World Exclusive, ripper revealed?

[Phil Carter]

Revealing

The official site for the author's store here..

http://www.jacktherippertoursandstore.co.uk/

...contains the following comments...

Using DNA evidence, Russell Edwards is able to conclusively name Jack the Ripper as Polish born Aaron Kosminski. The biggest murder mystery of all time has now been solved, thanks to DNA on a Victorian shawl and forensic science

"Conclusively"

"has now been solved"

on the radio show..
"catagorically solved"

"it is a great big shawl...7ft long"

"as she was being taken to the Mortuary, Amos Simpson asked if he could have the shawl"

(my highlights...)



Incredulity is upon me.


You can imagine the reply can't you... "Sure sonny, don't let anyone know I said ok"


It really is a shame we have a sketch by Frederick Foster showing no shawl in situ at the scene of the murder then.......


This is all very very silly..imho




Phil

[Robert]

Rob House has some photos of the grave, also maybe Paul Begg.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Bridewell,

I have no idea and even less interest.

Regards,

Simon

[Bridewell]

Hi All,

According to the BBC there's now talk of exhuming Aaron Kosminski.

This sordid charade is getting out of hand.

Regards,

Simon

Is he in a marked grave then?

[Robert]

Simon, one side effect of that might be that (the family permitting) it could be possible to re-construct Kosminski's appearance using a forensic artist.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

According to the BBC there's now talk of exhuming Aaron Kosminski.

This sordid charade is getting out of hand.

Regards,

Simon

[GUT]

Not sure if this has been posted before...

A video from The Independent:

http://bcove.me/cpgmaung

Thanks Richard I'm glad he's 100% certain.

[richardh]

Not sure if this has been posted before...

A video from The Independent:

http://bcove.me/cpgmaung

[Observer]

Matt Spires is the nice fellow who a signed copy of my book through the giveaway in Ripperologist magazine. Awkward first post, though.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Oh I don't know Tom, I think he tread pretty lightly. The abuse is veil free for a kick off.

Observer

[bladen7273.]

All theses brilliant minds on the subject of Jack the Ripper, and all most of them do is sit around and fight with each other. So sad!

I understand having disagreements on who the Ripper was, but those could be debated in a friendly matter, but from what I have read, that is not the case. You seem to fight just to fight!

You guys get to see things and meet people that most of us only dream about.

Anyway...Tom, I am in the process of reading your book, and I am really enjoying it. My hats off to you.

Carl

[Tom_Wescott]

I really regret that this has to be my first post on the forum as I had hoped that I'd joined a place where serious students of criminology could come together and discuss these murders, in a friendly, honest, open and constructive environment. Whilst this is evidently the case with some of the members, it seems that there are a large number of five year olds who seem to treat the place as an arena for thinly veiled abuse, mud slinging and pursuing generally counterproductive individual vendettas. Such a shame. It had all looked so promising, too.

Matt Spires is the nice fellow who a signed copy of my book through the giveaway in Ripperologist magazine. Awkward first post, though.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Bridewell]

Is there not some inconsistency in the author's thinking? He seems certain that Anderson's witness was Joseph Lawende, that the woman Lawende saw was Eddowes and that the man he saw was her killer. He doesn't argue that Eddowes was wearing the shawl but that this was an item left at the scene by Kosminski. If Lawende was correct in identifying the woman seen as Eddowes (with her killer), shouldn't the man he saw standing with her have been carrying a shawl?

I think Professor Jeffreys has it right at this stage:

Professor Alec Jeffreys, who invented the DNA fingerprinting technique 30 years ago this week, called for further verification.

"An interesting but remarkable claim that needs to be subjected to peer review, with detailed analysis of the provenance of the shawl and the nature of the claimed DNA match with the perpetrator's descendants and its power of discrimination; no actual evidence has yet been provided," Jeffreys told The Independent newspaper.

[Steve F]

This will probably sound simplistic but to me that shawl doesn't look 126 years old.Maybe it's just me?

[Observer]

Baa baa black sheep in the forum

Another shawl thread?
No Monty I am not in the least upset by it.
I know Russell Edwards a bit and he is a decent chap so far as I have been able to discern.
I tend to doubt that the evidence will be as watertight as suggested in the publicity - but you never know.

Rather more tellingly this sorry episode shines a very bright light on the nature of the majority of people involved in this subject - and it is not pretty.
It is a sorry episode not because of the book or the claims in it - but because of the shrill and ugly reactions that have resulted from it from the overwhelming majority of posters on this site.

Absolutely Ed. We have a poster on the other thread who's knocked up a hundred posts out of four hundred submitted who's telling all and sundry that the "shawl" story is rot. A poster has speculated that the "shawl" is a table runner, another speculates that the fabric, or rather the pattern was not in existence in 1888. The detractor ain question is now proclaiming that the "shawl" is a table runner, and the pattern is Edwardian not Victorian. Incredible. And the man constantly asks for evidence from other posters!

[Qlder]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...al-killer.html

It devalues their point when they call the witness Joseph LAVENDER

Not so much. The witness' name is/was Lavender when translated to English. There is so much else to doubt here, don't worry about that little detail.