Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[pinkmoon]

More tests from independent sources.

Thanks. I know your opinion because of the 1300+ posts on this thread, half of them are you stating, "it's rubbish", "it's fraud!", blah blah blah. Can you give it a rest?

Every book/theory about jack the ripper requires the reader to take a leap of faith this book/story requires the reader to take so many leaps it just falls to pieces.I personally would love this to be true and I have absolutely have no problem with d.n.a been extracted from the shawl however untill we can place shawl at the murder scene the science side of it like the whole book/theory is dead in the water and as we will never be able to place shawl at the murder scene this can't proceed.People are going to waste there time and effort on this why not examine other parts of this fascinating subject .On casebook there are a lot of good authors and people who are very clued up on jack the ripper why not investigate other theories and ask them for their input they will oblige but please don't waste your time on this .Kosminski is a very good suspect this book/theory cheapens him as a suspect.Like me there are a lot of people on here who had to suffer similar things like Shawlgate we had Stephen knight's royal baby yawn sorry yarn and the world class maybrick diary so we are going to treat this with a bit of humour.

[Phil Carter]

From what I can gather to investigate an alleged fraud someone who thinks they have been defrauded needs to put in a complaint to the police obvious one is the daily mail but with the amount of extra papers they have shifted they are not really out of pocket are they.

Hello pinkmoon,

I think it might raise alarm bells if the owner(s) tried to sell it with the claims on record already attached to it.

Either way- the thing that alarms me is having been reminded by Stewart of the use of bleach having been dabbed onto the stains- how in heavens name does a crystal clear DNA or mtDNA match now appear when previous tests were fruitless?

That alarms me.


Kind regards

Phil

[pinkmoon]

Hello pinkmoon,

I think it might raise alarm bells if the owner(s) tried to sell it with the claims on record already attached to it.

Either way- the thing that alarms me is having been reminded by Stewart of the use of bleach having been dabbed onto the stains- how in heavens name does a crystal clear DNA or mtDNA match now appear when previous tests were fruitless?

That alarms me.


Kind regards

Phil

The d.n.a can be sorted if not today but maybe a few years in the future as science advances which it will but again back to the main problem get some evidence that the shawl was at the murder scene untill this happens we have nothing.

[pinkmoon]

Yes, but what are the chances of anyone who actually knows what they are talking about being asked to review this book? Slim to non-existent?

I think the daily mail spent all of they research budget(which was about .50p) on researching Mr lavender.

[Wickerman]

Of course,we have no written record of a policeman stealing a valuable item from the crime scene, or subsequently, but then why would we?

MrB

The problem starts before that.
We have no written record that it even existed at the crime scene - and we should have.

[spyglass]

The fact is, Joe Public have allready forgotten the headlines and story with it, the papers have moved on.
Some people who know nothing about the case and are only slightly intrested, will read it...proberbly take it as gospal...forget it, and move on.
That leaves the rest of us who wont take it as gospal , and we will carry on.

Ten years down the line, it will be treated as just another Ripper book, sometimes mentioned on here...And then a another "Ripper solved" book will appear.

As for calling for police investigations ect...whats the point?

Regards.

[paul g]

Hypothetical what if.

I am aware this is hypothetical but as science advances in years to come what if tests were done and proofed to the peers in the scientific world that the stains belonged to Eddowes and kominsky.

However no evidence had turned up to put the shawl at the murder site and no evidence was found to link the policeman at the murder site.

What then ?

As stated just hypothetical.

I am of the belief that eventually they will be able to say to the acceptable accuracy that this is Eddowes and Kominskys stains, or not as the case will be.

[GUT]

I am aware this is hypothetical but as science advances in years to come what if tests were done and proofed to the peers in the scientific world that the stains belonged to Eddowes and kominsky.

However no evidence had turned up to put the shawl at the murder site and no evidence was found to link the policeman at the murder site.

What then ?

As stated just hypothetical.

I am of the belief that eventually they will be able to say to the acceptable accuracy that this is Eddowes and Kominskys stains, or not as the case will be.

The answer for me is that if that were to happen they'd need to explain how the DNA got there.

[GUT]

More tests from independent sources.

Thanks. I know your opinion because of the 1300+ posts on this thread, half of them are you stating, "it's rubbish", "it's fraud!", blah blah blah. Can you give it a rest?

Pots and kettles there old chap.

[Prosector]

It is also a known fact that additional officers were used at night during the murder spree. So do you have any proof that Simpson was only used in N division, and not elsewhere as one of these addition officers on night patrol? Because unless you have evidence that he was not, then suggesting he couldn't have been there is speculation on YOUR part.

Officers from, say, Stoke on Trent could have been used. We're talking probabilities, which is what science deals in, not absolute proof which is always impossible.
Prosector

[paul g]

Another theory

What's your thoughts.

The alleged table runner was at the murder site bought by kominsky carrying it through whitechappel that particular night.
Murders Eddowes.
Takes table runner home .
Eventually gets put in the asylum and the table cloth/runner is taken from his house as a momentous by our police friend.

Think I will write a book .

