Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Tom_Wescott]

I am sure that every author would claims to be in the majority, who wish to share and expand, yet most on the boards are now condemning Edwards and assuming he is in it only for the money.

Wolfie makes a good point here. I for one do not condemn Edwards for making money from his book. In fact, I've congratulated him on his success a number of times and have stated quite openly I enjoyed a brisk bump in sales of my book for a few days.

Most of us Ripper authors did the research and wrote the book because we felt we had something important to say and share on the subject. But we also wanted to make money. Nothing wrong in that. I'm actually annoyed that most authors won't talk about their sales or the money they make from their books. It's like a guarded secret for some reason. For I do take issue with the notion that we're exploiting dead women for money. I won't say some aren't, because we can all think of some hastily pasted together ebooks put out that are clearly not motivated by solid research or thoughtful execution. But most of the books that we buy, whether we agree with the author's conclusions or not, are serious and well-intentioned efforts. I'd like to think Edwards' is the same. I think it's his store and his 'Ripper Goggles' that are rubbing people the wrong way, not so much the book.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm shocked that Paul Begg feels that the horrid provenance of the shawl doesn't matter. And it seems he's not the only respectable researcher accepting the science over the history here.

Am I the only one surprised by this?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

I'm shocked that Paul Begg feels that the horrid provenance of the shawl doesn't matter. And it seems he's not the only respectable researcher accepting the science over the history here.

Am I the only one surprised by this?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

No.

Fisherman

[Chris]

I'm shocked that Paul Begg feels that the horrid provenance of the shawl doesn't matter. And it seems he's not the only respectable researcher accepting the science over the history here.

Who do you mean? I haven't seen anyone say they "accept the science". I've seen a lot of people trying to understand the science.

[curious4]

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!

I disagree. Even if the dna evidence pointed exclusively to Kate, which, if I understand correctly it doesn't, there is no evidence as to when it got there. I think we are on a slippery slope here - dna shared presumably by her sisters and her daughters. All we can tell from this is that possibly Kate or a near relative touched the shawl at some point - and we don't know when. Same with Kosminski. Only had time to listen to the short version but I gather the dna could have been put there by his brothers. Also, if this procedure is new and untested, time will tell whether the conclusions drawn are correct. There is an enormous risk of contamination, I gather, and quite possibly (who knows) if it were looked for we could find dna from anyone who had been in the area, from Tumblety to Prince Eddy and even Abberline.

Not proven.

Best wishes
C4

[moonbegger]

'Ripper Goggles' !!!

How much are they then ?

On the more serious note of exploitation and financial gain regarding books , video , music, Plays , ect ect , .. I would like to add that 80% of my sales for my song "Foggy night in Spitalfields" ( a small tribute to the canonical 5 )goes directly to " Victims of Alcohol " and " Abused women shelter " . Its not a lot but it is something back

Cheers , Moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

I disagree. Even if the dna evidence pointed exclusively to Kate, which, if I understand correctly it doesn't, there is no evidence as to when it got there. I think we are on a slippery slope here - dna shared presumably by her sisters and her daughters. All we can tell from this is that possibly Kate or a near relative touched the shawl at some point - and we don't know when. Same with Kosminski. Only had time to listen to the short version but I gather the dna could have been put there by his brothers. Also, if this procedure is new and untested, time will tell whether the conclusions drawn are correct. There is an enormous risk of contamination, I gather, and quite possibly (who knows) if it were looked for we could find dna from anyone who had been in the area, from Tumblety to Prince Eddy and even Abberline.

Not proven.

Best wishes
C4

It really IS that easy, yes.

The best,
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

The sub-text to be taken way from this Alice in Wonderland thread is that Ripperology cannot prove the shawl story to be true but at the same time doesn't want it categorically proved not to be true.

This way Ripperology can continue to argue the arse out of a rag doll until the next unlikely suspect or piece of evidence comes along.

Talking of which, do you happen to know what happened to the pocket watch with the victims' names thoughtfully scratched inside the case?

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

I'm shocked that Paul Begg feels that the horrid provenance of the shawl doesn't matter. And it seems he's not the only respectable researcher accepting the science over the history here.

Am I the only one surprised by this?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom

Like you I am a little surprised that the previous ripperology wisdom has been thrown out so quickly.

And I'd really like to know why I was advised the shawl was Edwardian by the community per ce back around 2002-3.

I'm presuming the current argument is that if you have Cathrine Eddows DNA reliably established on the Shawl. Then frankly anything perceived about the shawl previously simply goes out the window as it simply must have been at the crime scene.

That said I would imagine Paul Begg will recommend caution and establishing all the FACTS. He usually does.

Yours Jeff

[pinkmoon]

Henry,
That programme I remembered recording was on Discovery Channel about 4years ago - titled (unsurprisingly) "Jack The Ripper: Killer Revealed" by a historian/ripperologist named Mei Trow.
He proposes Thomas Mann, mortuary attendant, as the culprit and applies modern techniques to back up this conclusion.
Whether his theories and analysis regarding JtR's identity are up to scratch, I am not knowledgeable enough in the subject to say - (they may well have been demolished by now through this forum) - but I found it interesting anyway, though not enough to dispel my open mind on the matter.
btw - not a shred of DNA evidence in sight, you may be glad to hear!

