. I guess we thought it made more sense to discuss a book we haven't read than an analysis report that hasn't been written....

...about a shawl that wasn't a shawl that didn't belong to Eddowes and wasn't at Mitre Square to be stolen by a policeman who wasn't there either....

[GUT]

G'day Henry

Presumably that's why he spent a great deal of money hiring the services of experts on DNA?

Well why didn't he spend a little bit on brushing up on the actual crimes.

You know minor things like what was at the scene, where Simpson's duties took hm, little issues like that.