[Henry Flower]

The d.n.a can be sorted if not today but maybe a few years in the future as science advances which it will but again back to the main problem get some evidence that the shawl was at the murder scene untill this happens we have nothing.

I'd love to agree with you but I can't quite. Let's say that the DNA 'gets sorted', as you put it, and techniques evolve which are peer-reviewed and reliable, and those techniques allow scientists to say that without doubt this shawl has the blood of Catherine Eddowes on it.

Do you really think the lack of documented provenance would trump that? Do you really think it likely that lists and wishy-washy watercolour paintings based on rapid crime-scene sketches would diminish the power of that evidence?

If the shawl has Kate Eddowes blood on it, and Kosminski's vanilla malt, game over. The rest is detail.

You remember when Chris Hoy was refused entry to the Chris Hoy Velodrome by an over-officious security guard because his name wasn't on the list? If Kate's blood is on that shawl, the lists and sketches will count for nothing. If Kate's blood is on the shawl, the only reason a policeman's descendants would own the shawl would be that he had somehow come by it after her murder.

Now, again, that's a hypothetical. It's a very big IF. My impression so far is that we're being sold another dud.

[Bridewell]

The author claims that the shawl (or whatever it was) belonged, not to Eddowes but to Kosminski. But what is the logic behind that? A serial killer walking the streets with an 8' long shawl? I suspect that he claims the shawl to be Kosminski's because he has no choice. The surviving records make it abundantly clear that Eddowes didn't own such an item - therefore it must have belonged to Kosminski even though, realistically, that makes no sense. The man seen by Lawende is not described as carrying a large item of women's clothing and Eddowes could not possibly be recognised by her clothing if the most distinctive item of clothing (the shawl) was missing when that identification was made. This item has no known provenance before around 1990 and has been wide open to all kinds of cross-contamination for so many years that any DNA hit which does emerge has to be seen as compromised.

It is claimed that Amos Simpson removed a shawl from a murder scene in another force's area and no-one saw him do it. The surviving records speak for themselves. The notion is utterly ridiculous and the fanciful hypotheses on this site which attempt to demonstrate that it might, somehow, have been feasible are as preposterous as the claim itself.

[Prosector]

The author claims that the shawl (or whatever it was) belonged, not to Eddowes but to Kosminski. But what is the logic behind that? A serial killer walking the streets with an 8' long shawl? I suspect that he claims the shawl to be Kosminski's because he has no choice. The surviving records make it abundantly clear that Eddowes didn't own such an item - therefore it must have belonged to Kosminski even though, realistically, that makes no sense. The man seen by Lawende is not described as carrying a large item of women's clothing and Eddowes could not possibly be recognised by her clothing if the most distinctive item of clothing (the shawl) was missing when that identification was made. This item has no known provenance before around 1990 and has been wide open to all kinds of cross-contamination for so many years that any DNA hit which does emerge has to be seen as compromised.

It is claimed that Amos Simpson removed a shawl from a murder scene in another force's area and no-one saw him do it. The surviving records speak for themselves. The notion is utterly ridiculous and the fanciful hypotheses on this site which attempt to demonstrate that it might, somehow, have been feasible are as preposterous as the claim itself.

I have to agree. Everything is possible. The definition of 'proof' scientifically is that it is 95% probable. Although it's not possible to test I think that the Amos Simpson story is not likely to meet that test. The DNA story is possible to test but only if and when the scientist puts the data in the public domain for peer review.
Prosector

[christoper]

I'd love to agree with you but I can't quite. Let's say that the DNA 'gets sorted', as you put it, and techniques evolve which are peer-reviewed and reliable, and those techniques allow scientists to say that without doubt this shawl has the blood of Catherine Eddowes on it.

Do you really think the lack of documented provenance would trump that? Do you really think it likely that lists and wishy-washy watercolour paintings based on rapid crime-scene sketches would diminish the power of that evidence?

If the shawl has Kate Eddowes blood on it, and Kosminski's vanilla malt, game over. The rest is detail.

You remember when Chris Hoy was refused entry to the Chris Hoy Velodrome by an over-officious security guard because his name wasn't on the list? If Kate's blood is on that shawl, the lists and sketches will count for nothing. If Kate's blood is on the shawl, the only reason a policeman's descendants would own the shawl would be that he had somehow come by it after her murder.

Now, again, that's a hypothetical. It's a very big IF. My impression so far is that we're being sold another dud.

I agree.

New member here--Chemist who post doc'd in London for a while and knows some of the researchers involved (although I am NOT a gene jockey myself).

I'm not convinced either--and don't want to weigh in until I get the book. My Amazon order is apparently delayed for a few weeks so I have no idea when it will get here.

However, I have been told that they are claiming that not only is the victim's blood present, but it shows a medium to high velocity blood spatter pattern--indicative of blood spatter deposited from stab wounds. IF this proves to be true and verifiable (no idea if this is the case) most people will take that as proof that the cloth was at the scene even if it was not photographed or inventoried.

If a knife turned up with Nicole Brown and Ron Simpson's DNA on it--would people need more proof that it was at the scene? Blood evidence would be the proof.

Of course at this point--I am not sure how strong their case is. There seems to be holes--but I have not read the book--only speculation.