Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Wickerman]

I would agree with that Tom,...

Yes, and I see it the same way.

...as I thought it was common knowledge that the 'Shawl' had been examined previously and there had been much doubt over it's provenience then.

One caveat concerning the previous DNA test. If I'm not mistaken the previous test was a swab test. Dr. Louhelainen suggested he conducted a vacuum test, which is a more accurate method and was not available then.

What Dr. L. has not done is provide precise details of how he conducted this method. What he did say was he developed it himself, though why he did not use the academically accepted vacuum method is not yet explained.

[mickreed]

Regarding the testing of the shawl/tablecloth what happens now ?

You cannot tell me that the two scientists involved would not be aware of how much scrutiny there claims and results would come under, after all some of procedures are actually ground breaking by there description.

Well, actually I think I can tell you that they were unaware of the possible Scrutiny. In his long-ish radio interview on the BBC's Inside Science, Jari says he was surprised at the interest. He thought it his findings might have got a mention in the local paper, but that was all.

[Chris]

Hi Chris. Go stir elsewhere, please. I can twist my own words if I choose, thank you very much.

You're unbelievable. You come here, accuse people of "accepting science over history". You're completely unable to justify the accusation, and now you accuse me of stirring. No wonder so many people treat "Ripperology" as a joke.

[mickreed]

I thought that the present owner Russell Edwards had it DNA tested previously, when he was attempting to 'Prove' that Frederick Deeming was the killer.

The DNA proved 'inconclusive' on that occasion I believe.

Yes it was tested by the team that's tested it now. It wasn't Edwards who was trying to prove Deeming's guilt but the presenter of the TV programme (which is on YouTube). According to that, it was the presenter who persuaded Edwards to get the test done by Jari. The conclusion, allegedly, was that the samples were contaminated, so no proof was forthcoming.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, and I see it the same way.

One caveat concerning the previous DNA test. If I'm not mistaken the previous test was a swab test. Dr. Louhelainen suggested he conducted a vacuum test, which is a more accurate method and was not available then.

What Dr. L. has not done is provide precise details of how he conducted this method. What he did say was he developed it himself, though why he did not use the academically accepted vacuum method is not yet explained.

If the original test involved taking swabs how were the semen stains identified ? if in fact they were. Or did the test only involve blood.?

[christoper]

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

I'm one who wishes the average author made a lot more---good writing is hard work.

My problem with this particular author is his "PT Barnum" type attitude--it cheapens research that needs to be presented seriously.

But--the man is the type of man he is. If the research itself is well-done and reproducible, I can get past the author perhaps not being a chap I would want to hang out with in the pub. And--I admire the fact that he put so much of his own money into getting this done. He has some skin in the game--so it is only fair he recoup some of it--which is one factor in why I bought his book instead of waiting for my library to get it. Support authors!

(Of course Amazon says I won't receive the book until sometime in October--probably my library would be a year behind that. I feel very left out)

[RockySullivan]

You're unbelievable. You come here, accuse people of "accepting science over history". You're completely unable to justify the accusation, and now you accuse me of stirring. No wonder so many people treat "Ripperology" as a joke.

The fact is the "science" used doesn't accomplish what it claims to and just uses scientific words to fool the reader into believing the ripper is solved. Anyone can fake DNA anyway. The science used is more like a magic trick and while our perspective of history isn't always accurate...I would side with established history versus pseudo-scientific tests that are too generic to be of any use

[mickreed]

Neil Bell is checking Police Orders to see whether there's a record of Simpson being sent to H Division, and then we'll have an answer.

Adam

Thanks Adam. A pedantic historian, like myself, would ask - Why the hell didn't Edwards do that?

[Theagenes]

I'm one who wishes the average author made a lot more---good writing is hard work.

My problem with this particular author is his "PT Barnum" type attitude--it cheapens research that needs to be presented seriously.

But--the man is the type of man he is. If the research itself is well-done and reproducible, I can get past the author perhaps not being a chap I would want to hang out with in the pub. And--I admire the fact that he put so much of his own money into getting this done. He has some skin in the game--so it is only fair he recoup some of it--which is one factor in why I bought his book instead of waiting for my library to get it. Support authors!

(Of course Amazon says I won't receive the book until sometime in October--probably my library would be a year behind that. I feel very left out)

Same here. Regardless of the flaws it may may have, it's really not fair to critique it positively or negatively without reading it. I thought there was supposed to be a kindle version available. Is that just Amazon.uk?

[christoper]

re the previous testing on the shawl--approximately 8 years ago--the blood stains were obvious and noted--but the technology was not available at that point to obtain DNA from them. As far as I know, no one bothered to look beyond that--the seminal fluid was not obvious to the naked eye and as far as I am aware no one even proposed such a clue might be present.

