Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[GUT]

I agree with all statements, re most credible suspect is someone named Kosminski, but would still prefer to have additional expert opinions re DNA and Shawl dating and blood and semen samples, not Ripperologists, no offence to those on the boards, a fully referenced and Journaled article connected to an institution of Higher Learning, not amateur detective work and gut feelings of armchair researchers.

G'day Wolfie

And good luck with getting that!

[Stewart P Evans]

Immediate pursuit...

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brows...-689#highlight
A City PC giving chase to a villain in Lolesworth Street, Spitalfields - surely not. Perhaps the fact the perps lived in Spitalfields but were notorious around Billingsgate in the City had something to do with it.
MrB

Immediate pursuit is a different matter.

[lynn cates]

provenance

Hello Poch.

"you can hardly dismiss this without at least giving it a flick."

Sure one can--until a serious provenance of the table runner is provided.

Cheers.
LC

[Poch]

While everything you say makes some sense and is well put across , the one thing I would point out if I am correct is...

There is no proof that it is Kominskys DNA , just one in forty thousand.
If I have got this fact wrong please enlighten me.

99.2% / 100% match of Kosminski apparently.

The numbers quoted int he book, which I think you're referring to are of Eddowes DNA. Proportionally, 12 people in london in 1888 would have that match, her ancestor whose DNA they matched it with would have matched with 25 people in London today. The actual figures are not 1/40,000, or even 1/400,000 which have now both been bandied about in this thread, but actually 226/63,750,000. All figures from the book.

[MrBarnett]

Immediate pursuit is a different matter.

Indeed, but doesn't seem to be the case here.

MrB

[Amanda Sumner]

G'day Amanda

I see so you're another one that wants to let facts get in the way of a story, oh dear!

Sorry, Gut, but I say it as it is.
I like stories too, and as a work of fiction this book might do very well, but factual it is not.

Amanda

[Amanda Sumner]

Yes, I know what it is, but what I asked is where did you get the picture you posted from?

Oh, sorry. I found it on the internet under the work of Frederick Foster and uploaded it onto here.

Amanda

[GUT]

99.2% / 100% match of Kosminski apparently.

The numbers quoted int he book, which I think you're referring to are of Eddowes DNA. Proportionally, 12 people in london in 1888 would have that match, her ancestor whose DNA they matched it with would have matched with 25 people in London today. The actual figures are not 1/40,000, or even 1/400,000 which have now both been bandied about in this thread, but actually 226/63,750,000. All figures from the book.

So with Kosminski 8 in a 1000, or 8,000 in a million or 80,000 in ten million or 360,000 in 40 million other possible matches.

Yep that seals it for moi.

[GUT]

Sorry, Gut, but I say it as it is.
I like stories too, and as a work of fiction this book might do very well, but factual it is not.

Amanda

Just joking Amanda so many ripper books would make great fiction.

[Stewart P Evans]

Surely...

Indeed, but doesn't seem to be the case here.
MrB

Surely he was in the company of a Metropolitan officer (H Divn) and they were watching, and pursuing, offenders. How can this compare with covert surveillance by a group of Metropolitan officers deep in the City?

And, you may have noticed in another post, Metropolitan Police Orders listed all officers on special duties or working other divisions. We have all the Police Orders for the period and Amos Simpson does not appear on them.

[Stewart P Evans]

Dna

So with Kosminski 8 in a 1000, or 8,000 in a million or 80,000 in ten million or 360,000 in 40 million other possible matches.
Yep that seals it for moi.

Well, case solved, you can go then.

What was stated during the Cornwell DNA tests was that mitochondrial DNA could not be tied into an individual. It would match up with around 400,000 of the population and was not accurate enough for her purposes. Do we have something different here?

[Observer]

Thank you Mr Evans.
It is a copy of the original drawing that Frederick Foster drew of Eddowes as she was found before she was taken away to the mortuary. As everyone can see, she had no shawl. No shawl was found among her belongs, neither was a shawl reported as being in the vicinity.

Regards,

Amanda

What if it was taken before the artist executed his sketch?

[Stewart P Evans]

Wondered

Oh, sorry. I found it on the internet under the work of Frederick Foster and uploaded it onto here.
Amanda

I merely wondered as I took the photograph and you hadn't sourced it. No need to apologise.

[GUT]

Well, case solved, you can go then.

What was stated during the Cornwell DNA tests was that mitochondrial DNA could not be tied into an individual. It would match up with around 400,000 of the population and was not accurate enough for her purposes. Do we have something different here?

Looks pretty much the same to me Cornwell said 400,000 99.2% equals 360,000 in 40 million, pretty close.

So why would anyone accept it?

In case it wasn't obvious

Yep that seals it for moi.

Was sarcasm.

[GUT]

What if it was taken before the artist executed his sketch?

By someone who there is no record of having been present, who is alleged to have said that he took it on the way to the mortuary?