Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[lynn cates]

answer

Hello GUT. Thanks.

Let me think about that--I'll answer by Tuesday Afternoon.

Cheers.
LC

[GUT]

It's Vincent's.

Case closed!

[GUT]

Hello GUT. Thanks.

Let me think about that--I'll answer by Tuesday Afternoon.

Cheers.
LC

G'day Lynn

Now your Talking Out of Turn.

[Henry Flower]

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?

Hello Lynn, I have no problem with these questions being asked, none whatsoever. All I'm saying is that sometimes we seem to allow some people more leeway with unresolved issues and awkward questions than we do with others.

I'm also a fan of coherence. I just know that human events don't always follow procedure.

[lynn cates]

candle

Hello GUT. Thanks.

Had to--my candle may not always burn slowly.

Cheers.
LC

[Henry Flower]

Lynn:

10 minutes--no problem

Hair-trigger. Nuff said.

[lynn cates]

reason?

Hello Henry. Thanks.

"All I'm saying is that sometimes we seem to allow some people more leeway with unresolved issues and awkward questions than we do with others."

Is that possibly because they are serious investigators whom have actually researched the case?

Cheers.
LC

[GUT]

Hello GUT. Thanks.

Had to--my candle may not always burn slowly.

Cheers.
LC

G'day Lynn

But it's probably time to Go Now.

[Henry Flower]

Is that possibly because they are serious investigators whom have actually researched the case?

Very likely. But the circling of the Casebook wagons is still a joy to behold

Solid research may not solve the case. For all the millions spent assembling a super-squad to try to find the Yorkshire Ripper, it was two average bobbies going about their daily duties who inadvertently stumbled upon him. Wouldn't it stick in the craw if a balding businessman who never did a day's solid research in his life actually solved the case by buying a shawl and paying for DNA testing...

It would be a bit of a kick in the teeth. Let's hope it hasn't happened. Personally, I don't think it has, not by a long way.

HF

[GUT]

Very likely. But the circling of the Casebook wagons is still a joy to behold

Solid research may not solve the case. For all the millions spent assembling a super-squad to try to find the Yorkshire Ripper, it was two average bobbies going about their daily duties who inadvertently stumbled upon him. Wouldn't it stick in the craw if a balding businessman who never did a day's solid research in his life actually solved the case by buying a shawl and paying for DNA testing...

It would be a bit of a kick in the teeth. Let's hope it hasn't happened. Personally, I don't think it has, not by a long way.

HF

Why?

Personally I'd love it too happen.

If he had come out with solid DNA I'd be cheering, but the fact that he has to bolster it with BS can only lead you to conclude that the whole thing is BS. If the contemporaneous reports say that the "shawl" wasn't at the scene of the crime you need to provide some way to link it to the crime, otherwise it might simply be that it was Kosminski's and at some point he engages Eddowes' services. That does not a murderer make. It make a sexual encounter.

[pinkmoon]

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.

It's Been tampered with he's cut the primark label of!.

[mickreed]

16 generations without mutation? Theoretically perhaps--if they all lived in glass bubbles. Post Industrial Rev mutations (usually slight) have occurred approximately every 5 generations, depending on the severity of the mutations the changes could be significant quickly. I don't match my own great grandmother at the 90% level--my grandmother had significant environmental mutations from working in a byproducts plant.

You say that you have 507 matches out of a world population approaching 7 billion.
That would be 50.7 matches in a population of 700 million,
5 matches in a population of 70 million.
0.5 matches in a population of 7 million.
London at the time had approximately 6 million.

Fair enough Christopher. I think I said, life and theory don't run in neat sync. I also said that 507 matches is only for those people who've been tested and have put their data in the mitochondria database. A fraction of the total I'm sure. But it's not central.

For me at the moment the real issue is - was the shawl at the murder scene? We have no idea. Beyond a family story which may be completely true, but like DNA, family stories have a habit of mutating over the generations.

Suppose it really is Eddowes blood on the shawl. There isn't a lot, but to explain this, we are told that someone - long dead - cut the worst parts out. Did they? We don't know.

Does a blood stain prove it was at the scene, and that therefore Amos Simpson must have been as well? Of course not.

Did the police go to Eddowes digs after they found her body? We don't know, but it seems highly likely. If they did, did someone see a shawl laying around and say 'that'd be nice for the wife'?

There's any number of scenarios that are just as plausible (even more so?) as the murder scene finding.

Without something of substance linking it to Mitre Square, rather than just to Eddowes, then the question of 'proof' will always be wanting.

[Jeff Leahy]

Why?

Personally I'd love it too happen.

If he had come out with solid DNA I'd be cheering, but the fact that he has to bolster it with BS can only lead you to conclude that the whole thing is BS. If the contemporaneous reports say that the "shawl" wasn't at the scene of the crime you need to provide some way to link it to the crime, otherwise it might simply be that it was Kosminski's and at some point he engages Eddowes' services. That does not a murderer make. It make a sexual encounter.

True. But surely that would have to be balanced with Sir Robert Andersons claims that the case was solved and the Marginalia claim by Swanson that the killer was positively identified.

Its not looking good for Aaron if further new evidence can be substantiated

Yours Jeff

PS MIKE. as I said on another forum, Cathrine Eddows was carrying everything she owned when murdered. She had just returned from hoping and was dossing with John Kelly. So the shawl was either on her (Probably Stollen) or used by the killer which I believe is what Russell Edwards is claiming as it could also be used as a murder Weapon. Eddows was strangled not stabbed to death.

[christoper]

granted, I may not "get it", but I don't see why anyone should be unhappy over this.

If the cloth is not a genuine artifact of the murder scene--it will be scrutinized and the fraud will be discovered.

If the cloth is proven to be a genuine artifact from the murder scene (If E's blood is on the item, sufficiently degraded to be the correct age, and showing the promised blood splatter pattern)--the case is far from solved.

There would still be many questions to answer, much more research to be done, books to be written.

Really no one loses here (except the fraudster--if there is one).

If proven genuine, I personally would be glad that a piece of evidence has survived and wasn't destroyed like most of the other evidence.

[Gene Lewis]

Did the police go to Eddowes digs after they found her body? We don't know, but it seems highly likely. If they did, did someone see a shawl laying around and say 'that'd be nice for the wife'?

If it was in Eddowes digs, why not having pawn it, instead of poor Kelly's boots?