Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Daisyhall1]

I think you have to bear in mind it is the publishers job to market the book and offer serial rights to whoever is prepared to pay for them - you can't blame Edwards for that .They are a reputable publisher and have done their job on getting media attention for the book.They will have paid him some upfront money and tbh as a business they have to recoup that and then maybe a deal has been done on sales.As you rightly say,Dr Jari is the one who will validate the science side of it- he works at John Moores in Liverpool and his reputation is at stake when doubts are cast on to the way results are obtained.He can only deduce what is put in front of him.The main question I have is the conclusion is based on an unnamed relatives DNA - that relative will have to be validated.

[PaulB]

Hey Tom

I didn't name Paul, but I do agree about fraud claims, and I've argued against them several times in this forum. Fraud is a foolish claim to make. It's as wrong to claim fraud without evidence, as it is to claim anything else without evidence.

The real problem here is in the aggressive marketing of the book, in which the author appears all to keen to participate. Now anyone would want their publisher to market aggressively, but not on the basis of falsehoods or partial truths.

There seems to me to be various strands of Ripperology - and here I use UK comparisons.

1. There's the Independent, Guardian, Telegraph (and once upon a time, the Times) approach of Begg, Skinner, Evans, and many more. They try to present the truth as they see it, argue their case from evidence, and, whilst they will sometimes be wrong, the reader can feel assured that they've given it their best shot.

2. Then there's the well-meaning local rag. Under-resourced, unable to afford top journos, etc. Great for reporting a Council meeting or the local cricket, but without the skills, or resources generally, to get to the bottom of a complex story. This may well be RE.

3. Finally there's the Sun, the Mirror, the Mail approach. Who cares whether it's true or not? Sales are everything and if people buy our papers then that's all that counts. Some people may think that RE's book is being sold like that.

Well, I don't think that's the right way to do things. And so, I repeat, we shouldn't be bandying claims like fraud about. But on the other hand, we shouldn't go easy, just because somebody may truly believe in their own unsubstantiated claims.

There's an old saying about heat and kitchens.

Hi Mick
As you say, anyone would want their publisher to market their book aggressively, and Russell Edwards, who isn't an author or a historian or anyone who might be cautious about so boldly expressing conclusions, but is a successful businessman who naturally understands aggressive marketing and sees nothing wrong with selling his product as hard as he can. That's fine, isn't it? The only thing we need concern ourselves with is whether or not he sincerely believes what he is saying, and, as yoou said, there is "bugger all" wrong with expressing a sincerely held belief.

All I am saying is that criticism should be restricted to the content of Russell Edwards book. It's not bandying libels like fraud. It's all the other personal stuff too, like rubbishing his shop for being tacky. Whether it is tacky or not, that has little or no bearing on the book. And, of course, aside from the people rubbishing the book without having read it, when they have had the opportunity to buy and read it, there's the matter of rubbishing the book without having read it in the national press, albeit only the Daily Star, which garners no criticism.

It's the evidence on which Russell Edwards' claim is based that matters - and is pretty much all that matters - and I am grateful to people like you and others, and Mr P over on the other site, who have done their best to provide some elucidation. The evidence is in the court of Dr Jari, not Edwards, and we need to see whether he condoned and condones Russell Edwards aggressively marketed conclusion.

[Patrick S]

Thought you might like to see this:

[ATTACH]16293[/ATTACH]

'Ladies' magazine of 1801 - Victoria & Albert Museum no. E. 249-1955

Carol

Why is that woman wearing a table runner?

[Carol]

Thought you might like to see this:



'Ladies' magazine of 1801 - Victoria & Albert Museum no. E. 249-1955

Carol

[Carol]

Maybe it was found by a citizen some distance from Mitre Square, who subsequently gave it to a policeman some time afterwards -- in this case a MET officer (Simpson).

Thank you, Scott.

Carol

[Jeff Leahy]

The shawl is a textbook case of 'do not analyse' item due to contamination.

Roy

Isn't that rather 'Baby' and 'Bathwater" ?

Jeff

[Carol]

[QUOTE=Mabuse;311386]Yes, it has been discussed, but the point is really not how likely it is that the policeman, Amos Simpson, was able to take this garment.

Thank you, Mabuse, for your feed back.

Carol

[Roy Corduroy]

Good morning Ghost and welcome to the discussion group,

If not from Mitre Square, then someone needs to explain how Simpson randomly came into possession of an object that most likely has Eddowes' blood on it.

He didn't.

The shawl is a textbook case of 'do not analyse' item due to contamination.

Roy

[Theagenes]

@theagenes

I wanted to thank you for your careful take on the book. I just got done reading through some of those posts. When the number 7,200 possible people is used, has that been adjusted for coming from a male source? Are the figures really 1 of 7,200 people and 1 of 3,600 males? Or is it 1 in 7,200 males?

That number for T1a1 came from a DNA database website that was discussing the Daily Mail article early on. Another source cited by John a few pages back suggested that it was more common than that. So I don't think it's very clear just how common T1a1 is as there seems to be conflicting information.

