Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[paul g]

Hello Paul G. Do you know of ANY veteran researchers who buy this? Even Kosminski people reject it.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn
I know of no such person who buys into this at all. I am the same as many on here opened minded.
My own view after reading the case for and against (from the threads)is that it is at best plausible, at worst a complete load of nonsense.
That is my view at this moment in time. However if the book provides scientific facts that have been reproduced by independent sources then obviously would possibly change my point of view.
Until the book is digested by myself and others I am sat firmly on the fence.

[lynn cates]

yo-yo

Hello Jason. Thanks.

Yo-yo? The author? Lovely combination. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Merry_Olde_Mary]

Even if DNA from both parties was on this shawl, it does not mean my client Mr. Kominski was a KILLER!

It is our contention he was innocently walking home with the shawl tied 'round his head for a toothache that night. Ms. Edows espied the shawl, saw it was printed with flowers as was her dress, and ATTACKED him without provocation in pursuit of same.

A scuffle ensued, and my client fled.

As to the presence of his semen on the object, anyone who grew up with brothers knows stray semen ends up on virtually everything at one time or another in a bachelor's apartment.

Is my client to be persecuted for being fastidious, and cleaning up after himself at an earlier time, with whatever cloth was at hand??

The defense rests.

[Trevor Marriott]

The truth of this case depends solely on the reliability or otherwise of the DNA evidence.
If it is truly the case that Kosminski’s and Eddowes’s DNA are on this item then how can anyone seriously claim that Kosminski did not ‘do it’?

All the other stuff – how the cloth came to be in the possession of the policeman’s family, whether or not he was or could have been at Mitre Square, whether it is a shawl or a random bit of cloth (that could have been use as an impromptu shawl anyway), whether it as Michaelmas Daisies on it, whether or not Eddowes was noted as wearing a shawl when in Bishopsgate police station, and all the other objections raised would be completely irrelevant and worthless.

So frankly, it is totally pointless raising these other objections until such time as the scientific tests are put under scrutiny. And I rather think that not one single person on here is qualified to pass authoritative judgement on that matter.

It is also a bit odd criticising the owner shawl for having the temerity to write a book about it. What a dreadful sin that is.
How unpardonable for him to have a Jack the Ripper themed gift shop.
And how disgusting that the story was presented in the Mail on Sunday – that seems to be the worse sin of all.

I find it more interesting to see how the Ripper case still generates nationwide – probably worldwide – publicity.
Almost as interesting as observing the converse howls of wounded indignation from the ‘Ripperological’ community.

Gosh – do you think this sort of response might put people off from coming forward with other artefacts that might be hidden in their attic?

Negate the shawl and the rest is academic because the DNA is not conclusive !

Why do people keep saying Kosminskis DNA is on the shawl it is not nor is Eddowwes at best its similar to that which could be anyone of 400.000 people

[pinkmoon]

Interesting that he just opened a shop, isn't it.

Yes I've never seen so much activity, I regularly check the whose on line tab and have NEVER seen so many members at the one time.

Www.jacktherippertoursandstore.co.uk check it out

[Stewart P Evans]

Haven't you read...?

The truth of this case depends solely on the reliability or otherwise of the DNA evidence.
If it is truly the case that Kosminski’s and Eddowes’s DNA are on this item then how can anyone seriously claim that Kosminski did not ‘do it’?
...

Haven't you read and understood the foregoing? There is no claimed nuclear DNA in this story. Only mitochondrial DNA is claimed, and that cannot be tied down to any one person.

[spyglass]

The truth of this case depends solely on the reliability or otherwise of the DNA evidence.
If it is truly the case that Kosminski’s and Eddowes’s DNA are on this item then how can anyone seriously claim that Kosminski did not ‘do it’?

All the other stuff – how the cloth came to be in the possession of the policeman’s family, whether or not he was or could have been at Mitre Square, whether it is a shawl or a random bit of cloth (that could have been use as an impromptu shawl anyway), whether it as Michaelmas Daisies on it, whether or not Eddowes was noted as wearing a shawl when in Bishopsgate police station, and all the other objections raised would be completely irrelevant and worthless.

