Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by GUT View PostJust call me bamboozled, how some attacked Cornwell over her DNA but now defend this DNA.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View PostThanks 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.Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View PostEddows was strangled not stabbed to death.
Originally posted by pinkmoon View PostHas it actually be confirmed that it was a shawl and not a tablerunner?Originally posted by robhouse View PostCan 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.
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View PostWell 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.
Originally posted by Prosector View PostThe 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).
Originally posted by Simon Wood View PostIf, 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?
Originally posted by Patrick S View PostIf 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?"
Comment
-
Originally posted by lynn cates View PostHello 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 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Henry Flower View PostI think we're divided here between the unconvinced and the unconvincable.
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.
Comment
-
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?protohistorian-Where would we be without Stewart Evans or Paul Begg,Kieth Skinner, Martin Fido,or Donald Rumbelow?
Sox-Knee deep in Princes & Painters with Fenian ties who did not mutilate the women at the scene, but waited with baited breath outside the mortuary to carry out their evil plots before rushing home for tea with the wife...who would later poison them of course
Comment
-
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.G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
-
This should work - the slightly extended version of the Jari interview is here:
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 relatedLast edited by Henry Flower; 09-11-2014, 07:19 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Henry Flower View PostThis should work.
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by Henry Flower View PostI'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.
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.Regards, Jon S.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostIf you remove the DNA from the book, what value is left for the reader?
''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!!protohistorian-Where would we be without Stewart Evans or Paul Begg,Kieth Skinner, Martin Fido,or Donald Rumbelow?
Sox-Knee deep in Princes & Painters with Fenian ties who did not mutilate the women at the scene, but waited with baited breath outside the mortuary to carry out their evil plots before rushing home for tea with the wife...who would later poison them of course
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostMr 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?
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.
...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....
Comment
-
G'day Henry
Presumably that's why he spent a great deal of money hiring the services of experts on DNA?
You know minor things like what was at the scene, where Simpson's duties took hm, little issues like that.Last edited by GUT; 09-11-2014, 07:52 PM.G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
Comment