Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Robert]

Looking forward to the Official William Rufus Shop.

[tji]

Regarding Dr. Louhelainen: He did not make a mistake. The idea that anyone without a Ph.D in genetics can second guess him doesn’t merit discussion. My oldest daughter spent a number of years earning her PhD in Biogenetics from MIT, and even she won’t second guess Dr. Louhelainen because she understands her limitations due lack of experience in forensic genetics. She does, however, believe the shawl likely belonged to Eddowes based on what she has read and her faith in an outstanding fellow geneticist.

I am being completely sincere when I say that your daughter is obviously bright intelligent person given her qualification's, but just because she has limitation's in her life, doesn't mean everyone should, I don't.
I will be honest and accept I am never going to be as intelligent as half the people on here but I am also not going to take the word of someone I don't know either. If I want to check the fact's of something I will do so regardless of the fact they have a doctorate or not.

• The genetic variation is 314.1C and nothing to do with 315…to claim anything different is exactly this: putting words into Dr. Louhelainen’s mouth that are contrary to what he says and then trash talking that he’s wrong!

By saying this is not putting word's into Dr Louhelainen's mouth at all, to be putting word's in his mouth it would have to be saying he was quoted as saying this. I don't believe anyone involved in questioning the finding has trash talked him.

• Just because 314.1C is hard to find online, or wherever, doesn’t mean it’s a mistake…being unable to locate it is sort of like denying the existence of black holes in space because they aren’t visible in the backyard at midnight! It takes an educated expert with the proper equipment and access to information to locate and understand what has been located. Enough said.

Really? As we are too dumb to understand the result's maybe we can go to people who have the knowledge to understand his finding's and ask them......when he show's them the result's.

• 314.1C is such a rare variation that if the ratio today is similar to the ratio in 1888 then only 12 persons in London at that time (statistically) would have belonged to this haplogroup…only 25 today would share. Think about it. THIS SIGNIFICANTLY NARROWS THE FIELD.

Yes it does and if is incorrect IT SIGNIFICANTLY WIDENS THE FIELD.

At the end of the day he put his finding's in a book aimed at the general public, so why are people whinging when the general public ask question's?

Tj

[Chris]

The genetic variation is 314.1C and nothing to do with 315…to claim anything different is exactly this: putting words into Dr. Louhelainen’s mouth that are contrary to what he says and then trash talking that he’s wrong!

Just to put it in a nutshell for you:
(1) 314.1C is simply non-standard nomenclature for 315.1C and
(2) 315.1C is extremely common.

The idea that anyone would need a Ph.D. in genetics to understand either of those propositions is absurd.

Clearly a mistake of some sort has been made.

[Monty]

"Regarding Amos Simpson: No one in 2014, including me, can know for sure where Amos Simpson was (or was not) on the night of Catherine Eddowes’ murder. IMO, Family Legend, hyperbole or not, takes precedence over 2014 ‘guesstimation.’

In 1888 Whitechapel and all of London were living in terror of both JtR and Fenian terrorists. Borders that generally were not crossed most certainly might have been. Remember The USA Patriot Act signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. Sometimes, when emergency takes an upper hand, the rules are no longer The Rules and few people give a d*** or even pay attention at the moment.

Plus, Harry Burton had been lodging at 5 Mitre Square…FYI, this is the Fenian who bombed the Victoria railway station except the ineptly fashioned bomb failed to do damage. Also, he was complicit in bombing attempts at Ludgate, Paddington and Charing Cross stations.

So Amos being there might make absolute sense in the “we’ve got two major and simultaneous emergencies so to h*** with the boundaries” sense. Plus he might have been trailing a suspect. We simply guess. But claiming it couldn’t possibly have happened flies in face of the chaos that is Real Life."

Amos Simpson was an acting sergeant, in uniform, at Cheshunt subdivision. There is no record of him being in plain clothes in 1888, but two notes of special duties for N division that year.

The evidence suggests that if he was on late duty on this evening in 1888, then he was around 30 miles away from Mitre Square.

Monty

[mickreed]

Would someone care to address the consideration that if urine were used to dye the entirety of the wool, being far less likely to be used on silk, but regardless...why only one small spot would fluoresce rather than the entire area of wool? Or the entire area of silk? Or the entire shawl?

