Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Outlaw]

Hi Pontius2000,

Pursue every single lead to its end, no matter how ridiculous.

That's exactly what the LVP cops did with "Dear Boss," and all they achieved in their haste to take it seriously was the creation of the biggest mass panic the world had ever known.

Cautious minds should have prevailed.

Regards,

Simon

I believe the same levels of hysteria were reached when the police believed 100% the 'I'm jack' tape recording in the 'other' Ripper investigation. Apologies if off-topic, but it is applicable as it shows how complete red herrings can take the focus of both the police and the public away from what may be a genuine lead. And also steer an investigation in completely the wrong direction.

Apologies if anyone has already seen and discussed this, but Russell Edwards is mentioned in this transcript when he first had the shawl analysed using DNA. He was convinced then that the Ripper was Frederick Deeming, but the DNA result of that testing was 'Nothing Conclusive was Discovered'

So is this the second time that he has had the Shawl tested?

http://amara.org/en/subtitles/JgkkKv...Suspect.en.txt

[pinkmoon]

Do you not realize that this is no new debate.

The shawl has been debated many times over the years and it was going on at length back in 2006. No one has 'jumped to a conclusion', they reached their conclusions on this nonsense years ago - only to see it re-cycled now. Check out the Parlours' 1997 book and you will see most of Edwards' claims re- Simpson being made there. He has used the same material and that was twenty years ago!

The only 'new' aspect appears to be 'new' DNA methodology which has, as we have seen, been seriously questioned already.

Evening Stewart,unless Mr Edwards has an ace up his sleeve this whole thing is just going to collapse very soon.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Pontius2000,

Pursue every single lead to its end, no matter how ridiculous.

That's exactly what the LVP cops did with "Dear Boss," and all they achieved in their haste to take it seriously was the creation of the biggest mass panic the world had ever known.

Cautious minds should have prevailed.

Regards,

Simon

But undiscovered crime in London are rare, are they not? And the Jack the Ripper crimes are not and have never been, within that category?

[Jeff Leahy]

Do you not realize that this is no new debate.

The shawl has been debated many times over the years and it was going on at length back in 2006. No one has 'jumped to a conclusion', they reached their conclusions on this nonsense years ago - only to see it re-cycled now. Check out the Parlours' 1997 book and you will see most of Edwards' claims re- Simpson being made there. He has used the same material and that was twenty years ago!

The only 'new' aspect appears to be 'new' DNA methodology which has, as we have seen, been seriously questioned already.

But are we not saying new evidence has contradicted the accepted Status Quo?

Either the shawl is Edwardian or it is Not..

Either the DNA tells us its Eddows or it does not

Frankly Stewart I;m as cinical as you are…but this really is great for business is it not?

Yours Jeff

[Stewart P Evans]

Jurisdiction

...
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.
...

Police jurisdiction and powers in this country are totally different to those in the States. There were also differences of methods and control between the two forces, City and Met.

Investigation of the two murders that night did not merge, they were kept separate and the only reason that Halse got so involved in Goulston Street was because the clue of the apron related to the City murder (Eddowes) but was on Met ground.

[Monty]

This is interesting, considering in your very next post #1293, you state research is pending and may take awhile. You have proof, or you don't.

And you are absolutely incorrect that I'm taking the word of the author. I haven't said or implied ANYWHERE that I believe the author or his shawl story. What I've said repeatedly is that it is something that deserves more research and should not be automatically dismissed out of hand without more research.

I have evidence he was was not transferred during the height of the murders between April 88 and December 88, which is the period concerned. However I like to be thorough.

More research is being undertaken, however that is not good enough for you. Maybe you' d like to contribute to that aspect.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Banging on...

...
Either the shawl is Edwardian or it is Not..
...
Yours Jeff

You keep banging on about it being Edwardian, but this is not an established fact, it is the informed opinion of someone who checked it out when it was held at the Crime Museum.

[DRoy]

This is interesting, considering in your very next post #1293, you state research is pending and may take awhile. You have proof, or you don't.

And you are absolutely incorrect that I'm taking the word of the author. I haven't said or implied ANYWHERE that I believe the author or his shawl story. What I've said repeatedly is that it is something that deserves more research and should not be automatically dismissed out of hand without more research.

What research could that be? Not one person except Simpson says he was there and this is based on the known physical documentation. All known research to date shows he worked in an area far enough from the murder site so no need for him to be there. The research on police procedure shows that he shouldn't have been there. Etc etc etc.

You're also disputing this with a true Ripperologist whose overall knowledge is stregthened by his expertise on police matters.

By all means, do more research and prove to Monty and most of us (who apparently have preconceived opinions) that Simpson was there and we were wrong the entire time.

Cheers
DRoy

[Stewart P Evans]

No...

But are we not saying new evidence has contradicted the accepted Status Quo?
...
Either the DNA tells us its Eddows or it does not
Frankly Stewart I;m as cinical as you are
Yours Jeff

No we cannot say that. Not until the whole testing methodology has been scrutinized by experts and it has been peer tested.

I am happy to say that I do not believe that a connection between the 'shawl' and Eddowes and Kosminki can be established. I have said that already. But everyone has their own opinion on this.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo

I have evidence he was was not transferred during the height of the murders between April 88 and December 88, which is the period concerned. However I like to be thorough.

More research is being undertaken, however that is not good enough for you. Maybe you' d like to contribute to that aspect.

Monty

Your thoroughness is much appreciated. Thanks Monty.

[spyglass]

Hi all

Another stupid question,
But is there the tiny, smallest chance that evidence was witheld at the time concerning all murder enquiries as is the case these days,
and has now been lost overtime ?

Regards.

[Stewart P Evans]

Cynical

...
Frankly Stewart I;m as cinical as you are…but this really is great for business is it not?
Yours Jeff

I doubt that you are as cynical as I am, I had nearly 30 years as a police officer to finely hone my cynicism. Yes, indeed it is 'great for business' if you wish to look at it in that light. Now that is cynical.

[Phil Carter]

the punchline cometh.....

I missed the punch line? As soon as I heard about this shawl story, I wondered if the police would get involved. There is no statute of limitations on murder in the UK correct? Even if it's a 126 year old murder case, it's still a murder case. And a notorious one at that. If someone comes along and says they have a piece of evidence with DNA evidence to solve an unsolved murder, I think the police SHOULD get involved.

Hello Pontius,

I agree...involvement would be welcome-depending on reason for getting involved. The punchline? Oh it is good.

The case has never been closed- and IF The Metropolitan Police want to, as far as I am aware (better people will confirm/deny this) they can knock on his door and ask the man to hand it over pdq-on the basis that it could be regarded as suspected primary evidence in an unsolved murder case.

Of course, they didnt do it before- not when the Parlour book hit the shelves- but now we have the DNA evidence and a book author claiming with certainty that such evidence makes a suspect 100% guilty of a murder.

Then again- it might not interest the cold case squad at all.

It might or might not be of interest to the Fraud Squad though... depending on their views too.

I am by no means savvy with how the Metropolitan Police regard this item though.


best wishes

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Official Police Reports...

Hi all
Another stupid question,
But is there the tiny, smallest chance that evidence was witheld at the time concerning all murder enquiries as is the case these days,
and has now been lost overtime ?
Regards.

It would not be withheld in the official police reports in which there is no mention of any such thing.

[spyglass]

They would not be withheld in the official police reports in which there is no mention of any such thing.

I did think that, just was'nt sure how far they go with it.