Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi,

I think the point is this, Swanson saw all the reports, he was there at the time, so it has to be accepted he had more information at his finger tips than anyone else, and certainly more than anyone now. So his view has to be more informed than yours and anyone else's today.

I would like to see what evidence you have to support your accusation that he was prejudiced. I presume you mean anti Jewish.

Also I must remind you that MacNaughton was NOT there at the time, as Swanson was.

Best wishes.

yes and I must remind you that that the surname Kosminski was referred to not Aaron Kosminski two different people ? Either way neither of them was the killer

[Trevor Marriott]

As I said, it was tested in August 2006 - not in a lab, but in Andy and Sue Parlour's house in Clacton.

A bit like the handwriting test on the Marginalia then in someones front room the results of which I believe you also propped up as being conclusive. Maybe you need to look in the dictionary and understand the meaning of conclusive.

here i am reading the book

[Trevor Marriott]

But he would say that, wouldn't he?

Do you not think they are relevant, if not please enlighten us ?

[Hatchett]

Hi Trevor,

How do you know that? Have you uncovered all of the missing Police files. If you have, perhaps you could post them.

Best wishes.

[Chris]

Do you not think they are relevant, if not please enlighten us ?

As I said, I think it's a valid question to ask. I don't object to the question at all. Just to your incredible rudeness and obnoxiousness.

[Trevor Marriott]

As I said, it was tested in August 2006 - not in a lab, but in Andy and Sue Parlour's house in Clacton.

Light test were used before then

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

How do you know that? Have you uncovered all of the missing Police files. If you have, perhaps you could post them.

Best wishes.

Yes give me your address

[Fisherman]

Hatchett: Hi,

I think the point is this, Swanson saw all the reports, he was there at the time, so it has to be accepted he had more information at his finger tips than anyone else, and certainly more than anyone now. So his view has to be more informed than yours and anyone else's today.

"More" informed, yes - but that does not necessarily equal "better informed! Unquestionably, Swanson was privy to MORE material than the material I have seen, but I have seen material that Swanson did not see nevertheless. Quantity and quality are different matters.

I would like to see what evidence you have to support your accusation that he was prejudiced. I presume you mean anti Jewish.

No, I did not, actually - I meant that I think that he was looking for a madman, a maniac, a lunatic, since he was of the opinion that the deeds could not have been carried out by a "normal" man.

Also I must remind you that MacNaughton was NOT there at the time, as Swanson was.

Well, I know that, Hatchett! But since he took over from Anderson, one would suppose that if Anderson had useful proof, MacNaghten would have seen that proof. We should also weigh in that Anderson was not privy to the progress that was - perhaps - made when MacNaghten took over. Sir Melville had the upper edge in that context.

[Chris]

OK - I apologise for having fed the troll. I'll ignore him from now on.

[Fisherman]

As I said, it was tested in August 2006 - not in a lab, but in Andy and Sue Parlour's house in Clacton.

Aha - well, then the UV light is a more open question, so thanks for that! One would have thought that somebody could answer it though!

The best,
Fisherman

[Jeff Leahy]

The person whose semen is on the shawl that also has blood that may likely be from one of the victims. If by "primary" you mean nuclear DNA.

From this, amplification can be used to reconstruct a fuller profile; SNPs or variations in the sequence can be be identified which can be compared to those in the DNA of the Kosminski relative and give a much more accurate match than just the mtDNA comparison.

Also, it may be possible to get Y-DNA from from the nDNA which would allow a comparison with the Y-DNA of Kosminski's patrilineal relatives. If you can get a Y-DNA match in addition to the already existing mtDNA match, it's effectively cased-closed as it means the one who jizzed on the shawl was Aaron, Woolf, or Isaac (or maybe a cousin)

But if the semen DNA could be matched with one of the other suspects that would put them at the top of the list instead. If I were a Ripperologist with all my eggs in one suspect's basket and I were very confident that I was right, then I would be overjoyed that we may be very close to having a full DNA profile of the killer. And I would be looking for a way get my suspect's DNA or that of a relative. Do you know where Feigenbaum is buried? Does he have any relatives? Maybe you should be working on that. THis is your chance to potentially prove that your theory is correct.

Sounds like a great program to me. You track down a descendants of every ripper suspects closest family and eliminate them one by one. I'll volunteer for Parnell……Louis Carrol anyone

Thanks most interesting

Yours jeff

[PaulB]

But he would say that, wouldn't he?

Mandy Rice Marriott!

But what relevant questions. For the most part he'd been spouting incorrect figurew which he thinks challenges Dr Louhelainen, then he switches tack to make out that he's been asking about the previous tests done for the TV company. And he implies that Dr. Louhelainen's tests have to be either faked or screwed up because, with typical bias, he accepts the previous tests which found nothing.

[Chris]

Aha - well, then the UV light is a more open question, so thanks for that! One would have thought that somebody could answer it though!

The documentary is available here. You may be able to glean something from it:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3gi0t_jack-the-ripper-the-first-serial-ki_news

[Hatchett]

Hi Trevor,

So you actually have them?

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Paul and Chris

I must admit that I am still confused at what point the perceived wisdom about the Shawl being Edwardian actually changed?

Was it when Dr Fyaz Ismail made his tests in Liverpool?

Did Russel Edwards already suspect the clothe was older when he bought it?

Who actually made the first 'Screen printed ' conclusion?

Clearly I believe Andy Aliffe believed it not to be genuine when it was shown at the conference before Wolverhampton, though I'm happy to stand corrected if i'm muddling stuff up.

Yours Jeff