Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Phil Carter]

Moreover, why didn't he leave it with Liz Stride? Of, of course, he was disturbed.

Hello Mick,

You DO realize of course that Edwards has actually made a classic faux par with this 29th SEPT michelmas daisy thing dont you?

By NOT leaving said shawl with Stride, Kosminski now cannot be certain to have killed her. For killing her would have completed business. "Completing business" has NOT been described as hacking a woman to pieces.... just murdering her....

SO he would have completed business....and WOULDNT have needed to kill Eddowes!

Perhaps we shall hear that he forgot to drop the shawl or didnt have time to drop it with Stride.....

Terrible faux pas Mr Edwards!


best wishes

Phil

[Theagenes]

Surely any serious author would have waited until the DNA tests actually proved Kosminski was Eddowes's killer rather than making outlandish claims on very suspect evidence?

A serious author without an agenda would have waited until the DNA tests proved or disproved Kosminski as the sperm depositor or the results were still inconclusive after all avenues for investigation were exhausted, as any of those results would be important.

[christoper]

It doesn't prove anything wrong. Kosminski, without this "shawl" is not the "by far" the most likely prospect.

Mike

Most of the suspects have flimsy evidence if any at all. Only about a half dozen have a pretty good circumstantial case, IMO. This propels AK to the top of that short list.

[GUT]

Hello Mick,

You DO realize of course that Edwards has actually made a classic faux par with this 29th SEPT michelmas daisy thing dont you?

By NOT leaving said shawl with Stride, Kosminski now cannot be certain to have killed her. For killing her would have completed business. "Completing business" has NOT been described as hacking a woman to pieces.... just murdering her....

SO he would have completed business....and WOULDNT have needed to kill Eddowes!

Perhaps we shall hear that he forgot to drop the shawl or didnt have time to drop it with Stride.....

Terrible faux pas Mr Edwards!


best wishes

Phil

Not as terrible as killing MJK a day late!

[John Wheat]

To Theanges

Yes sorry I forgot that the authors intention was to sell a load of books on very suspect evidence.

Cheers John

[christoper]

A serious author without an agenda would have waited until the DNA tests proved or disproved Kosminski as the sperm depositor or the results were still inconclusive after all avenues for investigation were exhausted, as any of those results would be important.

agreed.

this was about making money--if the results were already out there, it might hurt his book sales.

[The Good Michael]

Most of the suspects have flimsy evidence if any at all. Only about a half dozen have a pretty good circumstantial case, IMO. This propels AK to the top of that short list.

I don't disagree with this, but you said, Kosminski was "by far" the best prospect. How do you justify this terminology when speaking of all candidates as having very little convincing evidence? Goebbels was a much nicer man than Goerring.

Mike

[Phil Carter]

But if the shawl had been discarded away from the crime scene, how would the MET PC and/or Simpson have known that it was Eddowes's?

Hello electric browser,

an excellent point you make :-) How indeed?
(unless said man followed the murderer- stopped to pick up the shawl which he must have seen dropped- but let Jack the Ripper go......)

It can easily be seen that Robs theorizing for the shawl to have been dropped away from the murder scene is in full knowledge of the facts that
a) Foster drew a detailed sketch of the murder scene- no shawl
b) No policeman found a shawl in Mitre SQUARE
c) No shawl was listed by Collard at the mortuary
d) Edwards has changed the ownership of the shawl story from Eddowes to Kosminski
e) Edwards has stated on radio and was left on his website that Simpson aquired the shawl "on the way to the mortuary" and
f) Edwards has also described it as the green chintz skirt (which WAS listed by Collard at the mortuary)


best wishes

Phil

[GUT]

To Theanges

Yes sorry I forgot that the authors intention was to sell a load of books on very suspect evidence.

Cheers John

Or was it to sell more Jelly Beans, Yo-Yos and Pencils?

[Phil Carter]

Not as terrible as killing MJK a day late!