So frankly, it is totally pointless raising these other objections until such time as the scientific tests are put under scrutiny. And I rather think that not one single person on here is qualified to pass authoritative judgement on that matter.

It is also a bit odd criticising the owner shawl for having the temerity to write a book about

it. What a dreadful sin that is.
How unpardonable for him to have a Jack the Ripper themed gift shop.
And how disgusting that the story was presented in the Mail on Sunday – that seems to be
the worse sin of all.

I find it more interesting to see how the Ripper case still generates nationwide – probably worldwide – publicity.
Almost as interesting as observing the converse howls of wounded indignation from the ‘Ripperological’ community.

Gosh – do you think this sort of response might put people off from coming forward with other artefacts that might be hidden in their attic?

Hi Lechmere,
You make some good valid points, I myself sat back for five minutes And took some tgought on it....and your right...why shouldnt this guy write a book with a new angle.
Lets face it, I think most of us are going to buy it.
I still think its to good to be true, but as someone else said earlier...maybe deep down, finding out the truth would just spoil everything.

Regards.

[lynn cates]

unaware

Hello Stewart. Thanks.

Indeed. But not all seem aware of that fact.

Cheers.
LC

[GUT]

Interesting that he just opened a shop, isn't it.

Yes I've never seen so much activity, I regularly check the whose on line tab and have NEVER seen so many members at the one time.

In fact new record last night for most online at casebook, so at least he has garnered interest.

[Stewart P Evans]

Oh dear...

Hi Lechmere,
You make some good valid points, I myself sat back for five minutes And took some tgought on it....and your right...why shouldnt this guy write a book with a new angle.
Lets face it, I think most of us are going to buy it.
I still think its to good to be true, but as someone else said earlier...maybe deep down, finding out the truth would just spoil everything.
Regards.

Oh dear...

[wolfie1]

Hello Wolfie. Thanks.

Hope no one is waiting long for traction amongst ripper students.

Cheers.
LC

It is ultimately only cold hard scientific facts that will solve the case, with technological and scientific advances moving forward every day, at the very least the Ripper community will continue to expand and debate ,with each additional piece of evidence, credible or not.

Out of curiosity , what is the material at the Kew Archives that the author of the book, claim no other researcher has yet to date examined? Or is it a hook to entice sales of the book?
I find it very difficult that serious researcher would not have unearthed every skerrick of credible evidence to be found in every archive in England.

The shopkeeper, turned author, is simply trying to earn a living. I can appreciate his devotion to his side of the story, in as much as I can understand all Ripperologists sticking in a dogged fashion to their own favoured suspect, despite all hard evidence demonstrating guilt away from their preferred Suspect.

[pinkmoon]

Thank you for that, but there are those who would fiercely disagree with you.

I will never agree that tumblety was the ripper but I admired your research and honesty when producing that book it was some what cheapend by the "diary of jack the ripper" a lot of people thought here we go again.

[lynn cates]

egg head

Hello (again) Stewart. Thanks.

I'm an egg head, then? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Wow - its interesting to see these scientific experts on here.
And the unpublished non artefact owners.

[RockySullivan]

Don't believe anything you read in the papers. Like some others pointed out, no chain of custody, no established connection of shawl to crime scene. I imagine the "DNA" is just a glorified blood test like another poster said and it's a false positive. Would eddowes & koz DNA really stay on 125 year old shawl without being preserved and passing thru countless hands? It just doesn't add up. Aaron Kosminski has never even been proven to be the Koz anyway. The most damning evidence is that the met police officer wasn't at the scene and had no way of getting the shawl! Where they really so careless as to give away a bloody shawl when they catalogued Eddowes personal items so meticulously? The bloody piece of apron was of such vital importance that a much larger bloody shawl would not be carelessly discarded. The ripper case attracts more con artists than anything looking to make a quick a buck.