Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[mickreed]

I feel like I am part of a Monty Python sketch, talking to this guy!

Oh come on, Mabuse. Python would have us laughing. I find myself bloody near in tears in this thread sometimes.

[GUT]

I'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. .

I don't think that we even know that.

If the DNA is spot on, all we know is that both came into contact with the "shawl".

[Jeff Leahy]

There 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!

You haven't explained anything. Anderson believed the identity of Jack was known and Swanson appears to say his suspect was KOSMINSKI

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

I 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.

I only said Jahovah

The 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!

Of course the sources contradict each other I pointed that out to you earlier. They also support each other.

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

[mickreed]

… 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 …

I'd rewrite the above thus in order to make it closer to the facts:

… 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 …

[mickreed]

And now we have a new book saying DNA connects one of the victims to a possible suspect..

The 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.

[mickreed]

Learning to understand and look at those sources in context is how you come by informed opinion.

There are quite a few people who pass this test. And a hell of a lot who don't.

My response relates to pots and kettles.

[Theagenes]

The 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.

Well, to be fair, it does appear that Kosminski had the same haplotype as whoever left the possible semen stain. While that's hardly conclusive since many people could have also left it, it's certainly helps the case for Kos.

[Hatchett]

Hi

I'm with you, Jeff. Kosmisnki is certainly a very plausible suspect.Unlike people like Hutchinson and Lechmere.

Best wishes.

[mickreed]

Hi

I'm with you, Jeff. Kosmisnki is certainly a very plausible suspect.Unlike people like Hutchinson and Lechmere.

Best wishes.

Agreed. 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!

[GUT]

Agreed. 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!

And the evidence as Mr Edwards presents it does little if anything to help the cause.

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.

[Tom_Wescott]

… 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

Me and who else?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mickreed]

Me and who else?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,

Now that, I like.

[lynn cates]

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

[lynn cates]

Tom

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

Are you familiar with Tom's work on this?

Cheers.
LC

[Hatchett]

Hi Mickreed,

I thought this was a sensible debate. We can do without the sarcasm.