Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[wolfie1]

I've attached an image of the shawl, which I grabbed from the article which is linked to in the first post of this thread. Just so we can all get a good look at it.

The shawl,,whatever it is, is shown back to front, it has a thin lining material on the back.

This photo is the same item , right side up, note the detail of the block print at each end.
Photo 2
http://www.haveeru.com.mv/police/56545

It is a gorgeous print...

[Gene Lewis]

Hence author claim that Eddowes dress, as described in this article, is actually in fact the shawl/table runner now in his possession.

So what ? Is the shawl indeed Kate's dress, and came with her in Mitre Square, or was brought there by killer, for further purpose ? I lost my way…

[lynn cates]

ownership

Hello Wolfie.

"not impossible to consider the fancy shawl, dress, etc was stolen from a Jewish home by Kate when cleaning as she had personal direct access to Jewish houses."

So now it's Kate's again--not Aaron's?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

dilemma

Hello Mitchell. Welcome to the boards.

Your post sums up well their dilemma.

Cheers.
LC

[Henry Flower]

So what ? Is the shawl indeed Kate's dress, and came with her in Mitre Square, or was brought there by killer, for further purpose ? I lost my way…

Gene, Chris in #1417 has effectively put the shawl/skirt confusion theory to bed.

Possibly the author has been convinced that DNA from Eddowes & Kosminski is present on the shawl and is trying to fill in the blanks using guesswork. He may not be very good at that.

One good way of finding out what he actually claims might be to read the book. Or ask the reliable and useful Poch, who has read it so that we don't have to, and must already wish he hadn't!

[lynn cates]

gold

Hello Amanda.

"Why, after 1,407 posts, are there still so many willing to discuss something that could not and did not happen?"

Because "There's gold in them thar hills."

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Moody reply

Hello Gwyneth.

"She'd have got me - although I think I'd give the White Satin a miss"

Well, don't tell Justin Hayward that! (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[wolfie1]

Hello Wolfie.

"not impossible to consider the fancy shawl, dress, etc was stolen from a Jewish home by Kate when cleaning as she had personal direct access to Jewish houses."

So now it's Kate's again--not Aaron's?

Cheers.
LC

Who knows... she certainly had good access to fancy linen and a good item to hawk around. Why Kosminski would carry it about is beyond me, other than to entice poor girls over to have a look at it.

[christoper]

Here's a nice page concerning the distribution of Haplogroup T (for mtDNA).

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_T_mtDNA.shtml

T1 appears to be around 1-3% in the UK (so T1a1 would be less of course), but if there were 7 million in the UK, at 2% we're talking 140,000 people with T1, but what proportion of those would be T1a1 I don't know.

Anyway, this could be a useful resource for the current discussions.

- Jeff

Are you saying that you have read the book and all they matched was one lousy Haplogroup?

Although that one particular group was mentioned on-line, it was obvious based on what the scientist said, that he is claiming that more than just one individual Haplogroup from the DNA strand was matched. So was he deliberately misleading us? I have not read the book.

Every piece matched would narrow it down to fewer and fewer people.

this wiki page goes into great detail about the Thomas Jefferson DNA--in his case paternal DNA (not maternal) was used---but the matching process is very similar. You can see in great detail how certain fragments found were very common (some of which pointed to Africa where many shared that fragment) but when the entire result was put together--there were only a few who matched the totality. That is how it works. Just because that one piece is common it does not mean that the entire strand is that common.

The details in this article are a good explanation of how it works:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffers...gs_controversy

[Gene Lewis]

What I meant is : how the author may pretend all at once that the so-called shawl was indeed Kate's dress (or skirt) and so actually been present on the inventory, and THE shawl brought by the killer to announce further crime ? Or did I misunderstood the claims ?

[lynn cates]

owner

Hello Chris. Thanks for demonstrating that.

One is not clear on whom owns the table runner. Is it Kate's or Aaron's?

Cheers.
LC

[GUT]

Hello Gwyneth.

"She'd have got me - although I think I'd give the White Satin a miss"

Well, don't tell Justin Hayward that! (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

G'day Lynn

But that'd be nights not queens, wouldn't t?

[lynn cates]

incoherent

Hello Henry.

" BUT - when an outsider like Edwards comes along with such a story, then he is expected to either prove every aspect of the story beyond any legal doubt or have his entire theory - DNA and all - roundly rejected."

Actually, I'd settle for coherent. Is the cloth Kate's or Aaron's? And why is Simpson in Mitre sq? Finally, why the breach in police protocols?

Cheers.
LC

[Henry Flower]

Hello Chris. Thanks for demonstrating that.

One is not clear on whom owns the table runner. Is it Kate's or Aaron's?

Cheers.
LC

It's Vincent's.

Case closed!

[lynn cates]

timing

Hello Wolfie. Thanks.

"Why Kosminski would carry it about is beyond me, other than to entice poor girls over to have a look at it."

Very well. Then his semen was deposited in Mitre. That, AFTER the killing, mutilating AND organ removal. 10 minutes--no problem.

Cheers.
LC