Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Jeff Leahy]

I think a lot of you guys should read the book, I appreciate some of you might be hesitant, you've heard it all before etc. but really an awful lot of this thread is going round in circles with groupthink based on snippets from the preview or tabloid guff. If you don't want to pay for it, go read it in a book shop or something. Currently the 'debate' is often naysaying the book based on assumptions that aren't even in it and an awful lot of your questions are answered to some degree.

I don't think the books watertight by any strecth, but there is debate to be had here, just not the ones you're currently having. Unless you just flat out disagree AND hold a PhD in forensics, you can hardly dismiss this without at least giving it a flick.

Hi Poch and probably wise words.. As always its getting round to read this stuff..

However as has been discussed here, consensual wisdom would appear to have the Shawl as Edwardian rather than Victorian. And if the Shawl were manufactured after the Eddow Murder logic dictates it can't have been connected to the murders..

Does the book answer the question of the 'Shawl' 'Table Clothes' estimated date of creation?

Yours Jeff

[spyglass]

I won't, I am back into my old WWII aviation interest.

Do you know Stewart, I dont think im going to bother now, and like you I have too many other intrests all on the go at the same time.
Feel free to debate the history of RAF Gravesend Battle of Britain period....which is one of them.

Regards

[Stewart P Evans]

Read

Hi Poch and probably wise words.. As always its getting round to read this stuff..
...
Yours Jeff

You can read Jeff?

Sorry, sorry, sorreeee - I didn't really mean that.

[Stewart P Evans]

8th Air Force

Do you know Stewart, I dont think im going to bother now, and like you I have too many other intrests all on the go at the same time.
Feel free to debate the history of RAF Gravesend Battle of Britain period....which is one of them.
Regards

Most WWII aviation areas interest me, but my main interest is the USAAF and particularly the 8th AAF.

[Henry Flower]

The claim is that the 'shawl' proves the identity of Jack the Ripper via DNA. This is not possible in any sense. Think about it.

I agree, but I'm playing a game where hypothetically it IS possible.

Sorry, I'm coming off the back of several months studying the vile murder of Meredith Kercher - a case plagued by controversies over DNA evidence collection and amplification techniques, and loud claims of contamination. Almost every piece of DNA evidence was rejected by Knox and Sollecito's defence team on the basis of contamination. ie - a large amount of Sollecito's DNA was discovered on the clasp of Meredith's bra. Because this bra clasp lay unrecovered on the floor of Kercher's bedroom for over 40 days the defence team claimed it had been contaminated. What they couldn't explain was how:

Conti and Vecchiotti created a DVD from the video footage of the evidence collection and cataloged a series of minor lapses in proper protocol. For example, at one point you see a technician without a hairnet. While that is improper the only risk is that the technician will contaminate the evidence with his own DNA. There is no reason why Sollecito's DNA would be in the hair of a technician from the forensic police. Another example that Conti and Vecchiotti point out is that when the forensic police run out of paper bags they use plastic bags that have a higher risk of destroying DNA. Again while that might be true, destroying DNA leads to the loss of evidence, not the spontaneous creation of suspect DNA. At one point Conti and Vecchiotti are critical of the frequency that the team changes their gloves. According to Conti and Vecchiotti, a forensic technician needs to change gloves every time they touch anything. While latex glove manufacturers might support Conti and Vecchiotti's position we are unable to find any criminal evidence collection manual that shares it. The instruction in the manuals is that technicians are to use discretion when deciding when it is appropriate to change gloves.

If the goal here is to determine if there is any reason to doubt the reliability of Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp, Conti and Vecchiotti fail. None of the lapses they document are possible explanations for Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp. Conti and Vecchiotti's position is made even less defensible when they are asked to explain how contamination might have happened. No one is asking Conti and Vecchiotti to tell the court definitively how contamination happened but since they are raising contamination as a reason to reject the bra clasp they are required to give some explanation of how that would come about. To this question Conti answered only that "anything is possible."

To my mind, just as the magic letters DNA don't render a case necessarily closed, so too, making anything is possible claims about cross-contamination should not necessarily invalidate DNA findings.

In short, while feeling certain we're being taken for mugs yet again, IF a scientist says Eddowes' DNA is on this item, I want to know more. I can't quite dismiss it using the magic word 'contamination'. Contamination can't conjure Eddowes DNA out of thin air.

But does it prove the identity of Jack the Ripper? Of course I agree with you, it cannot.

Not legally, anyway.......

