Originally posted by Mabuse
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by Fabio Sanvitale View PostI'm absolutely agree with Trevor Marriott. I spoke, here in Italy, in the last days, with an important genetist and the best scene crime expert of our police.
The genetist said: ok, there's a link between Kosminski and Eddowes, but the only thing that genetic can't say is when this happened. The expert said: mitochondrial dna is not a definitive answer, but only a way to take in the number of suspects.
So, I think that now we know there was a contact between K. and E. ...but when? The day before? Half an hour before the murder? No more than this.
The Edward's book is not decisive.
G'day Fabio
Welcome.
So, I think that now we know there was a contact between K. and E. .
If the DNA is spot on, all we know is that both came into contact with the "shawl".G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mabuse View PostThere is no evidence to support Aaron Kosminsksi as a wanker at all! Likely, perhaps, but where is the evidence?
He probably had one off the wrist now and again. It is irrelevant to the Ripper mystery.
Yes we do, my man, we've already explained why!
We don't know why they suspected him because the files relating to Kosminski know longer exist
But its most unlikely they suspected him simply because he masterbated.
Both Anderson and Swanson were brilliant minds. Anderson wrote several books on theology and Swanson was a capable life time copper.
If they suspected Kosminski they had a good reason
Originally posted by Mabuse View PostI feel like I am part of a Monty Python sketch, talking to this guy!
If Aaron Kosminski was reduced to the level of a beast by tossing himself off, then, frankly, I am Wolfman Jack.
Originally posted by Mabuse View PostThe sources contradict each other. They are Victorians who clearly believe mental health is associated with masturbation. This is not evidence. It is prudish hearsay.
Be more convincing!
Learning to understand and look at those sources in context is how you come by informed opinion.
However you twist and turn your still left with a suspect named by the two men who new the most about the case. A suspect who lived in the area and suffered a form of Schizophrenia that doesn't rule him out from being able to commit the crimes…
And now we have a new book saying DNA connects one of the victims to a possible suspect..
Its the weight of evidence that contains to grow in one direction
Yours Jeff
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
… your still left with a suspect named by the two men who new the most about the case. A suspect who lived in the area and suffered a form of Schizophrenia …
… you're still left with a suspect, named (only by his family name) by the two men who may have known most about the case, but exonerated by one of them, and wrongly claimed to have died by the other. A suspect who lived in the area and seems to have suffered a form of mental illness that may have been schizophrenia, but may well have been something else …Mick Reed
Whatever happened to scepticism?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
And now we have a new book saying DNA connects one of the victims to a possible suspect..
The comments that I've seen from people who've read the book, mostly seem to say the Kosminski DNA part is very loose indeed. The evidence it purports to report is claimed to be flimsy in the extreme.Mick Reed
Whatever happened to scepticism?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
Learning to understand and look at those sources in context is how you come by informed opinion.
My response relates to pots and kettles.Last edited by mickreed; 09-19-2014, 03:29 PM.Mick Reed
Whatever happened to scepticism?
Comment
-
Originally posted by mickreed View PostThe book may say that, but that, in itself, is no more evidence than the countless posts on Casebook.
The comments that I've seen from people who've read the book, mostly seem to say the Kosminski DNA part is very loose indeed. The evidence it purports to report is claimed to be flimsy in the extreme.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hatchett View PostHi
I'm with you, Jeff. Kosmisnki is certainly a very plausible suspect.Unlike people like Hutchinson and Lechmere.
Best wishes.
Seriously, I don't think many people are saying that Kosminski couldn't possibly have done it, only that the actual evidence against him isn't yet very persuasive. In fact, for me, it's almost completely lacking in persuasive power. Should the DNA evidence check out eventually, then that might change things. At present, Nah!Mick Reed
Whatever happened to scepticism?
Comment
-
Originally posted by mickreed View PostAgreed. He's a plausible case when compared to Dr Who or Julius Caesar as well☺.
Seriously, I don't think many people are saying that Kosminski couldn't possibly have done it, only that the actual evidence against him isn't yet very persuasive. In fact, for me, it's almost completely lacking in persuasive power. Should the DNA evidence check out eventually, then that might change things. At present, Nah!
In fact I think in the long run t may well hurt what was a promising suspect, in the eyes of many if the current claims are proven to be what they appear [BS] they will take no further interest in Kozminski.G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
-
Cezanne
Hello Henry.
"I have to say the more we hear about this one the more it falls apart. Edwards himself took DNA samples from the relatives? Is that true? If so...."
Quite.
But it was NOT Gauguin--it was Cezanne. It ANYONE says it's Gauguin, I'd say put up or shut up. (heh-heh)
Cheers.
LC
Comment
Comment