Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Chris]

From what it seems the shawl was forensically examined previous and nothing was found. Now if that test was done correctly and professionally I find that hard to believe having regard to the new revelations that nothing was found

To be fair, I think Trevor Marriott is really asking what was done when the shawl was tested previously.

There is some information about those tests, in August 2006, in the book. It says the "shawl" was examined by John Gow - a forensic DNA specialist - and Jennifer Clugston, and that they took several swabs. There's no mention of them using any special lighting. Presumably some of this was filmed for the documentary they were making.

I think this is a valid question to ask, but we seem to be back in the familiar situation of Trevor Marriott asking people to provide him with information that he can't be bothered to find out for himself - with occasional intervals of pure abuse.

[Fisherman]

But if the DNA evidence is solid (or as solid as it can be under the dircumstances) then it was somewhere near Eddowes and her killer. And if the blood staining is blood spatter then it was probably somewhere near Eddowes when she was murdered. You can't dismiss that simply because you are unable to place the shawl at the murder scene!

The blood spatter is interesting in this context - there was "not a speck of blood" on the jacket Eddowes wore, there was no blood at all on the front of her clothes otherwise and no blood spatter or stains were found on the ground around Eddowes. According to Gordon Brown, that is.

That means that 1/ if Louhelainen is right and 2/ if the blood spatter relate to the events in Mitre Square on the 30:th of September 1888 and 3/ if the shawl was in place there at that stage, then there was no blood spatter around, other than the one that struck a shawl that we cannot see in the Foster drawings.

As such, that is problematic. I am not saying that there cannot be an explanation, but as it stands it is an odd thing - one of many, as far as I´m concerned.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Theagenes]

I was referring to the previous forensic test if this test was done then how come the semen wasn't located then?

maybe you should slow down !

Maybe. I should.

Okay, in all seriousness, please, please, at least listen Dr. Louhelainen's interview. It's really not that long and there is a lot of information straight from the horse's mouth, without it being filtered through Edwards. It's clear that he isn't a Ripperologist and has no ax to grind. Just a scientist ask to run tests and interpret the results. Here is the link again:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04gc2y0

[Trevor Marriott]

To be fair, I think Trevor Marriott is really asking what was done when the shawl was tested previously.

There is some information about those tests, in August 2006, in the book. It says the "shawl" was examined by John Gow - a forensic DNA specialist - and Jennifer Clugston, and that they took several swabs. There's no mention of them using any special lighting. Presumably some of this was filmed for the documentary they were making.

I think this is a valid question to ask, but we seem to be back in the familiar situation of Trevor Marriott asking people to provide him with information that he can't be bothered to find out for himself - with occasional intervals of pure abuse.

yes you will have to stop abusing people

and i would be surprised if thy didn't use the light test given the supposed age of the material

Besides i have a life unlike you who sits here day and night waiting for the next message to pop up how sad is that ?

[Fisherman]

To be fair, I think Trevor Marriott is really asking what was done when the shawl was tested previously.

There is some information about those tests, in August 2006, in the book. It says the "shawl" was examined by John Gow and Jennifer Clugston, and that they took several swabs. There's no mention of them using any special lighting. Presumably some of this was filmed for the documentary they were making.

I think this is a valid question to ask, but we seem to be back in the familiar situation of Trevor Marriott asking people to provide him with information that he can't be bothered to find out for himself - with occasional intervals of pure abuse.

It was tested in a lab, as I understand it, and the UV method for finding these types of stains is not a very new one. This was 2007, or thereabouts, right? My money is on the shawl having been subjected to UV light back then too. It would not have added any much trouble or expenses.

What I don´t know, however, is if the technique as such has moved forward in the years gone by, and if that could explain why Louhelainen was able to find what was not found back then.

The best,
Fisherman

[Hatchett]

Hi,

I think you also have to take account that Kosminsky was the suspect that Swanson favoured. He is not an outsider like Lechmere, Druit, or Hutchinson, and many others.

Best wishes.

[Trevor Marriott]

Maybe. I should.

