Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi All,

No amount of argument or wishful thinking will turn the shawl story into anything other than a farrago of nonsense.

You can't polish a turd.

Regards,

Simon

I seem to recall the scientist stating that this method of dna extraction was his invention and new. This is worth a look clearly its not !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NMSU76VuYA

[Phil Carter]

Hi All,

No amount of argument or wishful thinking will turn the shawl story into anything other than a farrago of nonsense.

You can't polish a turd.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

splutter and guffaw



best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

I seem to recall the scientist stating that this method of dna extraction was his invention and new. This is worth a look clearly its not !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NMSU76VuYA

Hello Trevor,

That is very interesting! Especially the methodology... because I would like to know how the head of the vacuum used is cleaned afterwards?



best wishes

Phil

[Poch]

Phil, whilst you're here, do you mind taking a look at my reply concerning the source of the 'special duties' police, it seems maybe you overlooked? http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...postcount=1229

Thanks.

[Gene Lewis]

Uhhh, I'm quite surprised... That's what I understood as I red your post: but so, this is the end of that shawl story, or new evidences have emerged ?

[Phil Carter]

The Times, Monday 8th September 2014

I KNEW IT!!!! If this blasted shawl thing could not possibly get worse.... I refer you all to THE TIMES newspaper Monday.. which... in it's closing line, when referring to the Metropolitan Police said... and I quote..

"The Metropolitan Police said that it's "cold case" team would be informed of the claims."
unquote


So now we know. The Met Police cold case team are on the job. Excuse me whilst I chuckle into my screen.

Cold case? This case is positively bleedin' frozen!!!!!!

I am really looking forward to seeing the cold case unit looking into a case where tons of papers and even files are missing and appear stolen... by their previous colleagues!


New Tricks, anyone? :-)



best regards


Phil

[Poch]

I seem to recall the scientist stating that this method of dna extraction was his invention and new. This is worth a look clearly its not !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NMSU76VuYA

This is not how its explained. He calls it vacuuming and it uses a pipette. At least there's no in depth mention of this technique being involved.

[Gene Lewis]

Hello Gene. Thanks.

"does Lynn mean that THE shawl thousands of people talk about since the Daily Mail release was not yet existing on September 30, 1888?"

Correct. It was dated by design--much the same way that a Geometric designed krater or amphora can be dated.

Cheers.
LC

SO, end of the story, or new evidences have emerged ?

[Monty]

You resort to namecalling, and I'm the pompous one. Loads of logic in that statement.

And whether you read it or not, I corrected my mistake about the location of graffiti.

I don't need anyone to explain police jurisdiction to me. I work for State Police. The specific area I cover is on a jurisdiction line with City police on one side, County police on the other. Two days ago, we had a shooting on the County side. Within 3 minutes of the shooting, cops from all 3 jurisdictions (city, county, and state) were on scene. How could this be? You and others act as though there is the magical jurisdictional force field that keeps officers from entering into another jurisdiction.

There were murders in two jurisdictions, less than a mile apart on the same night. Evidence from a crime in one jurisdiction was then left in the other jurisdiction. So, to me, it is utterly ridiculous to assume that many officers from both jurisdictions didn't cross paths that night.

I have read several of your books and agree that you are a foremost expert on the JtR subject. However, your expertise and knowledge is based on the KNOWN FACTS of the case. Which officers came into contact with other officers, except where specifically recorded, are NOT KNOWN FACTS. So to say that you are more knowledgeable than me on which officers saw/contacted each other that night is rubbish. That's like saying you're more knowledgeable on what the officer ate for supper that night.

And for the umpteenth time, I agree that this shawl story sounds like it is 'probably' a fantasy/hoax. But no true scholar who is interested in finding the truth would dismiss it outright without further research. And THAT is the problem I have with many of the posters on this thread.

Its a known fact that Simpson was a Police officer in N Division at the time of the murders, a jurisdiction separated by another Division, G Division, from the City police.

That is a known fact.

Anything else is speculation, and flies in the face of the evidence presented to you.

And as you claimed Warren had authority in another district, it is clear that jurisdiction boundaries do need explaining to you.

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Trevor,

Is an M-Vac the same as a J. Edgar Hoover?

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Which source are we using to determine he wasn't listed as being on special duty? I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested. I heard it mentioned last night too and was quite suprised one existed since theres no mention in the book, though obviously we know why he didn't put it if the source exists and he isn't on there lol.

Also, if you buy the books story, the cloth is listed as being there, as I wrote a page or so ago. Not defending the author here or anything, just want to point that out.

Hello Poch,

Sorry Poch, missed you reply.. this thread is going at the speed of light...

