Tweet
Not until
Not until the scientific world come forward and substantiate the claims that the tests done on the secondary d.n.a are accurate and in the parameters of the accepted percentages set by the scientific world.
Not until the author produces the proven ancestor and this is then rechecked by independant scientists.
The parameters in my own little mind which would move me off the fence are...
If mr kominsky were alive today could on this evidence to date be enough to expect a conviction in a democratic court of law.
The shawl , seems like there is no evidence what so ever that it was ever at the crime scene.
The shawl, it is possible that through the secondary d.n.a we can ascertain that at some time since the shawl was made miss endowes came into contact with it. What the d.n.a results don,t and can,t prove is that it was ever at the murder scene.
Regarding my understanding so far of the link to kominsky it is at best hearsay as to weather the dna sampled, can be proven to belong to mr kominsky and mr kominsky only.
One question I have for the more informed than me on here.
When the shawl was previously examined relating to the sickert investigation
Was there any mention of stains weather blood, semen or unknown stains at that time by the scientists then. In my opinion at that time the shawl was investigated I would of thought that semen or blood could of been identified with the technology available at that period. Sure they might not have had the technology to extract and reproduce but surely the scientific investigators could have and would of stated there findings on the stains.
Until the author the investigating scientists and the majority of the remainding experts in the field of dna come forward and state that this scientific evidence is beyond doubt proves that kominsky and endowes dna are there , then on the fence I sit.
The author and scientists involved have sent there bait via the media and the writing of the book and thought of all the negatives that would be thrown back at them ,maybe they may have a ace up there sleeve and another card to play or maybe after the dust has settled the shawl and the dna evidence ends up in the section currently occupied by the diary and paintings theory's.
If the author and scientists were the prosecution could they expect a conviction of the evidence produced so far??
If you were the jury could you convict on the beyond reasonable doubt principle.
Not until the scientific world come forward and substantiate the claims that the tests done on the secondary d.n.a are accurate and in the parameters of the accepted percentages set by the scientific world.
Not until the author produces the proven ancestor and this is then rechecked by independant scientists.
The parameters in my own little mind which would move me off the fence are...
If mr kominsky were alive today could on this evidence to date be enough to expect a conviction in a democratic court of law.
The shawl , seems like there is no evidence what so ever that it was ever at the crime scene.
The shawl, it is possible that through the secondary d.n.a we can ascertain that at some time since the shawl was made miss endowes came into contact with it. What the d.n.a results don,t and can,t prove is that it was ever at the murder scene.
Regarding my understanding so far of the link to kominsky it is at best hearsay as to weather the dna sampled, can be proven to belong to mr kominsky and mr kominsky only.
One question I have for the more informed than me on here.
When the shawl was previously examined relating to the sickert investigation
Was there any mention of stains weather blood, semen or unknown stains at that time by the scientists then. In my opinion at that time the shawl was investigated I would of thought that semen or blood could of been identified with the technology available at that period. Sure they might not have had the technology to extract and reproduce but surely the scientific investigators could have and would of stated there findings on the stains.
Until the author the investigating scientists and the majority of the remainding experts in the field of dna come forward and state that this scientific evidence is beyond doubt proves that kominsky and endowes dna are there , then on the fence I sit.
The author and scientists involved have sent there bait via the media and the writing of the book and thought of all the negatives that would be thrown back at them ,maybe they may have a ace up there sleeve and another card to play or maybe after the dust has settled the shawl and the dna evidence ends up in the section currently occupied by the diary and paintings theory's.
If the author and scientists were the prosecution could they expect a conviction of the evidence produced so far??
If you were the jury could you convict on the beyond reasonable doubt principle.
)
Comment