Okay, in all seriousness, please, please, at least listen Dr. Louhelainen's interview. It's really not that long and there is a lot of information straight from the horse's mouth, without it being filtered through Edwards. It's clear that he isn't a Ripperologist and has no ax to grind. Just a scientist ask to run tests and interpret the results. Here is the link again:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04gc2y0

The issue I am addressing is not what was done now, or his results, but what was or wasn't done in the previous forensic examination !

[Trevor Marriott]

It was tested in a lab, as I understand it, and the UV method for finding these types of stains is not a very new one. This was 2007, or thereabouts, right? My money is on the shawl having been subjected to UV light back then too. It would not have added any much trouble or expenses.

What I don´t know, however, is if the technique as such has moved forward in the years gone by, and if that could explain why Louhelainen was able to find what was not found back then.

The best,
Fisherman

The same eye and light test are used today also

[Fisherman]

Hi,

I think you also have to take account that Kosminsky was the suspect that Swanson favoured. He is not an outsider like Lechmere, Druit, or Hutchinson, and many others.

Best wishes.

I´ve had this suggested before. But just HOW should we take it into account? By favouring Kosminski and predisposing that any gentile killer suspect will have to be more far-fetched?

Once we give more credence to Kosminski, we also make the conscious decision that Swanson (or Anderson, to be more correct) was more likely to be right than wrong.

I myself am of the opposite meaning. I believe that Anderson - as so many others - was prejudiced, and that he shoehorned a suspect into a frame as best as he could.

MacNaghten would have been privy to Andersons thought on the matter, but he nevertheless went for Druitt. Why would we not work from a presumption that the killer was more likely to be a gentile, knowing that?

Once again, I myself will happily declare that I do not invest much in MacNaghtens assertions either, but nevertheless!

The best,
Fisherman

[Theagenes]

The issue I am addressing is not what was done now, or his results, but what was or wasn't done in the previous forensic examination !

I know, but i mean for the discussion in general. Many of things you've been asking about and criticizing are addressed here, not by Edwards, but the DNA scientist who did the testing .

And this goes for everyone in this thread. It's understandable if you haven't read the book, but at the very least you should listen to this interview before commenting further. The segment is only about 15 minutes long and is very interesting. There's no reason not to listen to it.

[Chris]

yes you will have to stop abusing people

...

Besides i have a life unlike you who sits here day and night waiting for the next message to pop up how sad is that ?

I sometimes toy with the idea that there's a sweet, kindly old gentleman called Trevor Marriott happily beavering away with his research somewhere, blissfully oblivious of the fact that an old lag he put away in the 1990s is getting his own back by filling the Ripper message boards with drivel posted under his name ...

[Chris]

It was tested in a lab, as I understand it, and the UV method for finding these types of stains is not a very new one. This was 2007, or thereabouts, right?

As I said, it was tested in August 2006 - not in a lab, but in Andy and Sue Parlour's house in Clacton.

[Hatchett]

Hi,

I think the point is this, Swanson saw all the reports, he was there at the time, so it has to be accepted he had more information at his finger tips than anyone else, and certainly more than anyone now. So his view has to be more informed than yours and anyone else's today.

I would like to see what evidence you have to support your accusation that he was prejudiced. I presume you mean anti Jewish.

Also I must remind you that MacNaughton was NOT there at the time, as Swanson was.

Best wishes.

[Trevor Marriott]

I sometimes toy with the idea that there's a sweet, kindly old gentleman called Trevor Marriott happily beavering away with his research somewhere, blissfully oblivious of the fact that an old lag he put away in the 1990s is getting his own back by filling the Ripper message boards with drivel posted under his name ...

Well whoever this man is he is he is raising relevant issues which need addressing. Simply because if the light and sight test was done in 1997 and no semen was found, then all of this new stuff is out the window dead an buried along with Edwards no doubt, having been murdered by those posters who bought his book

[Chris]

Well whoever this man is he is he is raising relevant issues which need addressing.

But he would say that, wouldn't he?