Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Amanda Sumner]

I just had to return and say what a succinct and accurate post this is. Nothing further need be said.

Thank you, Mr Evans.

[mickreed]

I'm not sure why Edwards would make the rather foolish statement that he decided on Kosminski's guilt and then decided to test for his DNA, when he could have said "We found semen and, remembering that Kosminski was a known masturbator, we prioritized him," if that were basically the truth.

If there really is semen on this 'shawl' then where's the y-chromosome? If it's true that only mtDNA was found, then it's one hell of a jump to claim proof of anyone's guilt.

Cheers

Mick

[jason_c]

Just found this http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Jack-...ail/story.html

Apparently when they tested the shawl in 2010 they found it did have blood and semen on it but they couldn't get DNA from it. Could this new technique be the reason that they got samples from it this time ?. I never realised they found blood and semen back then didn't himk any thing was found

I just read your link, thanks for posting. The article in parts reads as biased as the Daily Mail article we are all condemning:

"The history of the blood-stained shawl is hazy to say the least and, although Kosminski was named by police as a possible suspect, experts on the case have long ruled him out as a serious contender to be the Ripper."

[curious4]

Hello Pink,

I agree. Some schizophrenics (and, indeed, psychopaths) can hide their dark side very successfully. What I mean is that Kosminski's illness seems to have taken a different form to, say, someone who suddenly attacks another person for no reason (seemingly) with an axe. It made him refuse food from others and only eat bread he had picked up from the street etc. Not voices telling him to kill anyone.

Best wishes,

C4

[Abby Normal]

I just had to return and say what a succinct and accurate post this is. Nothing further need be said.

Amen to that

[Henry Flower]

Nothing further need be said.

Not by you, Stewart - you're an authority and this nonsense is beneath you! But we mere mortals actually enjoy the nonsense! It's a Ripper discussion forum, and we're - you know - discussing a Ripper-related story!

We all seem to suspect it's baloney, we're just having some fun! Also, many of us have learned things on this thread that we didn't know, stuff about mitochondrial DNA, and about masturbation - a true bonus.

[Stewart P Evans]

I guess...

Not by you, Stewart - you're an authority and this nonsense is beneath you! But we mere mortals actually enjoy the nonsense! It's a Ripper discussion forum, and we're - you know - discussing a Ripper-related story!
We all seem to suspect it's baloney, we're just having some fun! Also, many of us have learned things on this thread that we didn't know, stuff about mitochondrial DNA, and about masturbation - a true bonus.

I guess you have a point there.

[Poch]

There we are - classic Casebook: 66 pages in and the ever-reliable Robhouse thankfully posts some actual evidence (an image of the damn thing) that puts to rest page after page of fruitless debate about the Ripper/Eddowes/Simpson being burdened with a supposedly unwieldy 8ft length of heavy fabric. Clearly it was nothing of the kind and could easily be tucked inside a jacket or a large enough pocket. Or indeed, folded for use as a type of shawl. Thank you robhouse.

Tom Wescott - I did try to plug your excellent summation of the shawl earlier in the thread, though I feel your hypothesis of who the shawl might actually have belonged to was a bit of a shot in the dark.

I decided not to download the kindle edition of Naming JtR until/if I read some positive reviews here from people who know more than I do, which is most of you. I am ready to be convinced, if the book can clearly demonstrate:

(a) the fabric does not post-date the murders
(b) it bears at least a passing resemblance to some item Eddowes owned
(c) there is a logical route by which it came into the possession of Simpson
(d) the fabric definitely has blood and/or semen on it
(e) the methods used to extract and develop the genetic material are not insanely controversial
(f) the results give a degree of individual identificational certainty greater than 1 in 40,000 or 400,000 or whatever it is
(g) controls and alternative suspects were tested for
(h) the descendants really are descendants
(i) no anagrams are involved
(j) the evidence is not bolstered by a convenient Victorian pocket watch
(k) fewer than six exclamation marks per page!!
(l) Vincent Van Gogh!!! Dead dogs!!!!! Solved!!!!!!!

Sounds reasonable to me.

