Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Stewart P Evans]

Delved deeply

Still they delved deeply into Aaron Kosminski's antecedents.

'Young Aaron was an unwanted child, born much later than his brothers and sisters, when his mother was 46. The family shared one mattress, and it is thought the boy was sexually abused, probably by his stepfather.'

[Jeff Leahy]

It's interesting to see how they interpret the 'Swanson marginalia' phrase - 'In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back he was sent to Stepney Workhouse...'

The article states, 'His hands were tied behind his back, to prevent him from abusing himself.'

Totally agreed Stewart

But 'Kosminski is still the suspect'

The ID either happened or it did not…this DNA feasco simply avoids the real debate

And there is one to be had

Yours Jeff

PS what you claim in your last post is interesting…but where does it come from? To my knowledge no such evidence exists?

[lynn cates]

Jeff

Hello Anna. OK, but give Jeff Leahy the credit.

Cheers.
LC

[Brenda]

.

Bitsie, I have an alternative answer to the question, reasonable though yours is.

When PC Amos Simpson stumbled out of his own jurisdiction and into City territory, and saw the Ripper savaging Eddowes, he knew it would upset the City police if he made an arrest on their turf. However, he also saw a rather lovely shawl that the Ripper had cast aside while searching for Kate's neck, and he wanted it, despite the fact it was being liberally doused with mitochondrial DNA even as he watched. Knowing that within moments of the murder the place would be crawling with officers of the City force, he sidled cautiously up and grabbed it while Jack was still busy editing Eddowes' face. Thus by the time Jack needed to wipe his hands, the shawl was already gone, and therefore the apron needed to be cut. Jack, naturally, assumed a Jew had taken it, hence the rather forlorn message he left later in Goulston St.

There is no proof that this is not exactly what happened.

Seriously? Seriously????!!!

[Stewart P Evans]

Do I...

Do I detect the presence of a pesky gadfly called Jeff Leahy?

[Henry Flower]

Stewart P Evans:

What fog?

The fog that swirled out from his huge black cape, of course, as he prowled the cobbled streets in his top hat, knife in hand!

Geez, haven't you ever seen the book covers? I thought you were some kind of expert!!!

[Henry Flower]

Seriously? Seriously????!!!

No. No.

[Monty]

Do I detect the presence of a pesky gadfly called Jeff Leahy?

You shawly do.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Monty

[Jeff Leahy]

Do I detect the presence of a pesky gadfly called Jeff Leahy?

No Swart I asked a serious question?

Jx

[Stewart P Evans]

No expert...

Stewart P Evans:
The fog that swirled out from his huge black cape, of course, as he prowled the cobbled streets in his top hat, knife in hand!
Geez, haven't you ever seen the book covers? I thought you were some kind of expert!!!

I'm no expert at all, what do you think my name is, Leahy???

[bladen7273.]

My first post so please be gentle if I am wrong but I don't understand why people keep saying the DNA profile fits 400,000 people.

I'm no numberologist but, as I understand it, the article claims that only 1 in 400,000 people would have that profile.

If that's correct and the population was 40 million at that time then only 100 people in the country would have matched.

With DNA matches from both the suspect and the victim with the same odds of 400,000 to 1 this would be compelling evidence that both came in contact with the cloth.

To my mind the issue isn't in the potential number of matches. It's that there's no proof both sets of DNA were on the cloth in 1888.

Hi Sir Francis,

Check out this link, and then look at problem #2. http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-edwards.html

[Observer]

Hi Paul

Of douse the current claims are absurd as the Dinning room table clothe runner wasn't even printed until several years after the murder of Catrine Eddows.

So who exactly has dated the pattern to the Edwardian age?

[Jeff Leahy]

You shawly do.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Monty

Thats a very bad PUN…i'm sending it to Catrin for her next show! Jxx

[Stewart P Evans]

Mind...

Mind they don't try to tie your hands behind your back Jeff...

[lynn cates]

science

Hello Tecs.

"In my day anybody who refused to allow their results to be peer reviewed was instantly discredited and even accused of faking them.
No scientific theory ever has any credibility until other scientists can replicate their results, or at least allow the results to be analysed independently.

It's one of the absolute cornerstones of science."

Absolutely. But today, if one asks for testing, one is called "mean."

We've come to a sorry state.

Cheers.
LC