It is my impression that the dating of the shawl was done by a visual exam only--which would be a lot less accurate than the rigorous testing that has now been performed. If memory serves the visual exam was not even done in person--an expert examined a photo of the shawl.

[Chris]

The fact is the "science" used doesn't accomplish what it claims to and just uses scientific words to fool the reader into believing the ripper is solved. Anyone can fake DNA anyway. The science used is more like a magic trick and while our perspective of history isn't always accurate...I would side with established history versus pseudo-scientific tests that are too generic to be of any use

Frankly, none of that convinces me you have any understanding whatsoever of the science. But by all means explain how the DNA could have been faked in such a way as to fool Dr Louhelainen - or whatever it is you're suggesting.

[christoper]

Same here. Regardless of the flaws it may may have, it's really not fair to critique it positively or negatively without reading it. I thought there was supposed to be a kindle version available. Is that just Amazon.uk?

I'll check around for a Kindle version--the suspense is killing me.

[mickreed]

Edwards says that he initially thought Simpson was posted to H Division, but was told by the shawl's previous owner, David Melville-Hayes, that the family story had it that Simpson was there on Fenian surveillance.

Adam

And there's the rub, Adam. A lot of this provence thing hinges on David Melville-Hayes and his 'family stories'. This bit seems unlikely. The Fenian heyday was the 1860s, and there was an upsurge in the earlier-1880s. From memory 1885 and earlier, but I'd have to check. It is possible but DM-H's memories (or hypotheses) are insufficient. After all, it was DM-H's firm that put sections of the shawl in a frame and were hawking about years ago. Who know's what else he got up to?

For the quick-draw experts, I AM NOT saying that DM-H was setting up a story, merely that he has had a long and 'unscientific' relationship with the shawl.

[dropzone]

There is evidence at most of the murders of possible strangulation. As you point out these do seem to vary in there evidence.

Would you be so kind as to provide some citations to support that? All I've found says no, there was no evidence of strangulation, though Chapman may have been partially smothered.

Elizabeth Stride was described as pale. She had possible fainted. This might have been caused by pressure to the cartriod artery.

They were describing a corpse of a woman whose death was caused by loss of blood. No evidence of her fainting immediately pre-mortem would exist after her death, however she died.

If you'd care to have actually read my post you would have noted I was talking about Harold Jones a known serial killer who had a fixation on his mother and carried Ladies handkerchiefs in an obsessive collection. I simply postulated with Aaron might have had a similar fetish based on another known serial killer.

But what did you base your postulation on besides a killer in a completely different case? And if he had such an emotional attachment to this cloth, his “security blanket,” why was Eddowes the only victim whose DNA was found on it?

Yes I never said the table clothe would make a good garrotte or ligature.

Actually, you did, in the very statement you responded to:

Surely a folded piece e of silk material would make an ideal garrotte leaving few marks.

Simply that it was made of silk and could possible have done so.

But it was backed with a different cloth, I assume linen. Two feet of that would roll up into a fairly substantial rope, unsuitable for casual garroting. The ends would then unfurl, and with them flapping in the breeze it would make the strangulation a ridiculous spectacle. Then Jack would have to shake it out so he could fold it and put it in his pocket,which he didn't have time for. But it's irrelevant, since none, repeat NONE, of the victims showed signs of having been strangled. I don't know why you are defending this hill so vigorously.

Well first of all we don't know when Aaron Kosminski became a police suspect. We certainly don't now it was 1894.

That was simply the first time someone with that surname was mentioned as a suspect.

What your going to learn in this field is that we don't actually know very much as so little has survived.

Dude, my degree is in Archaeology. By comparison, with Jack the Ripper you have a luxurious amount of data. But what I also know is that you don't go off half-cocked with too little information and fill in the blanks with unfounded speculation. The technical term for that is “pulling it out of your arse,” and I see too much of that by a lot of people here.

Good luck with your investigative journey

Thank you. Good luck with yours, too.

You actually admit that the only jack the Ripper book you have read from cover to cover is your own! You're actually admitting that?

Amazing.

I know you weren't addressing me, but I've never been able to finish a JtR book because the ones I've seen were too sensationalist and amateurish, with gushing prose and enough information to fill a magazine article, stretched to fill a book. This one seems to be more of the same..

[AdamNeilWood]

Thanks Adam. A pedantic historian, like myself, would ask - Why the hell didn't Edwards do that?

Well, me too Mick. There isn't a single source referenced in the whole book and I found that incredibly frustrating. Especially when the section on the Swanson marginalia seemed strangely familiar...

My feeling is that Edwards felt he had the DNA and everything else didn't matter.

Hope all's well.

Adam