Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

I wonder what the percentage of those is already?

It would seem that category you refer to don't want to listen and take note anyway. so whats the point of the "clever people" as you refer to them contributing ?

[Stewart P Evans]

I'm now...

I'm now an old-age pensioner and remember fondly those days of the early 1960s when I first read about the case. Ah well, I guess that confirms that I am a dinosaur (most of today's posters were probably not around in 1961) and that I am superfluous to needs. On your bike Evans...

[AdamNeilWood]

Then I also have no idea what you are talking about..obviously I write my own posts…dyslexic though they sometimes may be..

Hi Adam

While your about could you give any more information on the original dating of the Shawl? Would be most helpful if you could

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I don't know anything about the dating of the shawl, other than Andy Aliffe told me that he didn't work at the V&A and has never spoken with them about it.

The only time I've seen an Edwardian dating being mentioned other than on Casebook is in Russell Edwards' book (p132) where he describes phoning Alan McCormick, former Curator at the Crime Museum, just prior to the auction at and is told:

"I know Sotheby's examined it and found it could be very early twentieth century, but it could be older."

He doesn't mention who took it to Sotheby's, and it doesn't sound as though it was a scientific testing.

Adam

[Henry Flower]

Stay classy!

Trevor,

Again, good to see you acknowledging that you've made a basic error and standing corrected. And apologising to Rob House for your sneering dismissal of a post you had completely misread.

Seems to be a habit.

[Trevor Marriott]

The naysayers say that the mtDNA results cannot be conclusive without peer review or further studies or other DNA testing done on other victims' clothing. Others say that we can't come to any conclusions without reading the book.

I say if we don't absolutely understand mtDNA reliability and viability, and we don't understand all the possible mutations and how our very own DNA would match up to Kosmini's or Eddowes'; if we don't take the time to really understand some of the science and its flaws and merits, reading the book will just suck us into whatever the author wants us to believe about the subject, much like talking to a Jehovah's Witness would (no offense to them).

So, I'm reading up on DNA, and it isn't easy, but I won't be pulled into potential lies and misguided suspect-driven enthrallment.

Mike

I dont believe the DNA will ever become conclusive simply because MTD will always stay MTD. There is simply not enough in the tested samples to formulate a full DNA profile/ Even with a full profile of Kosminski the end result would still be the same

So we are still going to be left with MTD from the shawl which, could match thousands of other people the majority not even connected to the families of Kosminski or Eddowes.

[Henry Flower]

SPE - don't make us beg you to stay!

But please don't leave. We have a quota of age groups we have to fill or the internet will shut the site down, and at the moment OAPs are under-represented.

[Trevor Marriott]

SPE - don't make us beg you to stay!

But please don't leave. We have a quota of age groups we have to fill or the internet will shut the site down, and at the moment OAPs are under-represented.

I have a better idea Stewart stays and you leave !

[Stewart P Evans]

I am sure...

SPE - don't make us beg you to stay!
...

I am sure that no one will beg me to stay, in fact quite the opposite. Like many I find these idiotic debates addictive and each new nugget of nonsense that appears you feel you have to address. I have important business today but I shall take a look in later.

[Henry Flower]

I have a better idea Stewart stays and you leave !

That's a fine idea Trevor, but no-one would even notice.

Not even me!

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

I don't know anything about the dating of the shawl, other than Andy Aliffe told me that he didn't work at the V&A and has never spoken with them about it.

The only time I've seen an Edwardian dating being mentioned other than on Casebook is in Russell Edwards' book (p132) where he describes phoning Alan McCormick, former Curator at the Crime Museum, just prior to the auction at and is told:

"I know Sotheby's examined it and found it could be very early twentieth century, but it could be older."

He doesn't mention who took it to Sotheby's, and it doesn't sound as though it was a scientific testing.

Adam

OK thanks for that clarification. I'll see what I can dig up. While you say Andy didn't work at the V&A (Obviously you won't make that up) I'm certain there was a connection at that time…it was 2003ish so over ten years ago…stretching my memory goes to show how things get confussed quite genuinely.

I did have a chance to speek with Mr Edwards this morning and he seems very genuine about his work and interest in the case. He certainly sang the praises of most experts including Paul Begg, Don Rumblow and Stewart Evans and openly recommends their books to his customers.