I don't know more than you, but I am reading the book, about 3/4 through and I can already answer some of these for you. When I get to the end of the book I'll write a little summary, though it seems most here have made up their own minds already. These answers (trying not to spoiler anything!) are all taking what is said in the book at face value:

a. No it doesn't, sort of proven so far.
b. hmm, not really, but he shows evidence (sorta) that it was there.
c. again, sort of. I actually think he does.
d. It definitely does.
e. no they're not.
f. yes they do.
g. yes control, no other suspects (so far).
h. Not sure, haven't got here yet, but in passing one of them seems to be.
i. No anagrams, one theory made me roll my eyes a little.
j. Not so far at least.
k. I think so!!!
l. It's definitely not that bad lol

[eddie1]

Having had a few days to read through posts on this theory I'm still going to read the book when it arrives but I think I'm moving over to the side of this is rubbish the story of how it wasn't recordered on the list of possessions is dubious to say the least. But what I don't understand is why usually reliable sources like BBC ITV etc are being fooled by this definitely solved stuff ??

[jason_c]

Not by you, Stewart - you're an authority and this nonsense is beneath you! But we mere mortals actually enjoy the nonsense! It's a Ripper discussion forum, and we're - you know - discussing a Ripper-related story!

We all seem to suspect it's baloney, we're just having some fun! Also, many of us have learned things on this thread that we didn't know, stuff about mitochondrial DNA, and about masturbation - a true bonus.

The best post of this entire thread.

We also now know where to buy some Jack the Ripper candy, a Jack the Ripper ballpoint pen and a Jack the Ripper style hat.

[jason_c]

Having had a few days to read through posts on this theory I'm still going to read the book when it arrives but I think I'm moving over to the side of this is rubbish the story of how it wasn't recordered on the list of possessions is dubious to say the least. But what I don't understand is why usually reliable sources like BBC ITV etc are being fooled by this definitely solved stuff ??

These "reliable sources" get fooled by this sort of stuff every few years. It's all a game to get more sales of a book, more clicks of a webpage and more viewers of puff pieces of infotainment.

[Henry Flower]

Poch - an admirable summary so far, thank you!

I intend to read it through the lens of your word, 'sorta'. In fact, let's re-write the publicity blurb using that word to qualify every claim:

Bringing together sorta ground-breaking forensic discoveries - including vital DNA evidence - and gripping historical detective work, Sorta Naming Jack the Ripper constructs the first sorta truly convincing case for sorta identifying the world's most notorious serial killer.

In 2007, businessman Russell Edwards bought a sorta shawl sorta believed to have been left beside the body of the fourth victim, Catherine Eddowes. He knew that, if genuine, the sorta shawl would be the only piece of crime scene evidence still in existence. It was the start of an extraordinary seven-year quest for Russell as he sorta sought to sorta authenticate the sorta shawl and learn its secrets. He had no idea that this journey would take him so far.

After undergoing sorta extensive forensic testing by one of the country's top sorta scientists, the sorta shawl was not only shown to be sorta genuine, and sorta stained with Catherine Eddowes' blood, but in a massive breakthrough the killer's DNA was also sorta discovered - DNA that would sorta allow Russell to finally put a name to Jack the Ripper . . .


About the Sorta Author

Russell Edwards is a sorta businessman and property developer who has long been fascinated by the East End of London and by the crimes of Jack the Ripper. He sorta lives in Hertfordshire.

[Observer]

.

However, the idea of the ripper taking something with him to lie on more comfortably whilst performing his mutilations etc is not without merit.

Hi Tecs.

Lets put what Mr Edwards is claiming regarding the textile into perspective. The cloth existed before he bought it, he's not doing himself any favours with his fanciful claims.

I don't think anyone posting in this thread believes that Kosminski owned the cloth.However certain posters, not you I might add, are taking Mr Edwards story into account when assessing the authenticity of the cloth, this is wrong. The cloth should be judged on it's own merit.

I have no doubt that Jeff is correct in stating that a Mr Aliffe had it checked out at the V&A. What I'd like to know is whether the V&A examined the cloth in the flesh, or via a photograph, it would also be helpful if we had a factory of manufacture. Who examined the cloth? The V&A is respected Worldwide, a second opinion would do no harm though. Is this going to happen? I doubt it. Mr Edwards must be aware that the V&A has looked at the cloth? I'd say he has too much to lose should it be dated by an expert again.

Observer

[Henry Flower]

eddie - I agree with Jason. Usually reliable?

The BBC is now staffed almost entirely by recent graduates obsessed with diversity quotas and climate change.

It hasn't been reliable, or even grown-up, for a long time.

End of rant.

[eddie1]

OK maybe wrong words. But everyone seems to be jumping on this the story is everywhere.