Hello GUT,

So now the scenario is that if he DID kill STRIDE he completed "business" but forgot to leave his "clue" OR
he didnt kill STRIDE and went for Eddowes late. OR
HE killed STRIDE and killed EDDOWES anyway whatever the date Then
killed Kelly after missing the close of business on the 8th......

what a load of codswallop!


best wishes

Phil

[John Wheat]

Or was it to sell more Jelly Beans, Yo-Yos and Pencils?

Quite possibly Gut.

[mickreed]

agreed.

this was about making money--if the results were already out there, it might hurt his book sales.

Yeah! There are those in this forum who argue - 'Good for Edwards. He's making a quid.' Well, so are those who rip off old ladies or scam people out of their life savings.

Now, I'm not putting Edwards in those categories - yet. He may really believe all this stuff about Amos Simpson, and Michaelmas, and so on. In which case he's very naïve and a rotten historian. If he he doesn't believe it, then he is a scam merchant. Time will perhaps tell.

The only thing going for him may be the DNA. Despite the many people who've basically said 'let's wait and see what it really tells us', there are those who are accepting uncritically Edwards's interpretation of Jari's work. Only Jari can give us the ins and outs of his work, and he hasn't yet. A few press stories, and even an intelligent and thoughtful radio interview, aren't enough. Particularly when the radio interview is laced with the kinds of caveats you'd expect any intelligent scientist to lay out.

[christoper]

I don't disagree with this, but you said, Kosminski was "by far" the best prospect. How do you justify this terminology when speaking of all candidates as having very little convincing evidence? Goebbels was a much nicer man than Goerring.

Mike

if you don't disagree, quit trying to pick at words and start an argument.

Coming into this discussion I had 6-8 suspects that I considered viable based on the circumstantial evidence. AK was not NO. 1 on that list, but was a contender, probably 3rd or 4th. However, based on the DNA as presented so far, AK has leapfrogged to the top of my list--with some space between him and NO 2.

We all have our own opinions on which circumstantial evidence we consider strong and which we feel is rubbish. My opinions on that are as valid as anyone's. However there is no need to thread jack. This thread is about the science.

[Theagenes]

Yeah! There are those in this forum who argue - 'Good for Edwards. He's making a quid.' Well, so are those who rip off old ladies or scam people out of their life savings.

Now, I'm not putting Edwards in those categories - yet. He may really believe all this stuff about Amos Simpson, and Michaelmas, and so on. In which case he's very naïve and a rotten historian. If he he doesn't believe it, then he is a scam merchant. Time will perhaps tell.

The only thing going for him may be the DNA. Despite the many people who've basically said 'let's wait and see what it really tells us', there are those who are accepting uncritically Edwards's interpretation of Jari's work. Only Jari can give us the ins and outs of his work, and he hasn't yet. A few press stories, and even an intelligent and thoughtful radio interview, aren't enough. Particularly when the radio interview is laced with the kinds of caveats you'd expect any intelligent scientist to lay out.

I very much agree. I have to say though that's hard to shake the notion that the book was rushed to press before the nDNA from the semen could be tested further by Jari in order to avoid taking a chance on Kos being eliminated.

[christoper]

The post that upset you was a few pages back--so I am cut and pasting it here. Looking it over, I stand by what I wrote and don't feel any of it was out of line:

This is arguably the biggest, best piece of evidence we have ever had. We have never had ANY physical evidence that linked a victim to a suspect before. And this is one of the few suspects that arguably has a good circumstantial case against him--even without the physical evidence.

Plus--going back over old threads--it seemed that the case against AK was typically ridiculed not based on any evidence but simply because people felt that in their judgment AK was so obviously crazy that a prostitute would never do business with him.

This proves that theory wrong--and shows that there is no reason to automatically exclude him from consideration--and that indeed taking everything into consideration, he is by far the most likely prospect--although of course it is not and probably never will be 100% proven beyond a reasonable doubt.