Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Poch]

I enjoyed that podcast Henry, thanks. It was good to hear it from the horses mouth and I enjoyed his slightly more grounded viewpoint. I almost felt sorry for him when he said he didn't realise it was going to be such a big deal.

A couple of things I'm not really sure about though, I smashed the book a bit so some of these details might not be correct in my mind, but didn't Edwards say Juri approached him after a TV show they both worked on and didn't he also say that Juri did it on his own time after he thought the price for the research was too high? Perhaps it's just tit-for-tat details, but that seemed weird. I suppose the money aspect could be him paying for the hiring of labs etc. and Juri just gave his time for free.

[dropzone]

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

LOL! No, I just really like the phrase "collapses the waveform." And time travel paradoxes. We all need our hobbies.

[GUT]

LOL! No, I just really like the phrase "collapses the waveform." And time travel paradoxes. We all need our hobbies.

It's just Shelly's the only person I've ever heard mention "The Cat" outsde of a University, let alone as an explanation.

[dropzone]

Then you need to get out more. Or is it stay in more, surfing the innertubes? Whichever. There's a world of nerds and geeks out there, waiting to tell you (or anybody) that you are wrong.

[richardh]

An expert opinion:


Donald Rumbelow, who runs Ripper tours in East London, has rejected claims made by forensics expert Dr Jari Louhelainen that Aaron Kosminski was the killer

LINK

and

LINK

[dropzone]

Where did that "portrait" of Kosminski come from? He looks more like a rich, 40 year old Snidely Whiplash contemplating foreclosing on a widow than a poor, 23 year old schizo best known for beating off in public.

[Jonathan H]

To Tom W

I just want to say that I agree with you 100%. You put it very well in post 1750.

Yes, the 'Bigfoot' movie, and the Alien autopsy comes to mind too, as examples of people being fooled, and wanting to be fooled.

Some would argue that they were outright hoaxes, which they were, whereas this involves serious people armed with modern science.

Yes, but at least there was a Yeti (eg. the Blue Bear) and there was a Nessie (eg. otters) whereas there was no shawl with Eddowes. The ancestral policeman was not in the right place. The victim was too poor to own such an item. It is a ludicrous tale, easily disproved by primary sources.

And they found top forensic evidence that linked this dubious artifact with both the victim and the killer?

Too good to be true? How about ... not true.

To Hunter

Yes but my point was that two juries acquitted peoople most people 'know' were guilty.

The Ripper was posthumously identified and so we can know who he was (at least since 1965). He had told people that he was the fiend, and those people--including his own family--agreed that it was true. His dual identity was real and not a delusion. That is a horrendous error to make, if it was an error. To then have their secret belief confirmed by a politician and a police chief--are these simply more ghastly mistakes? And to keep believing depsite subsequent Jack murders! It is no by no means impossible that they were wrong about 'one of their own', but is it likely?

[NRTomasheski]

Hopelessly behind at this point - (not literally; I've got about 22 pages to go to catch up, and I'm determined to read them all!) - but what I wanted to say isn't contingent on reading everything, except on the very possible chance that someone's already mentioned it, in which case, consider this concurrence!

For me, the very fact that posts are going back and forth, for coming up on 200 forum pages, about whether x, y, and z could be proved if a, b, and/or c circumstance is true indicates to me, a forensic professional, a long-time true crime fan, and an experienced American-system juror, that the answer is, objectively, no.

I know I'll get some pushback about that "objectively", and fair enough. This is an open forum of debate and not (fortunately) charged with passing final judgement. And I have my own opinion - which will surely be detailed in other posts, if not already done - but I do think that the simple fact that there is not a clear consensus shows that one cannot be reached, even in possession of all the (released) facts of the new investigation.

[Amanda]

Very Sad...

Hi All,
I have been reading posts on this site for a very long time & today is the first time I have been moved enough to put down my own thoughts.

I find it very sad that some well-respected and knowledgable people on here are at logger-heads with each other, especially as this Edwards book is the cause.
We are a long way off a conclusion, as Dr. Louhelainen's research has yet to be verified by the scientific sector.

We cannot blame Mr.Edwards for trying to 'cash in' on these findings, but perhaps with hindsight he might realise that his publication was premature, and in his haste book sales may not be quite as lucrative as he hoped.

I have enjoyed learning from everyone here, it's always good to see different points of view but I personally would prefer to spend time eliminating suspects from the JtR case. If there were more books on suspects whom we could prove without doubt were nowhere near Whitechapel in 1888, the suspect list would probably be just a few names long, giving more credence to those whom we could consider to be REAL suspects.
Amanda

[Aelric]

This has made me want to explore AK as a suspect more thoroughly, as until now I've dismissed him, mostly due to Martin Fido's assertions regarding David Cohen. Shan't be buying Edward's book though, mainly because Dr. Louhalainen presented their findings much more clearly and reasonably on the Radio 4 programme.

[The Good Michael]

We cannot blame Mr.Edwards for trying to 'cash in' on these findings,

Yes we can. When anyone does investigative work for the purpose of making money over the purpose of finding a semblance of truth, we can blame them for being shallow. Not saying that's the case here, however, as the jury's still out.

Mike

[Jeff Leahy]

The 'shawl' has been doing the rounds for the past 23 years and has never got off the ground with any credibility.

The Parlours promoted the 'shawl' tale in their 1997 book, they met Edwards and formed a friendship. The Parlours bought the two framed pieces of 'shawl' from an antique dealer. Edwards later, in 2007, bought the main parts of the 'shawl'. Apart from an odd article by the Parlours all went quiet on the 'shawl' front until it now appears, as if by magic, as a solution to the case.

No matter how you spin the story, there is no way on this earth that the 'shawl' provides the answer as to the identity of the killer. An identity that will always remain unknown.

Thats not quite the case. Although I agree that the shawl being the real deal seems improbable.

What he have is NEW evidence. Percieved wisdom has always been the Shawl is or was Edwardian. This appears to have been based on examination that said the Shawl was Screen printed thus dating it to Edwardian period (I believe Adam said 1910 I'm happy to be corrected) and based on that dating a fashion probability of the material originally having been a table runner was made.

Mr Edwards appear to have double checked this finding and come to the conclusion the Daisy pattern was hand painted. If this has been established (And no I haven't read the book yet, and yes I can read) then that sort of changes our perception of the Shawl, although so far I've seen no evidence of positive re-dating of the material itself.

Presumably Mr Edwards is claiming the original dating is flawed and that blood samples taken from the Shawl are a direct match to Cathrine Eddows, which seems to support the families 'story' that it is the shawl of Cathrine Eddows. One would think this match would be fairly simple and reliable with modern science as we do have and know of direct descendants from Cathrime Eddows line to support the testing.

So in terms of connecting the shawl to the murder, if the science holds up. We have a genuine shawl, or at least a piece of material covered in Eddows blood.

We then have a more complex argument about DNA matches found to supposed semen stains on the material. Russell Edwards is claiming these demonstrate a likelihood of a match to a descendent of Aaron Kosminski. This isn't a specific match. But if true that would have to be balanced against all the other known information about Aaron Kosminski.

We know he lived in the area of the murders. We know he was a police suspect. We know that Sir Robert Anderson claims that the police believed they solved the mystery and that in private the detective in charge appears to have claimed the suspect was positively identified.

Of course as you have pointed out there are various flaws and problems with almost all those claims individually. But taken together its my opinion they need to be taken seriously.

Like Rob I will await further information. I feel however there is a difference between the science identifying the Eddows DNA and that identifying Aaron Kosminski.

Yours Jeff

PS JUST POSTED BY MIKE REED ON ANOTHER FORUM: Edwards has long theorized that the shawl was of too fine a quality to have been worn by a London prostitute and belonged to Jack the Ripper, not Eddowes. Using nuclear magnetic resonance, another Liverpool John Moores University scientist, Dr. Fyaz Ismail, determined that the fabric’s age predated the 1888 murders and was likely made near St. Petersburg, Russia. The region of Poland where Kosminski was born was under Russian control, and it would not have been unusual for Russian goods to have been traded there.

[Lady Anne]

Where did that "portrait" of Kosminski come from? He looks more like a rich, 40 year old Snidely Whiplash contemplating foreclosing on a widow than a poor, 23 year old schizo best known for beating off in public.

Dropzone, You are so right on the sketch..When I read your post, I laughed right out loud...Snidely Whiplash...still chuckling,,,

[Monty]

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.

Indeed,

And Andy Parlour is descended from Polly Nichols family.

Yeah, I can hear cogs whirring. Wonder if Pollys DNA is on it.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Who...?

Thats not quite the case. Although I agree that the shawl being the real deal seems improbable.
What he have is NEW evidence. Percieved wisdom has always been the Shawl is or was Edwardian. This appears to have been based on examination that said the Shawl was Screen printed thus dating it to Edwardian period (I believe Adam said 1910 I'm happy to be corrected) and based on that dating a fashion probability of the material originally having been a table runner was made.
Mr Edwards appear to have double checked this finding and come to the conclusion the Daisy pattern was hand painted. If this has been established (And no I haven't read the book yet, and yes I can read) then that sort of changes our perception of the Shawl, although so far I've seen no evidence of positive re-dating of the material itself.
Presumably Mr Edwards is claiming the original dating is flawed and that blood samples taken from the Shawl are a direct match to Cathrine Eddows, which seems to support the families 'story' that it is the shawl of Cathrine Eddows. One would think this match would be fairly simple and reliable with modern science as we do have and know of direct descendants from Cathrime Eddows line to support the testing.
So in terms of connecting the shawl to the murder, if the science holds up. We have a genuine shawl, or at least a piece of material covered in Eddows blood.
We then have a more complex argument about DNA matches found to supposed semen stains on the material. Russell Edwards is claiming these demonstrate a likelihood of a match to a descendent of Aaron Kosminski. This isn't a specific match. But if true that would have to be balanced against all the other known information about Aaron Kosminski.
We know he lived in the area of the murders. We know he was a police suspect. We know that Sir Robert Anderson claims that the police believed they solved the mystery and that in private the detective in charge appears to have claimed the suspect was positively identified.
Of course as you have pointed out there are various flaws and problems with almost all those claims individually. But taken together its my opinion they need to be taken seriously.
Like Rob I will await further information. I feel however there is a difference between the science identifying the Eddows DNA and that identifying Aaron Kosminski.
Yours Jeff
PS JUST POSTED BY MIKE REED ON ANOTHER FORUM: Edwards has long theorized that the shawl was of too fine a quality to have been worn by a London prostitute and belonged to Jack the Ripper, not Eddowes. Using nuclear magnetic resonance, another Liverpool John Moores University scientist, Dr. Fyaz Ismail, determined that the fabric’s age predated the 1888 murders and was likely made near St. Petersburg, Russia. The region of Poland where Kosminski was born was under Russian control, and it would not have been unusual for Russian goods to have been traded there.

A sudden very literate post Jeff. I wonder who wrote this for you?