The problem with his theory about Mann he offerd us no hard evidence and the story was so shakey you could drag a shawl through the gaps

[Theagenes]

I disagree. Even if the dna evidence pointed exclusively to Kate, which, if I understand correctly it doesn't, there is no evidence as to when it got there. I think we are on a slippery slope here - dna shared presumably by her sisters and her daughters. All we can tell from this is that possibly Kate or a near relative touched the shawl at some point - and we don't know when. Same with Kosminski. Only had time to listen to the short version but I gather the dna could have been put there by his brothers. Also, if this procedure is new and untested, time will tell whether the conclusions drawn are correct. There is an enormous risk of contamination, I gather, and quite possibly (who knows) if it were looked for we could find dna from anyone who had been in the area, from Tumblety to Prince Eddy and even Abberline.

Not proven.

Best wishes
C4

Well, not just touched the shawl, but bled on and ejaculated on, respectively, according to what has been presented (you could argue the semen I suppose).

But yes, according to the DNA evidence as it stands, assuming no later contamination, you have a shawl that has the blood of Catherine Eddowes or one of certain matrilineally related relatives (siblings, daughter, etc.) who bled on it, then Kosminski or one of his male relatives ejaculated on it.

Proven 100%? No I guess not, but should it be dismissed and ignored? Is it worth digging a bit deeper? Do think modern cops would be interested in something like that? Just sayin.'

Now as I said, "assuming no later contamination," so let's address that. It doesn't matter who touched unless they have the same mtDNA as Eddowes, so it couldn't be just any relative of Eddowes. It would have to be her daughter Annie, or one of Annie's children, or one of Annie's daughter(s)'s children, etc. Now is there any evidence that anyone has that this could have happened? This is a serious question and does need to be addressed. THere has been talk of Eddowes descendants at an event where the shawl was on display. Adam Wood has posted that they did not have an opportunity to come in contact with it. And even if they did what is their exact relationship to Eddowes, because that is critical? Does anyone know of any other time that an Eddowes relative could have come in contact with it?

[Theagenes]

Sounds like a great program to me. You track down a descendants of every ripper suspects closest family and eliminate them one by one. I'll volunteer for Parnell……Louis Carrol anyone

Thanks most interesting

Yours jeff

Well, it have to be looong term project.

[curious4]

Not proven

Hello Theagenes

I used the phrase "not proven" in the scottish sense, meaning that there is not enough evidence either way. But if I had money to bet on it, I would go for it not being genuine.

Best wishes
C4

[pinkmoon]

brief summary of events so far

The story so far.......
1,shawl handled by every Tom dick and Harry and maybe even jack.
2,shawl examined and tested for evidence of d.n.a
3,d.n.a samples taken from descendent of eddowes and Kosminski.
4,Jack the ripper souvenir shop opens selling yoyos gourmet jelly beans and other ripper related products.
5,book published claiming case solved.
6,controversy over the main difference between jelly beans and gourmet jelly beans rages
7,well known ripper expert Alan tichmarsh enters debate.
8,my wife enters debate saying she thinks this shawl story is getting jack the ripper a bad name.

[Fisherman]

Well, not just touched the shawl, but bled on and ejaculated on, respectively, according to what has been presented (you could argue the semen I suppose).

But yes, according to the DNA evidence as it stands, assuming no later contamination, you have a shawl that has the blood of Catherine Eddowes or one of certain matrilineally related relatives (siblings, daughter, etc.) who bled on it, then Kosminski or one of his male relatives ejaculated on it.

Proven 100%? No I guess not, but should it be dismissed and ignored? Is it worth digging a bit deeper? Do think modern cops would be interested in something like that? Just sayin.'

Now as I said, "assuming no later contamination," so let's address that. It doesn't matter who touched unless they have the same mtDNA as Eddowes, so it couldn't be just any relative of Eddowes. It would have to be her daughter Annie, or one of Annie's children, or one of Annie's daughter(s)'s children, etc. Now is there any evidence that anyone has that this could have happened? This is a serious question and does need to be addressed. THere has been talk of Eddowes descendants at an event where the shawl was on display. Adam Wood has posted that they did not have an opportunity to come in contact with it. And even if they did what is their exact relationship to Eddowes, because that is critical? Does anyone know of any other time that an Eddowes relative could have come in contact with it?

That would have been during the 102 years between 1888 and 1990, approximately. Likewise, any Kosminski DNA could have ended up there at any time.

You are very correct in saying that the police would be very interested in the DNA bit. And you are quite correct that it should result in them digging deeper - that is how it should work.

But they should ALSO get very suspicious about the provenance bit, if they were policemen worth their salt. They should know that a piece of cloth with no provenance at all would have been subjected to contamination over the 100+ years it had been lost to the world.

We are not moving along just the one axis here.

All the best,
Fisherman