Casebook Role in Addressing DNA Evidence Implicating Kosminski

[Barnaby]

As the purported DNA evidence against Kosminski from the alleged Eddowes shawl gathers momentum across social media and press, what is the role/responsibility/obligation of Casebook to address it? I'm not referring to the message boards, where it has been thoroughly discussed, but on the main suspect tab. There is nothing there. In contrast, I remember during the Maybrick diary controversy, an even more novice me knew enough to go to Casebook. And right there on the James Maybrick suspect page was plenty of information to make an informed decision. Those links are still there.

The Kosminski DNA story is prominent on social media. Descendants of the victims' families are becoming involved. An inquest is demanded. Even AI will tell you that Kosminski was the Ripper. Should this issue be more prominently addressed on Casebook? Again, I'm not referring to the message boards. What about the intro page, the FAQs, and the Kosminski suspect page? And like Maybrick, a balanced approach to allow the reader to make up their own mind.

Or, is the best course of action to do nothing and let the fads come and go. I can see the argument that Casebook cannot and should not respond to the latest popular theory.

Finally, I'm referring specifically to the alleged DNA evidence against Kosminski, not the viability of Kosminski as a suspect overall.

[Barnaby]

I must edit this. I just found a sidebar tab on the suspect page that discusses the problems with the DNA evidence. So, my original post is unfair. But is this enough?

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

As the purported DNA evidence against Kosminski from the alleged Eddowes shawl gathers momentum across social media and press, what is the role/responsibility/obligation of Casebook to address it? I'm not referring to the message boards, where it has been thoroughly discussed, but on the main suspect tab. There is nothing there. In contrast, I remember during the Maybrick diary controversy, an even more novice me knew enough to go to Casebook. And right there on the James Maybrick suspect page was plenty of information to make an informed decision. Those links are still there.

The Kosminski DNA story is prominent on social media. Descendants of the victims' families are becoming involved. An inquest is demanded. Even AI will tell you that Kosminski was the Ripper. Should this issue be more prominently addressed on Casebook? Again, I'm not referring to the message boards. What about the intro page, the FAQs, and the Kosminski suspect page? And like Maybrick, a balanced approach to allow the reader to make up their own mind.

Or, is the best course of action to do nothing and let the fads come and go. I can see the argument that Casebook cannot and should not respond to the latest popular theory.

Finally, I'm referring specifically to the alleged DNA evidence against Kosminski, not the viability of Kosminski as a suspect overall.

I have never believed that a lunatic as far-gone (and harmless) as Aaron Kosminski was The Ripper. Never. I believe that the Casebook does have an obligation to temper the mainstream media's zeal for a good story with an objective examination of the facts; this is something the mainstream media often fails to do. A simple rebuttal that the initial DNA evidence was misnamed - (and instead of very few candidates owning that DNA, it could be virtually anyone) - along with the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that the shawl belonged to Eddowes, ought to be sufficient. I know how they (the media) get when they think they are on to something and it turns out to be nothing (Patricia Cornwell, anyone??). We might also mention that, since the provenance of the shawl is in serious doubt, it could well be Kosminski's DNA on it; but like Cornwell with Walter Sickert, just because he may have written some letters does not make him a murderer. I wish we still had the actual blood-and-fecal-stained apron the Ripper cut off Eddowes; that might yield far more interesting information than this shawl nonsense.

[erobitha]

Mitochronidal DNA cannot identify specific individuals. Even more so, in males, it gets even worse. With females, you can at least claim there is a bloodline connection, but you cannot know at which generation.

What the shawl, at best, has is a female's blood on the shawl that connects to the person whose is Eddowes descendant that provided the sample. Could be mother, grandmother, so on. The semen stains could have been left at any point in time and the scope of that group is in the hundreds of thousands. It is claimed Koz fits that general profile.

There is no evidence Simpson ever attended the crime scene and there is no evidence that either Koz or Eddowes owned what is actually a table runner.

[Abby Normal]

I must edit this. I just found a sidebar tab on the suspect page that discusses the problems with the DNA evidence. So, my original post is unfair. But is this enough?

hi barnaby
i dont think cb has any obligation to directly address every half arsed hoax that comes along, the message boards will take of that! i mean just look at all tje diary threads lol!

[Losmandris]

What is there really to reply to? Likely this will come to naught and just blow over. Another fad story in MHO.