[Poch]

Hi Poch and probably wise words.. As always its getting round to read this stuff..

However as has been discussed here, consensual wisdom would appear to have the Shawl as Edwardian rather than Victorian. And if the Shawl were manufactured after the Eddow Murder logic dictates it can't have been connected to the murders..

Does the book answer the question of the 'Shawl' 'Table Clothes' estimated date of creation?

Yours Jeff

It does to an extent yeh, I don't have the book to hand but they date the ink used in the blue section to being earlier and similar to dye used in the russian region. I don't have the book to hand right now, but they use some big machine, I think.. it was called NMR? something like that. Again, you have to except their science though if you are to believe it.

[Jeff Leahy]

You can read Jeff?

Sorry, sorry, sorreeee - I didn't really mean that.

As you no I'm dyslexic so I prefer to work with a camera and Edit suit. But like many people these days actually getting around to downloading and reading books is…well we have busy lives

I did get to read the new 'Donston' book a few weeks back…not over impressed to be honest…another suspect book claiming the case is solved

But most of my time is spent researching the Stripper murders these days…did you ever meet John Burrows?

Yours jeff

[pinkmoon]

What is going on here with this shawl is like trying to determine wether the signature on my autographed Elvis cd is genuine.

[Stewart P Evans]

Factors

...
In short, while feeling certain we're being taken for mugs yet again, IF a scientist says Eddowes' DNA is on this item, I want to know more. I can't quite dismiss it using the magic word 'contamination'. Contamination can't conjure Eddowes DNA out of thin air.
But does it prove the identity of Jack the Ripper? Of course I agree with you, it cannot.
Not legally, anyway.......

I am aware of the factors involved in cross contamination, it was discussed in the Hanratty case too, but the point was raised here that over the years the DNA of a descendant could have been introduced to the 'shawl' especially given the multitude of times it has been handled over the years. The point was made that an Eddowes descendant handled it at a conference (I wasn't aware of this) and if that person had an open wound on their hand (e.g. a small cut)...

[Stewart P Evans]

Damn...

What is going on here with this shawl is like trying to determine wether the signature on my autographed Elvis cd is genuine.

Damn! I bet you wish you could prove that!

[Stewart P Evans]

I did...

As you no I'm dyslexic so I prefer to work with a camera and Edit suit. But like many people these days actually getting around to downloading and reading books is…well we have busy lives
...
But most of my time is spent researching the Stripper murders these days…did you ever meet John Burrows?
...
Yours jeff

I did say sorry Jeff - sorry. No, I don't know John Burrows.

[lynn cates]

Snopes

Hello Phil. Thanks.

Indeed.

Have you seen this?

http://www.snopes.com/info/news/ripper.asp

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

It does to an extent yeh, I don't have the book to hand but they date the ink used in the blue section to being earlier and similar to dye used in the russian region. I don't have the book to hand right now, but they use some big machine, I think.. it was called NMR? something like that. Again, you have to except their science though if you are to believe it.

Hi Poch

Many thanks for this..and any info you can provide would be gratefully received.

As has been discussed previously, the general concencious when I looked at the Shawl back in 2002 was that it was Edwardian. A number of explanations have been given for this and it may be that I got the wrong origin for that story from Andy Aliffe..but Adan Wood seems to confirm the nucleus of that argument.

If that original dating is proved incorrect then obviously the whole story would be somewhat different and I'm happy to take on any new information or discoveries.. This story after all has proved sensational for business

Yours Jeff

[TizerisT]

Unless specifically invited in by the City police there is no way whatever that Amos could have been within the City without specific permission - particularly if in uniform which would have been recognised.

Post 832 says the book has him on 'special duties' which may explain no uniform, location, and perhaps not being mentioned as being at the scene. Would he even have told the other officers who we was? On special duties, he may not want City police to know what his role actually was.

[pinkmoon]

I am aware of the factors involved in cross contamination, it was discussed in the Hanratty case too, but the point was raised here that over the years the DNA of a descendant could have been introduced to the 'shawl' especially given the multitude of times it has been handled over the years. The point was made that an Eddowes descendant handled it at a conference (I wasn't aware of this) and if that person had an open wound on their hand (e.g. a small cut)...

But before all of this we have to be absolutely certain this is eddowes shawl taken from the murder science we will always keep coming back to this fact untill we can be sure the shawl is the real deal nothing else can be discussed hand on heart and a Druittist for nearly 40 years I would love for this shawl to be genuine but it has to be proved to me and I just can't see how it can be.