Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[MrBarnett]

Special duties out of Cheshunt nick was probably the anti-poaching squad.:-)

[Stewart P Evans]

Ah...

Oh, no my apologies, I literally just pulled that from the book. It goes into the whole special duty thing for a few pages.

Ah, so, does the book give a source for this information?

[Poch]

Ah, so, does the book give a source for this information?

Unfortunately not, it is information "attached to the family story". He does go into the concept to back his claim, but no solid sources. There are a few moments in the book like this I'm afraid.

[Stewart P Evans]

Problem

It has always been a problem for the 'shawlists' to get Amos Simpson into Mitre square at the right time. Especially as he was a Metropolitan officer, not a City officer, and it was a long way off his area if he was even working that night.

Note - a 'shawlist' is a person who supports this nonsensical theory, or one who has a vested interest in the 'shawl.'

[Patrick S]

If I told you I have a pair of nickers Sharon Tate wore on the night she was killed by the Manson family, and I told you that a policeman on the scene nabbed them and took them home to his wife, and then I further informed you that the wife didn't want them (Imagine!) and these nickers have been passed down from person to person over the years (without washing!), and THEN I asserted that I had been able to extract DNA from them which proves that Manson himself was at the crime scene and took part in the murders...wouldn't you just laugh in my face?

I would....right up until they found Manson's, Tate's, Tex's, Sqeaky, et al's DNA all over the damn thing. Then I would not be so sure.

I think it's a little early to claim this thing is a smoking gun or a total fraud. It's pointless, also, to take google crash-courses in DNA forensics and then postulate why it's all $ullshit. Louhelainen, at this point, does not appear to be a charlatan and has been extensively published in his field (http://publications.ljmu.ac.uk/depar...4/people/1705). Everything can change in the blink of an eye, certainly. I think it's prudent to withhold judgment as to the shawl's authenticity until we see where it all goes from here. If the owner refuses to allow testing by one or more experts not named Louhelainen, then we can say it's likely baloney. If he does, the results may show it's all complete baloney. Or....it validates everthing Louhelainen's tests showed. Then what?

[Stewart P Evans]

Would you like...?

Unfortunately not, it is information "attached to the family story". He does go into the concept to back his claim, but no solid sources. There are a few moments in the book like this I'm afraid.

I haven't even seen this book, and I'm unlikely to do so, but would you like me to make an educated (or informed) guess where he is getting his information from?

[Stewart P Evans]

Interesting

It is interesting to see that some of the sources for this book are a bit vague, and not backed up with anything solid (such as facts).

[Patrick S]

Unfortunately not, it is information "attached to the family story". He does go into the concept to back his claim, but no solid sources. There are a few moments in the book like this I'm afraid.

So it's more of the same story, sourced to the family. Sounds sketchy. Alas, if Eddowes and Kosminski's DNA is on the fabric.....it will become far less sketchy.

[Stewart P Evans]

Oral tradition

'Oral tradition', 'family tales passed down', 'rumour', or whatever else you care to call it doesn't make for a very good source of information.

[Penny_Dredfull]

Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

Ok, maybe the thing about Sharon Tate's undergarments was a bit silly. Just trying to underline the preposterousness of this bloke's claims.
Let's face it, as far as cold cases go, the Jack the Ripper murders are as frozen as arctic tundra. The chances of any new evidence coming to light after all this time is very slim, let alone any forensic/dna evidence from a crime scene. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy discussing and adding to what we know. But it's a bit foolish to treat the subject like a cold case from the 1960's, or even 70's or 80's! A cold case is hard enough to crack as it is- but when all the witnesses are dead, the crime scenes are gone,and very little physical evidence remains and there is no known stored forensic evidence you are going to find it really hard going. You can have suspicions and present a case, but it won't be anything that would hold up in court and secure a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. It may not even be enough to convince a grand jury.

[lynn cates]

independent

Hello Debs. Thanks for adding.

"Unless I have missed something in the book, or got things terribly wrong, the conclusion then would be there was no haplotype match between the shawl DNA and the Kosminski family female descendant...unless anyone knows differently?"

Wonder if there is any chance than an independent scientist will ever see this?

Cheers.
LC

[Poch]

It is interesting to see that some of the sources for this book are a bit vague, and not backed up with anything solid (such as facts).

Yeh, as I was reading the book, there were two big 'hmmmm' moments for me, this being one and the other being his lack of conviction when talking about why the shawl was there in the first place, as he accepts that it didn't belong to eddowes.

Well, there were a few more, but they were less problematic and I've read an awful lot worse!

Essentially I believe his book pivots on the science, if you believe the science then you have to accept the holes in the theory concerning some of the facts (or lack of) around the shawl. The book has a good effort in explaining the science in a believable manner, but I would be the first to admit that I know NOTHING about forensic science or DNA testing. These are the reasons I'm not hooked on his story. I found the read fascinating but the jury is still out for me.

[Debra A]

Hello Debs. Thanks for adding.

"Unless I have missed something in the book, or got things terribly wrong, the conclusion then would be there was no haplotype match between the shawl DNA and the Kosminski family female descendant...unless anyone knows differently?"

Wonder if there is any chance than an independent scientist will ever see this?

Cheers.
LC

I'm more asking than adding, Lynn ... but not getting any answers!
Jon says there are plans to publish a scientific paper.

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Penny. Thanks.

Cheers.
LC

[Stewart P Evans]

No way

I am happy to predict that there is no way on this earth that any scientific test, or anything else for that matter, will ever establish a valid and proven link between this piece of material and Eddowes and Kosminski.