The Art and Craft of Natural Dyeing: Traditional Recipes for Modern Use by J.N. Liles. Copyright © 1990 by The University of Tennessee Press

Possibly because someone tried to clean the spot with bleach. The previous owner thought this was done in places, and apparently bleach fluoresces like semen.

[mickreed]

For heavens sake! Read the book before commenting! Stop getting best information 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 397th-hand off the internet and from other posters on this forum. Stop quoting and believing factoids. No one knows what the book says until they’ve read it in its entirety.

Hi Debbie

Well quite a lot of us have read the book. I, for one, have written a review which will be published in October.

As for the ‘shawl aka table runner’: It is not a table runner or a table cloth. Do the research. Dyes on the shawl are organic and date to the early 19th century. Synthetic dyes had not yet been invented. As for style, take a look at this 1815 shawl made in Spitalfields that is featured on Diane Thalmann’s site. Thalmann is an expert in antique textiles. Then compare to the style of the Edwards’ shawl.

Lots of us have done the research. It is NOT certain that the shawl dates to the early-nineteenth century, although it may do. Your expert Thalmann couldn't say much about the shawl - if Edwards quotes her correctly - other than it was not English. And she only saw a photo. From the book, Thalmann says:

I am fairly sure this shawl is early 1800s. However, it is not really familiar to me, and not English. ... The quality of silk, as far as I can see, is typical of silk circa 1810 to 1830, but more I can’t say.’

... an early 19th century shawl likely (according to Thalmann and several other authorities) of Russian or Polish origin

Who says it's Russian? Not Thalmann, she doesn't know, and I don't know who, apart from Edwards says it is. Edwards asked her if it could be Polish or Russian. Her reply:

I honestly can’t say, but it is possible. I don’t usually have a problem identifying shawls from Western Europe, but this is a bit of a mystery to me – yes, it could be either.

As for the claim that the shawl was washed and/or ironed many times between now and then thus destroying the DNA…no, no, no, it could not have been!!!

Who says this?

Edwards’s theory about the dates of Jack’s murders corresponds with Michaelmas, but the scientific authenticity of the shawl is a separate issue from Edwards’ timeline extrapolations.

Edwards doesn't know much about Michaelmas.

Regarding Dr. Louhelainen: He did not make a mistake. The idea that anyone without a Ph.D in genetics can second guess him doesn’t merit discussion.

You don't know that, any more than you know the academic qualifications of people who make up this forum.

it’s a profession where everything is checked and rechecked and rerechecked.

The problem is that in this case, when it was done in someone's spare time, we simply do not know what process was followed.

the Scotland Yard Training Museum. Clearly they believe their own story. Clearly the Black Museum personnel believe Kosminski to be the Ripper.

The police clearly felt certain that Timothy Evans was guilty. That the Guildford four were guilty. It didn't make it true. And in any event, nobody had ever heard of Aaron Kosminski until 30 years ago.

• As for the shawl itself, it shows stains consistent with medium velocity arterial spray.

• Medium velocity arterial spray means the victim is being beaten or slashed.

It's not even certain it's blood, let alone human blood.

Please remember this is his area of expertise. He is one of the few in the world

That might be wishful thinking. NB. I don't doubt his overall competence.

The shawl shows evidence consistent with intestinal spillage from an internal source, what is termed ‘body splitting.’

Again we don't really know this. Edwards says it but that's not enough.

The shawl shows POSSIBLE evidence consistent with kidney MtDNA

According to the book, all we have is a cell that 'looks like a kidney cell.

Examination of the shawl involved far more methods of study than merely sucking out a sample and running it through analysis

And the 'semen analysis' was very inconclusive. See below. The analysis of the dye merely reminded Ismail of some he'd seen from Russia.

314.1C is such a rare variation that if the ratio today is similar to the ratio in 1888 then only 12 persons in London at that time (statistically) would have belonged to this haplogroup…only 25 today would share. Think about it. THIS SIGNIFICANTLY NARROWS THE FIELD.

If this stacks up, then it may be significant. At present it's not clear whether it does stack up.

Stain fluoresced as consistent with semen when examined by Dr. Louhelainen who then outsourced the research to Dr. David Miller who is the ‘sperm head’ expert of the UK?!?! Evidence was consistent with it containing epithelial cells consistent with ejaculation.

And according to Miller, with almost any other bodily fluid, including as someone said earlier, urine.

The haplogroup belonging to the non-Eddowes donor is common to Eastern European Jews…there were lots of Eastern European Jews in East London in 1888. The pogroms had begun, and smart people were fleeing elsewhere, anywhere.

No it's not. T1a1 is not common amongst Ashkenazi Jews. Well under 5%. So as Ann Turner, a leading genetic genealogist says, unless there's a subclade that nobody has mentioned, this bit is wrong

Just because Edwards is a making a killing on book sales, is a blowhard and loose with his conclusions doesn’t make him wrong.

No it doesn't, but unless we get some proper evidence, and that can only come from the scientists, unmediated through your 'blowhard' Edwards, then there is no real reason to believe the arguments being put forward, simply because it is mediated through a layman, possibly with an axe to grind, and the details were have of the process, controls etc, is virtually non-existant.

Regarding Catherine Eddowes and the shawl: The MtDNA variation is so rare that the statistical likelihood of it not belonging to ‘Somebody’ Eddowes is staggeringly improbable. The statistical likelihood of Dr. Louhelainen making a stupid mistake or being bought off is entirely improbable.

We shall see.

Regarding Amos Simpson: No one in 2014, including me, can know for sure where Amos Simpson was (or was not) on the night of Catherine Eddowes’ murder. IMO, Family Legend, hyperbole or not, takes precedence over 2014 ‘guesstimation.’

Some people have a pretty good idea where he was likely to be. 'Guessimation' doesn't come into it.

In 1888 Whitechapel and all of London were living in terror of both JtR and Fenian terrorists.

Jack yes, Fenians - probably not.

And now Debbie, I've run out of puff.

[debbiediablo]

Would someone care to address the consideration that if urine were used to dye the entirety of the wool, being far less likely to be used on silk, but regardless...why only one small spot would fluoresce rather than the entire area of wool? Or the entire area of silk? Or the entire shawl?

The Art and Craft of Natural Dyeing: Traditional Recipes for Modern Use by J.N. Liles. Copyright © 1990 by The University of Tennessee Press

[John G]

Hello John.

"I think this thread is starting to fry my brain!"

Don't let it. Just read Jason's post. Skip the other 4000+--including mine.

Cheers.
LC

I'm beginning to think this excellent advice! Thanks Lynn, although I feel a bit better after having had a lie down!

[John G]

We must be using different calculators John. Based on figures I've seen, I made the odds a mere 99,000 to 1 against.

Hi Mick,

Damn! I think you might be right! Wait, just a minute, now I get it to 99,000 and a half- surely that's wrong!

[debbiediablo]

In Response to Absolutely Everyone!!!

For heavens sake! Read the book before commenting! Stop getting best information 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 397th-hand off the internet and from other posters on this forum. Stop quoting and believing factoids. No one knows what the book says until they’ve read it in its entirety.

First off: Here is Dr. Louhelainen’s online Vita for those who actually want facts (I can cut and paste Louhelainen so I don’t have to call him Dr. Jari…)

http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/PBS/116512.htm

Note: The above is from Liverpool John Moores University not from Russell Edwards. Dr. Louhelainen was formerly at Oxford. For those of you who don’t care to read or lack the time, here it is short and easy:

Dr. Jari Louhelainen is a Senior Lecturer in Molecular Biology at Liverpool John Moores University in the UK, as well as Associate Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Helsinki. He has two major lines of research at Liverpool: mammalian/medical genetics, working with their sports science department of the university; and forensics, working with the forensics department. In his resume on the Liverpool John Moores University website, his expertise in the forensic area includes ‘determination of age of forensic samples’, ‘new methods for forensic imaging applications of Next Generation sequencing for forensics’ and ‘human identification using novel genetic methods’.

Second: THIS BOOK IS NOT FICTION no matter what Amazon might say! Here is the correct NON-FICTION bibliographic information:
Title: Naming Jack the Ripper
Author: Russell Edwards
Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014
ISBN: 1493014072, 9781493014071
Length: 336 pages
Subjects:
History›Europe›Great Britain
History / Europe / Great Britain
History / Modern / 19th Century
True Crime / Murder / Serial Killers

As for the ‘shawl aka table runner’: It is not a table runner or a table cloth. Do the research. Dyes on the shawl are organic and date to the early 19th century. Synthetic dyes had not yet been invented. As for style, take a look at this 1815 shawl made in Spitalfields that is featured on Diane Thalmann’s site. Thalmann is an expert in antique textiles. Then compare to the style of the Edwards’ shawl.

http://www.antique-textiles.net/shaw...ds_floral.html

They are exactly the same style-wise. Not a table runner and not a table cloth but rather an early 19th century shawl likely (according to Thalmann and several other authorities) of Russian or Polish origin. Congress Poland was part of Russia at the time Kosminski lived there and at the time a lot of East End Jews lived there. Congress Poland established 1815 or 1867, depending on how one looks at it, until 1915.

As for the claim that the shawl was washed and/or ironed many times between now and then thus destroying the DNA…no, no, no, it could not have been!!! Organic dyes leach when washed. The design would be nothing but mottled colors had it been washed even once. Shawls of that era were brushed and aired, not laundered in water.

As for the Michaelmas daisies: The ‘other’ name for Michaelmas daisies is ‘asters’ and they come in many types. Edwards’s theory about the dates of Jack’s murders corresponds with Michaelmas, but the scientific authenticity of the shawl is a separate issue from Edwards’ timeline extrapolations. Then again, maybe the flowers on the shawl are an artisan’s rendition of Michaelmas daisies…it’s impossible to determine without seeing the shawl firsthand and maybe not even then. The flowers are seriously abstract no matter what genus.

Regarding Dr. Louhelainen: He did not make a mistake. The idea that anyone without a Ph.D in genetics can second guess him doesn’t merit discussion. My oldest daughter spent a number of years earning her PhD in Biogenetics from MIT, and even she won’t second guess Dr. Louhelainen because she understands her limitations due lack of experience in forensic genetics. She does, however, believe the shawl likely belonged to Eddowes based on what she has read and her faith in an outstanding fellow geneticist.

She also does not see Dr. Louhelainen as anything other than stellar in his fields of research and certainly not ‘for sale’ or prone to ‘stupid mistakes.’ DNA research does not allow for mistakes…it’s a profession where everything is checked and rechecked and rerechecked. No matter about JtR, lives depend on absolute accuracy in the laboratory.

Regarding book content: Here is what the Edwards’ book actually says, just so everyone can operate from the same fund of correct information:

• The shawl is Family Legend in the Amos Simpson family…some of which is hyperbole.

• Acting Sergeant Simpson was not ‘first on the scene’ no matter what he may have told his family or how this may have become exaggerated over time…however the family never claimed he was on ‘Ripper duty’ but rather that he was looking for Fenian terrorists.

• For sure, the Simpson family held the shawl for over 100 years before selling it; in the meantime they placed it on loan to the Black Museum which is really the Scotland Yard Training Museum. Clearly they believe their own story. Clearly the Black Museum personnel believe Kosminski to be the Ripper. Too many people other than Edwards document a similar ‘revelatory experience’ there.

• The idea that the shawl could not have been at the murder scene assumes that Victorian police used protocol similar to CSI or even DragNet. The Ripper victims’ clothing would’ve been burned anyway, so why not take it home if it were salvageable? The East End was rife with abject poverty. Even a chip of mirror or a comb was valuable, much less silk and wool. A better question is a curiosity driven how-why could it have gotten there? (I don’t agree with Edwards’ theory on this…And why would Amos Simpson think his wife would want a Ripper relic...

• As for the shawl itself, it shows stains consistent with medium velocity arterial spray.

• Medium velocity arterial spray means the victim is being beaten or slashed.

• The pattern is not consistent with being ‘dripped on’ or ‘rubbed in’ or any other unnatural means.

• This is Dr. Louhelainen’s exact quote regarding the shawl: “This would be very difficult to forge.” Please remember this is his area of expertise. He is one of the few in the world.

• The shawl shows evidence consistent with intestinal spillage from an internal source, what is termed ‘body splitting.’

• The shawl shows POSSIBLE evidence consistent with kidney MtDNA… Dr. Louhelainen had not yet examined this MtDNA at the time of publication and (my opinion here) this may be what’s holding up a paper on the findings. He needs to determine yay or nay on the kidney and then spend a few years composing.

• Dr. Louhelainen worked at no fee. His only caveat was to retain the rights to writing a paper should there be results of interest.

• Examination of the shawl involved far more methods of study than merely sucking out a sample and running it through analysis…to fully understand the many methods that were used one must actually READ the book with an open mind, not with the idea to prove or disprove one’s favorite suspect.

• The ‘older’ MtDNA from the shawl was a 100% match to Eddowes’ kin. DNA amplifies more slowly as it ages.

• The genetic variation is 314.1C and nothing to do with 315…to claim anything different is exactly this: putting words into Dr. Louhelainen’s mouth that are contrary to what he says and then trash talking that he’s wrong!

• Just because 314.1C is hard to find online, or wherever, doesn’t mean it’s a mistake…being unable to locate it is sort of like denying the existence of black holes in space because they aren’t visible in the backyard at midnight! It takes an educated expert with the proper equipment and access to information to locate and understand what has been located. Enough said.

• 314.1C is such a rare variation that if the ratio today is similar to the ratio in 1888 then only 12 persons in London at that time (statistically) would have belonged to this haplogroup…only 25 today would share. Think about it. THIS SIGNIFICANTLY NARROWS THE FIELD.

• Here is Dr. Louhelainen’s exact quote regarding the shawl: “Hence the analysis strongly suggests that the shawl could contain the DNA of the Jack the Ripper victim Catherine Eddowes.” This will never be absolute until better methods exist, or perhaps never. Note that he does not make any statement with regard to Kosminksi being the Ripper. That conclusion is drawn by Edwards. However….

• Stain fluoresced as consistent with semen when examined by Dr. Louhelainen who then outsourced the research to Dr. David Miller who is the ‘sperm head’ expert of the UK?!?! Evidence was consistent with it containing epithelial cells consistent with ejaculation.

• The haplogroup belonging to the non-Eddowes donor is common to Eastern European Jews…there were lots of Eastern European Jews in East London in 1888. The pogroms had begun, and smart people were fleeing elsewhere, anywhere.

• This MtDNA Jew had acne. According to Ressler and Douglas (The Cases That Haunt Us) the likelihood is high that the Ripper has some form of physical unattractiveness. His childhood and young adult years would be similar to Kosminski’s…but also similar to a lot of other displaced Jews who were escaping Russia and Poland, but only if they had acne.

• Again according to Ressler and Dougles, the Ripper would have a disorganized personality similar to, but not limited to, someone with paranoid schizophrenia. For sure, eating from the gutter to avoid being poisoned is paranoia.

• The idea that Jack the Ripper’s great-great-great grandchild is going to step up and be publicly identified is debatable. Were it me, I would not want my name plastered all over the news. Not now!! Not ever!!!

• However, as per earlier, Dr. Louhelainen is not for sale. Until someone PROVES he is or has been before, then that discussion holds no merit. Claiming that the present-day DNA donor really isn’t Kosminksi’s kin is yet another red herring…something for conspiracy theorists and those who want to disbelieve without careful consideration.

• Old MtDNA amplifies more slowly than recently deposited MtDNA so it IS possible to separate last year from last decade from last century. The process is not like carbon dating but it’s far more accurate than often thought and far more misunderstood. Forensic imaging applications is a cutting edge field of research and expertise for Dr. Louhelainen that’s likely beyond Google verification or layperson understanding.

Here’s my takeaway from all this:

Regarding the research: Russell Edwards doesn’t float my boat, but Dr. Louhelainen totally cruises my yacht.

Regarding the shawl: It’s really a shawl, not something for the table, and dates back to 1810-1830. Never washed.

Regarding the book: It IS non-fiction no matter what Amazon or anyone else may say.

Just because Edwards is a making a killing on book sales, is a blowhard and loose with his conclusions doesn’t make him wrong. Solving the Ripper case would ruin a lot of things for a lot of people including the East End Ripper Trade, this site, a lot of future publications and the discounted opinions of thousands of people interested in the case. So it might be reasonable to surmise that most of the aforementioned don’t want it solved unless, of course, their favorite suspect turns out to be guilty. Then they can write their own book and make a their own financial killing.

Regarding Aaron Kosminski: Robert House in Jack the Ripper and the Case For Scotland Yard’s Prime Suspect makes a well-researched, carefully stated, thoughtful and properly cited case against Kosminski. Many of his facts agree with Edwards’ overly chatty approach. Ressler and Douglas also see Kosminski as a possible suspect, to quote again The Cases That Haunt Us, “Aaron Kosminski or someone like him,” which later flip-flops to, “David Cohen or someone like him,” following Fido’s publication.

IMO, Aaron Kosminski makes a strong suspect but certainly NOT THE ONLY suspect. Edwards rushes to judgment on Kosminski, however someone with Eastern European Jewish MtDNA carelessly or purposefully got ‘something’ that fluoresces as semen and identifies as epithelial MtDNA consistent with ejaculation on this shawl. You know what they say: "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…."

Regarding Catherine Eddowes and the shawl: The MtDNA variation is so rare that the statistical likelihood of it not belonging to ‘Somebody’ Eddowes is staggeringly improbable. The statistical likelihood of Dr. Louhelainen making a stupid mistake or being bought off is entirely improbable.

Entertaining the concept that another Eddowes’ family member - not Catherine - deposited stains on the shawl that fluoresce consistent with blood splatter of medium velocity arterial spray typical of beating or slashing along with other stain that fluoresces consistent with intestinal spillage aka ‘body splitting’ along with a stain that fluoresces as POSSIBLE kidney MtDNA is statistically beyond any belief.

Either this, or the Eddowes women have incredibly bad luck when it comes to being slashed and carved up via the abdominal cavity.

Which begs the questions: Exactly which OTHER Eddowes family member volunteered to be slashed for this little charade? Just how did this shawl come down through generations with a story to match the MtDNA evidence over 100 years later? Or, for those who scream that it has no provenance, exactly where might it have come from given the scientific facts?

And please understand the difference between Dr. Louhelainen’s findings of fact and Russell Edwards’ conclusions from these facts. Such are not the same. The fact that Dr. Louhelainen hedges only a bit is still fact, just not absolute fact. Scientists are like this…

Regarding Amos Simpson: No one in 2014, including me, can know for sure where Amos Simpson was (or was not) on the night of Catherine Eddowes’ murder. IMO, Family Legend, hyperbole or not, takes precedence over 2014 ‘guesstimation.’

In 1888 Whitechapel and all of London were living in terror of both JtR and Fenian terrorists. Borders that generally were not crossed most certainly might have been. Remember The USA Patriot Act signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. Sometimes, when emergency takes an upper hand, the rules are no longer The Rules and few people give a d*** or even pay attention at the moment.

Plus, Harry Burton had been lodging at 5 Mitre Square…FYI, this is the Fenian who bombed the Victoria railway station except the ineptly fashioned bomb failed to do damage. Also, he was complicit in bombing attempts at Ludgate, Paddington and Charing Cross stations.

So Amos being there might make absolute sense in the “we’ve got two major and simultaneous emergencies so to h*** with the boundaries” sense. Plus he might have been trailing a suspect. We simply guess. But claiming it couldn’t possibly have happened flies in face of the chaos that is Real Life.

Regarding the provenance: Provenance means nothing when science can prove beyond reasonable doubt that a theory is fact. IMO, Dr. Jari Louhelainen proves beyond reasonable doubt that the MtDNA on the shawl belonged to Catherine Eddowes or one of her relatives not of recent birth. Except I have no clue which one of these ancestral Eddowes volunteered for the slashing or beating to fake a shawl investigation multiple decades later, that is if the donor wasn't poor Kate!?!??!

Edwards has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that Kosminski is JtR, but Aaron moves high on my list when taken together with Robert House’s research and the Ressler and Douglas profiling. Any other suspects fitting a profile similar to Kosminski also rise to the top, but they must be an MtDNA match. Which seriously limits the field. How revealing if ALL the kin of major Ripper suspects were to be tested against the unidentified second MtDNA on the shawl.

My Opinion: JtR dressed as woman. He wasn’t Jill the Ripper, just a lookalike. The shawl is a product of Poland or Russia and belonged to a female in the Kosminksi family or another East End Jewish family. Ressler and Douglas make it clear that the murders were not the result of choosing a woman and then stalking her, waiting for the perfect moment to attack a pre-selected victim. The perpetrator was a far too disorganized personality. They use the term 'paranoid schizophrenia.'

Jack walked the streets waiting for the moment when a lone woman, most likely a prostitute (who else was out and about in wee hours of the morning in Whitechapel?) to be alone in a spot secluded enough to kill her quickly, silently and without witnesses. ALL the women in Whitechapel were on alert, but not on alert for another woman with her face disguised by a shawl. They were looking for doctor-types with medical bags and guys with pointy hats. Note: Kosminski, for one, was small enough to pass as a tall woman in 1888.

Conjecture: ‘Approach gently. She suspects nothing. Speak softly. Once in position behind her, cast away the shawl. All hell will break loose at if it doesn’t come home unstained. It’s kept in special place and no one has yet missed it. Then choke the consciousness out of this b****. Slash her throat. Then set about rendering her beyond woman. Beyond human. To satisfy that curious lust as to what the hated yet desired female is all about. Outside...and in.

‘Finish carving quickly. Take the trophies to examine and maybe consume later – to keep her forever. Maybe ejaculate but never on or in the woman. Or maybe go home for that business. An 'oops' spoil everything! Wipe hands on victim’s clothing, hide knife and hide behind the shawl once more.

'No one ever gives attention to an ‘unfortunate’ on her way to Nowhere in the early morning hours. Such are the dregs of society, beyond noticing much less being spoken to. Even passing within yards of a policeman gathers no interest in night shadows. This disguise is perfect.

‘Until the shawl is left behind in the hurry to flee or because of accidental blood stains. Then someone at home, probably Mother or Sister, starts to put 2 and 2 together. These women are confusing. They love but they also hurt. And hate. They’ve been fearful and walked on eggshells for some time, probably since late adolescence, and now they think they know. Thus they are terrified and hateful. But still loving. And still hurtful.

‘After Mary Kelly is butchered, the police come knocking. This confirms everyone’s worst fears. The police know. They set watch on the front and back doors. Day and night, night and day. It’s all too, too much. Staying inside fuels the rage. Havind no release fuels the The Rage. Ultimately, the rage breaks the family.

‘In the end, these Mothers or Sisters and the men they control do the only possible thing they can do. Lock up the problem to keep him safe and everyone else safe. Especially the real targets of his hatred.

‘Death by hanging is brief. Death by institution can take 40 years.’

Above is what I believe. For the present. I'm incredibly flexible in my thinking....

For All You Conspiracy Theorists: This is my first and possibly my last post. I’ve read this site on and off for years but only joined when I really, really wanted to say something. I’m a Total Nobody. I only mention this because sometimes people get a little overwrought and accusing when a member posts for the first time. Especially given the controversy over this book.

With regard to errata: I can assure you that Dr. Louhelainen is far too busy to read these threads, and Russell Edwards is far too egocentric not to identify himself. Nor am I an apologist for anyone, including myself…except for the part about typos that may be confusing.

Regarding the typos: "Sorry about that." – Maxwell Smart

Yep..I am OLD!!! I've been a Jack lover for almost 42 years.

– Debbie

[RockySullivan]

I'll buy the next book..."how to be the biggest douchebag in the world" when it comes out on kindle

[mickreed]

Not sure if he is delusional, naive or the world's greatest salesman.

Delusional? Isn't that what they said about Kosminski? And look what happened to him?

Naïve? I used to think so, but now I am coming to the viewpoint that he is intellectually dishonest - unless he is indeed delusional. Mabuse may know more about such clinical conditions than I do.

I mean, can you really believe and say these things with that degree of certainty, based on the very thin evidence as presented in his book, and really be sincere?

At least Cornwell didn't go round scrounging freebies.

[wolfie1]

Yeah, Wolfie, I saw this. He certainly has chutzpah. It's amazing what a bit of self-belief, and not much else, can achieve.

Not sure if he is delusional, naive or the world's greatest salesman.

[mickreed]

And this.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0266szr

Yeah, Wolfie, I saw this. He certainly has chutzpah. It's amazing what a bit of self-belief, and not much else, can achieve.

[wolfie1]

Oh, my Gawd. It may have gone to his head.

[Edwards] said: “They say ‘we don’t believe you’, which is fair enough, but they haven’t read the book, they haven’t seen the science.” Mr Edwards also dismissed the title of “amateur” detective and said that he and his forensic team were now looking for new unsolved cases to crack.

He said: “I started as an amateur, but I am far more experienced now than most people. There are unsolved murders out there and families of murder victims, and it is these kinds of people who I am keen to help.”

http://www.barnet-today.co.uk/news.cfm?id=7694

And this.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0266szr