Suffice to say it's certainly more common than what is being claimed for the Eddowes match.

[Ghost]

@theagenes

I wanted to thank you for your careful take on the book. I just got done reading through some of those posts. When the number 7,200 possible people is used, has that been adjusted for coming from a male source? Are the figures really 1 of 7,200 people and 1 of 3,600 males? Or is it 1 in 7,200 males?

[Ghost]

Given Simpson's profession, it would seem likely that a shawl with a blood stain on it, especially if in a splatter pattern, came from a murder scene.

If not from Mitre Square, then someone needs to explain how Simpson randomly came into possession of an object that most likely has Eddowes' blood on it.

[Fantasio]

He likely knew the "shawl" belonged to a suspect...

Wait a minute - didnīt you just say that the shawl belonged to Jack?

Let's put it in this way: I think the "shawl" belonged to Jack. IF Jack was one of the then-suspects (Kosminky, Cohen, Druitt and so on) it's possible Simpson knew that and thought something like "if this guy is ever found guilty and hanged everything that belonged to him, especially everything with bloodstains, will be worth a lot".
That depends, of course, on when the "shawl" came into Simpson's hands - sooner or later it did, after all! But that's one thing we don't know and likely never will. So there's nothing we can do apart from speculation. Unless some miracle from great Amanda not-Sumner... who knows?

I think it would be a stretch to speculate that Simpson sussed out that the killer would become the most infamous one in history.

Why not? He was one of the first known serial killers, and by far the most (in)famous at the time. Could he imagine JTR was going to be the first of many?

And it seems very far-fetched to me to accept that he speculated that the shawl could become valuable at a stage when those who could testify that it was never there had died out.

Possibly. Or maybe he just stole the "shawl" and made up a cover story. The story cannot be true, so there must be a reason why he (or some relative of his) made it up.

Thanks for the greetings!

[Fisherman]

Fantasio:

I'm yet another long-time-lurker, first-time poster and so on. I'm especially interested in dissertations, but I also like some forum debate.

Welcome to the boards, Fantasio!

So, what about the "shawl" provenance? I trust people who investigated the matter, and I believe it could not have been in Mitre Square. Also, I believe neither Simpson was. But it's quite obvious his story is made up: the thing about "asking for permission, permission was given" strongly reminds me of children caught in doing something wrong: "mummy gave me permission, so what?".

I concur - the shawl was most probably not in Mitre Square on the murder night, and the same goes for Amos Simpson.

What I think is the "shawl" was owned by Jack. Who - never forget that! - took away one of Eddowes' kidney. If he took the kidney home, and the "shawl" was there, a contact could have occurred (if the "shawl" was a table runner, for example, just putting the kidney on it for a moment). And that's more than enough to justify both Eddowes' DNA and Jack's DNA without theorizing strange ways to place the "shawl" in Mitre Square without everyone noticing. And there's no need to speculate on Jack's masturbation habits and if/when/where/how fast he did it.

Possible, I guess.

The Simpson story is a puzzle. There are tenths of possibilities.

At the very least, yes.

He could have bought/stolen/found/was given the "shawl" by a lot of people (fellow policemen, Jack/Cohen/Kosminsky's relatives, through his wife).

I guess that could happen - but things are beginning to stretch here, I fear.

He likely knew the "shawl" belonged to a suspect...

Wait a minute - didnīt you just say that the shawl belonged to Jack?

...and thought that in time could be worth a lot of money.

Iīm not too sure about this. The hunt was ongoing, and there was every chance that the murderer would have been found, in which case the shawl would probably not have been worth much money. Simpson could not possibly foresee the interest that would rise in the Ripper case.

But could not link the object to a murder, despite the bloodstain.

Without DNA fingerprinting and even blood types, that was not possibile.

Well, if it had been listed, he would have had the provenance in black and white ...

So - perhaps - that's the reason he made up his story: only claiming to have found himself the "shawl" near the body of Eddowes a link was possible. At the time many people knew the story was untrue and nor he neither the "shawl" had been there. But would have been the same after 10-20 years or more? How could he know that even after 126 years (!) researchers would still be able to prove his story untrue?

I think it would be a stretch to speculate that Simpson sussed out that the killer would become the most infamous one in history. And it seems very far-fetched to me to accept that he speculated that the shawl could become valuable at a stage when those who could testify that it was never there had died out. It would predispose that he left it as some sort of future investment for his great-great grandchildren to potentially profit from.

I don't think well'ever know the truth about the "shawl", so further studied will be needed, but until dr. JariLou's work will have been peer reviewed, there's little we can do...

... and it now seems this may never happen, Fantasio!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

You're thinking of Dennis Nilsen.

Or Joachim Kroll.

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

The biggest problem is he's a very good suspect, just a pity that this book is likely to see a lot of people turned off him because of all the apparent flaws.

A very good suspect you have to be kidding?