Seems logical to at least listen to what is being said, and what the scientists have to say. If the shawl has been dated by credible means as pre-dating the murders the Edwardian dating may just have been another generally believed miss-conception. Many thanks for your reply

Yours Jeff

[anna]

Without all the pages of discussion,all the stuff about DNA...connection to the Ripper...etc...etc...

Lets go back to step 1...WHY on earth would this family hide what they seem to have acknowledged to be an important piece of evidence for so many years.

I presume they owned it in the 60's...when the famous Chamber of Horror's was opened. The whole country was gripped with excitement over being scared silly by going into a dark space where lifelike waxworks stood of the well known murderers..Jack The Ripper also had a contribution in there,that was widely publicised..but they still resisted revealing it to the world ?

Mr Edwards stated yesterday,that he bought it at auction in Suffolk...which made my ears go up...so...not in one of the top London auction rooms where it might have fetched mega bucks ?

You know why I think this is...because they only sell genuine articles. They handle objects worth tons of dosh,and can't afford to be wrong.

There for me,was my answer...and should be yours too.

[Henry Flower]

shawl and nap-time

Like many I find these idiotic debates addictive and each new nugget of nonsense that appears you feel you have to address.

Nail on head.

I hope I have important business when I'm as old as Stewart...

[AdamNeilWood]

I'm now an old-age pensioner and remember fondly those days of the early 1960s when I first read about the case. Ah well, I guess that confirms that I am a dinosaur (most of today's posters were probably not around in 1961) and that I am superfluous to needs. On your bike Evans...

Don't do that just yet Stewart, I have a question for you...

In Russell Edwards' book (pp146-147) he mentions an article which appeared in the 2nd November 1892 edition of an American magazine called The Collector: A Current Record of Art, Bibliography and Antiquarianism.

The article reports on a meeting between their London correspondent and an unnamed London collector of Ripper mementoes. The correspondent was supposedly having dinner with some colleagues..

"In the course of conversation one of them mentioned a rather odd thing which had occurred to him that morning. His landlady had requested permission to speak to him when she sent up his breakfast, and this being accorded, she had stated in substance: There was some person in London who bought things connected with the Ripper murders, and the charwoman whom she employed owned a shawl which had been worn by one of the victims. She wished to dispose of it, and on principle that journalists know everything, or ought to, the landlady inquired of her lodger where this matter could be found."

Have you ever come across this article, or do you have access to it?

Best wishes
Adam

[christoper]

Again, if you're suggesting that the overall mutation rate -from whatever cause - is other than extremely small, it will be interesting to see the evidence. If you're not suggesting that, the point may be interesting, but it's not really relevant to the discussion.

As stated before-the rate varies for different populations.

I did cancer research for years. One study I was involved in examined cancer rates in steel mill towns. It may surprise you to know that these towns are often "cancer clusters" because people who live there are exposed to genotoxic materials in the air they breathe even if they don't work at the plant.

Imagine a town with 30,000 people where EVERY SINGLE home has had at least one family member with cancer. I've been to towns like that--it does happen. And usually due to direct genotoxic exposures (something that mutates the DNA). As I said before, it is not the experience of everyone--but it happens.

I never claimed this applied to this case--I only stated that we need to be aware that post Industrial Revolution genetic shifts are occurring more rapidly that can be accounted for by spontaneous, random mutations alone. I also clearly stated that with only 5 generations there should not be any problem with these matches.

[Rob Clack]

Don't do that just yet Stewart, I have a question for you...

In Russell Edwards' book (pp146-147) he mentions an article which appeared in the 2nd November 1892 edition of an American magazine called The Collector: A Current Record of Art, Bibliography and Antiquarianism.

The article reports on a meeting between their London correspondent and an unnamed London collector of Ripper mementoes. The correspondent was supposedly having dinner with some colleagues..

"In the course of conversation one of them mentioned a rather odd thing which had occurred to him that morning. His landlady had requested permission to speak to him when she sent up his breakfast, and this being accorded, she had stated in substance: There was some person in London who bought things connected with the Ripper murders, and the charwoman whom she employed owned a shawl which had been worn by one of the victims. She wished to dispose of it, and on principle that journalists know everything, or ought to, the landlady inquired of her lodger where this matter could be found."

Have you ever come across this article, or do you have access to it?

Best wishes
Adam

Hi Adam,

I don't have a copy but it has come up for discussion before on Casebook:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5947

Regards

Rob