Monty supplied the answer in saying, previously, re the special duty list he has does not list Simpson's name. I am sure Monty will expand on this if he can if asked. :-)

As regards the cloth being there or not, I refer you to Frederick Foster's drawing, presented at the inquest, of the body in situ, shown on this thread somewhere back. An 8ft long piece of cloth would have been noticed by said man, especially as he noted every other detail very well.

It is not round the body of Eddowes (lying on her back) and not besides her nor near her. Therefore we have evidence that the shawl was not at the scene of the crime in situ. I am very very very sure that someone would have noticed it whilst the poor woman lay there... 2 doctors and gawd knows how many policemen.

Ipso facto... the claim on the radio interview by Edwards on his website that "Amos Simpson asked for the shawl whilst on the way to the mortuary" is totally impossible. You can't actually recieve something given to you that doesn't actually exist in the first place.


regards

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

Thinking the un-thinkable?

But if blood on the shawl could be matched directly to Cathrine Eddows, isn't it simply more probable that the story contains an element of truth?

After all Aaron Kosinski is not some fringe suspect. We are talking the leading contender.. The man who is most probably the one Anderson said about

' Undiscovered crimes in London are rare and the Jack the Ripper murders are NOT within that category'

and then we have the leading detective writing... 'Kosminski was the suspect'.

If they get a direct match from Eddows with blood on the shawl exhume Aron Kosminski and get a direct match…all the arguments can be forgotten

At last we can all pack up our bags and go home!

Thats gonna upset a lot of people.. Not good for book sales

Yours Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

You resort to namecalling, and I'm the pompous one. Loads of logic in that statement.

And whether you read it or not, I corrected my mistake about the location of graffiti.

I don't need anyone to explain police jurisdiction to me. I work for State Police. The specific area I cover is on a jurisdiction line with City police on one side, County police on the other. Two days ago, we had a shooting on the County side. Within 3 minutes of the shooting, cops from all 3 jurisdictions (city, county, and state) were on scene. How could this be? You and others act as though there is the magical jurisdictional force field that keeps officers from entering into another jurisdiction.

There were murders in two jurisdictions, less than a mile apart on the same night. Evidence from a crime in one jurisdiction was then left in the other jurisdiction. So, to me, it is utterly ridiculous to assume that many officers from both jurisdictions didn't cross paths that night.

I have read several of your books and agree that you are a foremost expert on the JtR subject. However, your expertise and knowledge is based on the KNOWN FACTS of the case. Which officers came into contact with other officers, except where specifically recorded, are NOT KNOWN FACTS. So to say that you are more knowledgeable than me on which officers saw/contacted each other that night is rubbish. That's like saying you're more knowledgeable on what the officer ate for supper that night.

And for the umpteenth time, I agree that this shawl story sounds like it is 'probably' a fantasy/hoax. But no true scholar who is interested in finding the truth would dismiss it outright without further research. And THAT is the problem I have with many of the posters on this thread.

Hi
An interesting post. However we shouldn't forget that Simpson was a Met officer, and we know that the Met had a murder in their district not one hour before the murder of Eddowes in another district close by.

So is it wrong to assume that the Met officers would have been otherwise engaged in assisting with the met murder rather than be wandering around another police district without any purpose ?

[Poch]

Hello Poch,

Sorry Poch, missed you reply.. this thread is going at the speed of light...

Monty supplied the answer in saying, previously, re the special duty list he has does not list Simpson's name.

As regards the cloth being there or not, I refer you to Frederick Foster's drawing, presented at the inquest, of the body in situ, shown on this thread somewhere back. An 8ft long piece of cloth would have been noticed by said man, especially as he noted every other detail very well.

It is not round the body of Eddowes (lying on her back) and not besides her nor near her. Therefore we have evidence that the shawl was not at the scene of the crime in situ. I am very very very sure that someone would have noticed it whilst the poor woman lay there... 2 doctors and gawd knows how many policemen.

Ipso facto... the claim on the radio interview by Edwards on his website that "Amos Simpson asked for the shawl whilst on the way to the mortuary" is totally impossible. You can't ask for something that doesn't exist.


regards

Phil

Thanks Phil, I thought that might be the case, half way down one page and a new page springs up!

Pretty telling that it's not in the book if he isn't listed as being on special duties. I find it hard to believe you wouldn't read the list if you were seriously researching this guy who was a linchpin in your theory.

[TizerisT]

Phil, do you not think that it may have been further away from the body? As I alluded to in the other post, the killer may have thrown it somewhere feet, maybe yards from the body. As a result = not admissable in any way, even if blood spatters were even noticed, which they may not have been. Poor lighting and all that?