Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Trevor Marriott]

I assume what you meant to say was "I haven't read the book. Can anyone tell me whether Edwards took steps to prove or disprove that the material is from the Victorian era?"

If so, the answer is yes.

No I haven't read the book and if that issue is covered then it hasn't been given a lot of publicity.

As I keep saying destroy all that surrounds the shawl and you destroy the dna simple. But of course as we are seeing on here are those for whatever reason want to accept the shawl and everything about is as being kosher

[Chris]

No I haven't read the book and if that issue is covered then it hasn't been given a lot of publicity.

So, if you had no idea whether Russell Edwards had tried to establish the date of the shawl, why did you imply he hadn't, and accuse him of "a serious failing"? Just a random bit of personal defamation?

[Trevor Marriott]

Not at all. IF the DNA evidence were indisputable, provenance falls by the wayside - because this is not a recent murder being tried in a court of law by absolute legal standards. IF the DNA showed beyond a reasonable doubt that Eddowes' blood and Kosminski's semen were found on an item, I think we would be entirely justified in giving that finding absolute priority over a story of provenance that has accrued a century and a quarter of garbling and Chinese whispers.

What amuses me slightly is that, with respect to other theories, many respected researchers here have had no problem with accepting certain stories as being garbled, confused, incomplete, or misremembered versions of what must have actually happened, and happily use such unresolved historical errata to bolster their own theories. 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.



Trevor, I assume from this comment that you have read the book and know that he didn't?

Whatever happens the DNA who ever it belongs to is always going to remain secondary. Even if you dug up Kosminski that is not going to change

So those who have ready the book now accept whats written as being correct ? or only the Kosminksi proponents !

Talk about naievety

[Jeff Leahy]

No I haven't read the book and if that issue is covered then it hasn't been given a lot of publicity.

As I keep saying destroy all that surrounds the shawl and you destroy the dna simple. But of course as we are seeing on here are those for whatever reason want to accept the shawl and everything about is as being kosher

There is a big difference between being over joyed if it does turn out to be genuine and what one wants. (As Mick Jagger said )

Hopefully most people interested in the subject want the Truth.

There are those however who have a lot to lose if the truth turns out to be Kosminski they may NEED a stiff drink.

Yours Jeff

[Henry Flower]

Whatever happens the DNA who ever it belongs to is always going to remain secondary. Even if you dug up Kosminski that is not going to change

Mere assertion. Forgive me if I disagree.

So those who have ready the book now accept whats written as being correct ? or only the Kosminksi proponents !

Where on earth did you get that from? I'm not accepting anything, and I'm not proposing Kosminski. I'm only insisting that we allow Mr Edwards the same leeway with unresolved questions that we allow the more established researchers. Is that a problem for you? If so, I must presume that you are one of those rare Ripper authors who have never gone to the publishers until every last issue in their research is resolved beyond a reasonable doubt, and every question answered and proved to the highest legal standard. Yes?

Talk about naievety

How very lofty of you, considering you just accused the author of a book you haven't read of 'serious failings' in neglecting to cover something that, in fact, he had covered - and then rather than admitting your error complained that his research in that area hadn't been given 'a lot of publicity' - so how on earth were you to know he had covered it!

I'm sure you'd love it if people passed judgement on your own work using these same standards....

[Trevor Marriott]

There is a big difference between being over joyed if it does turn out to be genuine and what one wants. (As Mick Jagger said )

Hopefully most people interested in the subject want the Truth.

There are those however who have a lot to lose if the truth turns out to be Kosminski they may NEED a stiff drink.

Yours Jeff

There is no way Aaron Kosminski was involved in any of these murders

[Henry Flower]

There is no way Aaron Kosminski was involved in any of these murders

Trevor, you do know that the shaking blue head doesn't count as evidence, right?

[Phil Carter]

I'd surely die (I'd shawly die?)

Approaching 1500 posts in this thread alone..

I thought of Kate Eddowes..

and thought.. what tune was she singing to herself in that cell in Bishopsbate Police Station?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbFzjzEcHAo

It's cold outside
And I'm not quite
Ready for the morning light
My hands are tied
Cause if I tried
To leave this place I'd surely die

Hey, hey, hey, I'd surely die

There's stories of
Way back when
A guy got out and made it there
I think I'm gonna give it a try
Even though I'll surely die

Hey, hey, hey, I'd surely die


RIP Kate love...if only you knew what a palavar ensued.



Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

So, if you had no idea whether Russell Edwards had tried to establish the date of the shawl, why did you imply he hadn't, and accuse him of "a serious failing"? Just a random bit of personal defamation?

Well they managed to date the turin shroud why not this old piece of material instead of all this ifs, buts, and maybe`s that surround it?

Perhaps you should concentrate on that aspect instead of resorting to you own predictable form of personal defamation.

[el_pombo]

Hello,

This is my first post ever in the forums, and I apologise for my poor English, I have some trouble expressing myself in other languages other than Portuguese.

But anyway, although I haven’t yet read the book, I would like to give my opinion about what has been said until now:

- There is no record of the shawl belonging to Catherine Eddowes. Is it impossible? No.
- There is no record of the shawl belonging to Aaron Kosminski. Is it impossible? No.
- There is no record of the shawl being found at the murder site. Is it impossibile? No.
- There is no record of Amos Simpson being anywhere near the crime scene, at the mortuary or en-route to the mortuary. Is it impossible? No.
- There is no record of Simpson taking the shawl home. Is it impossible? No.
- mtDNA test was unable to provide a 100% match to Kosminski. Can he be excluded? No.

Is the sequence of events described in the book possible? Yes. Is it likely? No!

In fact, it's very unlikely and lacks very crucial evidence.

The only way I see of proving this theory to be correct, would be to obtain a 100% match for Eddowes and Kosminki with blood or semen samples taken from the shawl.

In that case, one would have to wonder if it's possible that the DNA could have got to the shawl by any other way other than Kosminki murdering Eddowes (excluding deliberate tampering).

Possible? Yes, but highly unlikely.

If Kosminski was a client of Eddowes and the shawl belonged to either of them then it's theoretically possible that DNA from both could be found in the shawl, but what are the odds of a shawl with DNA obtained in that manner surviving until today and being specifically tested for DNA from both subjects? Extremely low.

A question has been raised about why would Kosminski take the shawl to a murder site if he was indeed, has it's claimed in the book, the owner of the shawl.

I have a “pseudo-theory” about that:

I always had doubts about the victims having been murdered in the places they were found, assuming Kosminki committed the murder anywhere else and moved the body to the location where it was later found, then maybe the shawl could have been used during the transportation of the body either to cover it or for any other reason.

Another possibility, as someone said before, would be to clean the blood from the knife or to cover blood stains on his clothes.
Again, I'm sorry for my English, and I apologise if my analysis contains basic mistakes, my knowledge of the case is not even comparable to the knowledge of the other posters on this topic and I hope I haven’t wasted your time.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, you do know that the shaking blue head doesn't count as evidence, right?

Yes i know but I thought pics might be easier for some to understand than the written word which some seem to having problems with understanding

[Henry Flower]

Well they managed to date the turin shroud why not this old piece of material instead of all this ifs, buts, and maybe`s that surround it?

Trevor, the guy has apparently spent a hell of a lot of his personal money buying and analysing the shawl.

You want to pay for carbon dating tests, give him a ring!

Or do you think that some ill-defined "they" are always behind these things?

I have to say, Trevor, your responses to having been called-out wrongly accusing a writer of a 'serious failing' in a book you haven't read - (a) it wasn't publicised so how should I have known! and (b) ok so he does cover that area in his book, but why should people naively believe his findings, why don't 'they' get it carbon dated!? - don't look particularly classy from the outside.

[Henry Flower]

Yes i know but I thought pics might be easier for some to understand than the written word which some seem to having problems with understanding

On the contrary Trevor, there are even people here who read books before firing off erroneous accusations about their content!

[Robert]

Hi Pombo

Welcome. I hope you enjoy yourself here.

On your penultimate point, the police were satisfied that the victims were murdered where they were found.

[Bridewell]

Hello all. Long time lurker and first time poster. It's been said before on this monster of a topic but I think everything ultimately comes down to the fact that the only thing connecting this fabric to Mitre Square is little more than an urban legend. The historical record tells us that neither this piece of fabric or Amos Simpson were anywhere near the scene of Eddowes' murder. This means that the onus is on Edwards to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the existent historical record is wrong and his alternate "version" is the truth. Unfortunately for him he can't seem to do that.

Great first post, Mitchell and welcome!