Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[lynn cates]

parsimony

Hello Theagenes. Thanks.

IF the science holds up--but it is unraveling whilst we speak.

Ockham's Razor? What you quoted is the Principle of Parsimony. The simplest explanation is a hoax.

Cheers.
LC

[mickreed]

Hi Mickreed,

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

G'day Hatchett

You're right of course. Trouble is, much of the debate isn't sensible, and one gets frustrated sometimes.

[Jonathan H]

The Lowest epth of human degradation

Masturbation is the critical factor here, for sure.

Sir Robert Anderson was no doubt sincerely mortified by the distress he caused among the English Jewish community by his clumsy contention that the Whitechapel solution was sabotaged by low-class Jews. In 1910 he wrote to the 'Jewish Chronicle' to try and rescue the situation--to no avail.


TO THE EDITOR OF THE "JEWISH CHRONICLE."
SIR, - With reference to "Mentor's" comments on my statements about the "Whitechapel murders" of 1888 in this month's Blackwood, will you allow me to express the severe distress I feel that my words should be construed as "an aspersion upon Jews." For much that I have written in my various books gives proof of my sympathy with, and interest in, "the people of the Covenant"; and I am happy in reckoning members of the Jewish community in London among my personal friends.

I recognise that in this matter I said either too much or too little. But the fact is that as my words were merely a repetition of what I published several years ago without exciting comment, they flowed from my pen without any consideration.'


Anderson does not seem to realize that he had never before mentioned a slam dunk witness, one who had refused to testify for sectarian reasons. Based on his 1908 interview--a colossal muddle--he had simply got himself into a memory malfunction once more, e.g. there was no positive witness identification of this suspect (unlike probably Lawende of Grant in 1895).

Here is his evidence:

'We have in London a stratum of the population uninfluenced by religious or even social restraints. And in this stratum Jews are to be found as well as Gentiles. And if I were to describe the condition of the maniac who committed these murders, and the course of loathsome immorality which reduced him to that condition, it would be manifest that in his case every question of nationality and creed is lost in a ghastly study of human nature sunk to the lowest depth of degradation.

Yours obediently
ROBERT ANDERSON'


Notice he does not repeat the witness element. It is his veiled if melodramatic reference to self-abuse that fills him with horror, and that he thinks will have the same effect on his readers (his book version of his memoir, unlike the magazine excerpt, will also bring this element front and center).

And Macnaghten?

The police chief who took the trouble to go to the asylum and discover that the alleged cause of Aaron Kosminski's insanity was "self-abuse"?

In 1907 he had his proxy, Sims, drop this element in favor of the probably fictitious bit that the suspect had worked in a Polish hospital.

That this police chief could rise above the sexual mores and prejudices of his time is arguably further confirmed by the way he responded about homosexuality. One evening his little girl, Christabel, ambushed him when he came home from the office to ask why Oscar Wilde--a family friend and neighbor--had gone to prison?

The father replied, understandably deceitfully, that Wilde was definitely a "genius" (e.g. not a monster) but he had committed "forgery". Imagine what Anderson told his child. Christabel Macnaghten, nonetheless, was not convinced.

[Jonathan H]

'Depth', I mean to write in the title, sorry

[mickreed]

The simplest explanation is a hoax.

Cheers.
LC

Maybe, but I doubt it. The simplest explanation is a misunderstanding of evidence so as to make claims, unsupported in any significant way, by that evidence. Okay, so some bits of evidence may be stronger than others, but overall...

I presently prefer the stuff up over the conspiracy.

[Ben]

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

Now that's a silly thing to say, but then again, I don't hang around here that much these days and don't get as perturbed as I once did by silliness.

So do carry on...

[dropzone]

But it was NOT Gauguin--it was Cezanne. It ANYONE says it's Gauguin, I'd say put up or shut up. (heh-heh)

Gauguin was creepy, but his interests ran more toward underage girls than superannuated doxies. I would like to see more evidence supporting your Cezanne hypothesis,though.

[Theagenes]

Hello Theagenes. Thanks.

IF the science holds up--but it is unraveling whilst we speak.

Ockham's Razor? What you quoted is the Principle of Parsimony. The simplest explanation is a hoax.

Cheers.
LC

Occam's Razor is another name for the principle of parsimony.

I'm curious, if you think a hoax is the simplest solution, who do you think is responsible for the hoax and how do you think it was carried out?

[Hatchett]

You arent missed, Ben

[Ben]

You arent missed, Ben

Boohoo.

[GUT]

You arent missed, Ben

G'day Hatchett

Didn't I just see a post from you criticizing Mick Reed for sarcasm.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

Are you familiar with Tom's work on this?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn, is Jeff familiar with my work on what?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Hello Theagenes. Thanks.

IF the science holds up--but it is unraveling whilst we speak.

Ockham's Razor? What you quoted is the Principle of Parsimony. The simplest explanation is a hoax.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

A hoax? DNA extraction methodology has to be seen to be as clean as its provided sample used.

The Edward III situation for example had an iron clad story behind it.

This story at present is imho, bordering between the "corr blimey and the bloody ridiculous".

What may I ask is your view at present?



best regards

Phil

[Barrister]

I think we might be able to pick holes in the back story concerning this shawl how ever and its a big however if that shawl contains eddowes DNA and kosminskis DNA then I think we can't argue against this scientific fact.

The question is from whom was Kosminski's DNA sample derived. If we don't know that person to definitely have been related to Kosminski, we have no further evidence than we ever have. As far as I know, there has never been any doubt that the shawl belonged to Eddowes, but it is not proof of the link to Eddowes that we require. What matters is the strength of the science linking the semen to a person KNOWN to be a Kosminski relative.

[lynn cates]

the book

Hello Dropzone. Thanks.

"I would like to see more evidence supporting your Cezanne hypothesis,though."

Buy the book. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC