Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[robhouse]

I thought I was being denigrated for buddying up with "House".

(By the way, what is "buddying up"? It sounds like an Americanism.)

I never would have thought that Stewart would insult us for doing focused research. Being "obsessed" with Kozminski... Oh well..

[Stewart P Evans]

Fabrication

But since I am now being denigrated for doing research,...

Please show me where I have denigrated you for doing research. That is a fabrication.

[paul g]

Maybe the shawl is not in the drawing as it had already been removed.

[Stewart P Evans]

Intelligent enough

I thought I was being denigrated for buddying up with "House".
(By the way, what is "buddying up"? It sounds like an Americanism.)

I am sure that you are intelligent enough to know what "buddying up" with means.

[Stewart P Evans]

There you go again...

I never would have thought that Stewart would insult us for doing focused research. Being "obsessed" with Kozminski... Oh well..

There you go again - where have I insulted you for 'doing focused research'? As for being obsessed with Kosminski, well, you know you are.

[Henry Flower]

Things are certainly feisty here this evening.

I listened just now to the BBC science podcast featuring the interview with Jari Louhelainen, in which he came across as honest, cautious, and professional. He also explained that a colleague with a particular expertise had done the work on the semen - which adds a third party who must be included in any accusations of deliberate fraud or colossal incompetence. He expressed regret that the book had appeared before his work could be presented in a proper peer-reviewed publication, and also that his research was, as he saw it, incomplete, due to the constraints of time and funding. Having listened to him explain things rather more cautiously and more fully than Mr Edwards or the Mail on Sunday have done, I was left wishing that Mr Edwards and his book did not exist, and that someone slightly less flashy had acquired the shawl, and done things properly and thoroughly.

But still, I have a question for SPE or Tom Wescott, or anyone else profoundly unconvinced by this shawl. It's a question about methodology, or about hierarchies of evidence I suppose.

Many of you have stated with absolute certainty that unless the shawl can be placed at Mitre Square, any DNA evidence will be meaningless. But if - (that word again, and I want to stress it, given the atmosphere on the boards tonight) - IF peer review of Louhelainen's work found that it was absolutely sound, if they replicated his results, if it was agreed after peer review that he and his colleague had indeed identified to a very high degree of certainty the mitochondrial DNA of Catherine Eddowes in blood stains, and the genomic DNA of Kosminski in semen stains on this item, would you still dismiss it absolutely, on the basis that some demonstrable provenance in the documentary record was missing? Would you insist that the findings weren't worth even a second look, on the basis that the shawl didn't appear in a sketch of the body, or a list of clothing made at the mortuary?

Imagine:

• Eddowes' DNA in blood
• A chief suspect's DNA in semen
• On an item apparently so bloodied that parts of it have been cut off
• An item that was kept for 125 years on the understanding that it had been part of the Eddowes murder

And you would dismiss it entirely? because you have more faith that the written record and a very sketchy sketch are more trustworthy and more complete? because after several generations nobody could quite remember the circumstances in which great great grandfather Amos had come into possession of the item?

You're saying those gaps would essentially invalidate a peer-reviewed, replicated finding of Eddowes' and Kosminski's DNA?

And before anyone bites my head off, I'm not supporting the book, or the shawl, or the DNA. I'm not a Kosminski obsessive, I'm not a mate of Rob House. I'm just asking a hypothetical question about different types of evidence, and evidentiary precedence.

I hope that's allowed...

[spyglass]

But I think Andy and Sue Parlour have their DNA all over it..I'm sure I have a picture in one of my books of them holding the "shawl",without gloves on.

And as I believe Andy is related to to one of the other victims ( cant remember which one ) this is gonna make things bery confussing!

[Chris]

There you go again - where have I insulted you for 'doing focused research'? As for being obsessed with Kosminski, well, you know you are.

I really think you can't help yourself, so I'm not going to respond to any more of your posts.

[robhouse]

There you go again - where have I insulted you for 'doing focused research'? As for being obsessed with Kosminski, well, you know you are.

Let's just leave it at "you insulted me" period. I really don't want to get into it. What you call being obsessed, I call doing research, thinking about the case, and writing a book.

Please just leave it alone now.

[Tom_Wescott]

Please re-read the quote Tom, that's not what I said. I gave 3 options: 1. science is flawed, science is accurate, or it is fraud. I could also add science is inconclusive.

But since I am now being denigrated for doing research, and buddying up with Chris Phillips, I think I will leave here.

RH

I agree. Being accused of associating with Chris Phillips is hitting below the belt.

As for your three options, I guess we just have a difference of perspective. The proposed science of the project means little to me without provenance of the item. It's not just that it can't be proved that the shawl was in Mitre Square, it's that all this evidence exists that tells us it WASN'T there. That's a huge hurdle to jump over in order to make the claim (as they've done) that the Ripper's identity is now an ascertained fact.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

Interesting

I thought I was being denigrated for buddying up with "House".
...

It is interesting to see how you are twisting my meaning here.

I didn't think that you were so misguided. Please take a look at what I said. I was exemplifying your preference for Kosminski by pointing out the attention you had afforded him with research and also by befriending House in the same research.

Now, denigrate means to blacken or defame and I fail to see that what I said does either. This does provide interesting insight into the working of your mind.

[Henry Flower]

Please guys - if all the truly clever people fall out with each other and leave the boards, the place will be left full of know-nothing idiots like me. In which case I would probably leave too.

[booth]

I'm just asking a hypothetical question about different types of evidence, and evidentiary precedence.

I hope that's allowed...

Ask away. Whether it's allowed or not is another question. All bets are off as far as this thread is concerned.

I've been keeping an eye on it all week and at times it's been amusing and incredibly informative, but tonight it's relentlessly depressing. If this had been a public meeting chairs would have been thrown and windows broken by now.

The case is 126 years old. Should people be falling out over this?? Really?? Having a different opinion is one thing but attacking each other is just...well it's crazy.

[Stewart P Evans]

House and Phillips

Please guys - if all the truly clever people fall out with each other and leave the boards, the place will be left full of know-nothing idiots like me. In which case I would probably leave too.

House and Phillips are probably 'truly clever people', I am not.

[el_pombo]

Many of you have stated with absolute certainty that unless the shawl can be placed at Mitre Square, any DNA evidence will be meaningless. But if - (that word again, and I want to stress it, given the atmosphere on the boards tonight) - IF peer review of Louhelainen's work found that it was absolutely sound, if they replicated his results, if it was agreed after peer review that he and his colleague had indeed identified to a very high degree of certainty the mitochondrial DNA of Catherine Eddowes in blood stains, and the genomic DNA of Kosminski in semen stains on this item, would you still dismiss it absolutely, on the basis that some demonstrable provenance in the documentary record was missing? Would you insist that the findings weren't worth even a second look, on the basis that the shawl didn't appear in a sketch of the body, or a list of clothing made at the mortuary?

If a peer reviewed 100% (or very close to 100%) match was found for both subjects from samples present in the shawl and the possibility of fraud could be absolutely excluded , then, in my opinion, the odds of Kosminski not being Jack the Ripper would be very low.

Would this evidence, alone, be sufficient to convict Kosminski in a modern day court of law? Probably not.