Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[PaulB]

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

I didn't say the provenance of the shawl didn't matter. You do have a habit of twisting my words. I specifically said that IF the DNA findings were solid - meaning that the DNA of Eddowes and Kosminski was on the shawl - then the provenance wouldn't be as important as some people perceive it. We would have to accept that somehow an apron with the DNA on it of a murder victim and a leading suspect in her murder passed into the hands of Amos Simpson's family, despite the fact that there was no immediate acceptable explanation of how that happened.

In other words, you can't dismiss the DNA evidence (assuming it is solid) just because the received provenance is crap.

[RockySullivan]

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.

I have zero understanding of the "science"...but I can tell from reading the article there not enough "science" on the shawl to conclusively prove Koz jizzed on it. The tests used DO NOT narrow the samples down to a single individual. You don't think DR's are incorruptible do you? dR L could be part of the fraud because he knows the tests are generic enough they can't be disproved

[Chris]

And there's the rub, Adam. A lot of this provence thing hinges on David Melville-Hayes and his 'family stories'.

By precisely the same token, if one disproves the details of a family tradition first recorded a century after the murders, one has disproved very little.

[Outlaw]

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.

Thank you for the clarification..

[mickreed]

Authors these days have options.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I think we are in furious agreement, Tom

Cheers

Mick

[mickreed]

Paul Begg now denies he has written a book claiming Kosminski is the ripper

When this was put to him earlier today this was his reply

"And I haven't written a book in which I say that Kosminski is the Ripper"

Oh Paul your nose is growing it will soon be as big as your ego !

Well, the article was only an article and not a book, so he may be right there, Trevor.

The final sentence reads:

In summary, the evidence points to the serial killer Jack the Ripper being Aaron Kosminski.

[christoper]

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.

I don't see it as even a remote possibility.

With the diary--TLC was used (as a chemist I have run a lot of TLCs). It is a great technique for some things--but it isn't very sensitive. I wondered at the time why a more sensitive assay wasn't used-and then it became obvious.

In this case, we have multiple scientists using the most advanced techniques. The author of the book (who does have a dog in the fight) has had no control over the samples and testing).

It would be impossible to come up with a forgery that would pass intensive assays like this. It is also extremely unlikely that a sampling of internationally famous scientists would collude in a conspiracy to fake results--torpedoing everyone's reputation.

I believe these results will stand.

[mickreed]

I thought there was supposed to be a kindle version available. Is that just Amazon.uk?

You can't get the Kindle version in Australia until 30 September

[PaulB]

Paul's an authority, but he's long thought Kosminski was guilty. See Lekh, S. K.; Langa, A.; Begg, P.; Puri, B. K., The case of Aaron Kosminski: was he Jack the Ripper?, Psychiatric Bulletin Vol. 16(12), 1992 pp 786-788

I must say I found that article singularly unconvincing as well. There's a tendency amongst everyone to believe what we want to believe, and to reject everything else. Perhaps Paul is slipping into this trap.

126 years on, and based on what we know to date, there can only be inconclusive, even if suggestive, forensic evidence. It can only suggest that Kosminski and Eddowes (or their relatives ?) came into contact with the shawl at some time or other.

I disagree with Tom that we mustn't blame Edwards for wanting to make a quid if the way he tries to make it is unjustified. Sure, try and sell your book, but don't make claims like 'I can prove' or 'I know for sure'. Of course anything less won't get the same publicity but that's where integrity comes in.

I daresay the publishers are encouraging him, and I expect he believes it, but that's not the same thing as having real proof.

As a matter of fact I have NEVER believed Kosminski was guilty, as anyone who knows me can attest, and I had no hand in writing the article you cite, nor do I know the other authors. I talked with oneof them on the telephone and they gave me an authorial credit. My position is and always has been that Kosminski was the primary suspect for research.

[Chris]

I have zero understanding of the "science"...but I can tell from reading the article there not enough "science" on the shawl to conclusively prove Koz jizzed on it. The tests used DO NOT narrow the samples down to a single individual.

And that equates, in your eyes, to no useful information - even if they have found a match to the Eddowes DNA with a chance probability of only 1 in 290,000?

[Jeff Leahy]

Paul's an authority, but he's long thought Kosminski was guilty.

Really? I know Paul better than most and frankly I find his obsession with balance sometimes infuriating.

This statement simply isn't true

Yours Jeff

[christoper]

I didn't say the provenance of the shawl didn't matter. You do have a habit of twisting my words. I specifically said that IF the DNA findings were solid - meaning that the DNA of Eddowes and Kosminski was on the shawl - then the provenance wouldn't be as important as some people perceive it. We would have to accept that somehow an apron with the DNA on it of a murder victim and a leading suspect in her murder passed into the hands of Amos Simpson's family, despite the fact that there was no immediate acceptable explanation of how that happened.

In other words, you can't dismiss the DNA evidence (assuming it is solid) just because the received provenance is crap.

with a shaky provenance, if we were trying AK in a court of law--his defense attorney could most likely get it suppressed so that the jury would not know about it.

HOWEVER--just because it would be inadmissible in a court of law--that would not scientifically invalidate it.

[mickreed]

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

What! No source citations? - bloody hell! I've pre-ordered the Kindle version but there's a fortnight before I'll get it, so my frustrations over lack of support apparatus are all ahead of me.

Thanks for the hope bit. Everything's fine. I should have something on Dr Hebbert for you soon.

Mick

[RockySullivan]

And that equates, in your eyes, to no useful information - even if they have found a match to the Eddowes DNA with a chance probability of only 1 in 290,000?

No considering London had a population of 6 million + in 1900

[christoper]

What! No source citations? - bloody hell! I've pre-ordered the Kindle version but there's a fortnight before I'll get it, so my frustrations over lack of support apparatus are all ahead of me.

Thanks for the hope bit. Everything's fine. I should have something on Dr Hebbert for you soon.

Mick

This publisher really dropped the ball on availability.