Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[lynn cates]

Hear, hear.

Hello Simon.

"Education rather than exploitation is the hallmark of a good Ripper book."

Hear, hear.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Chris. Thanks.

Then he has a paper forthcoming?

Cheers.
LC

I'm hoping so, otherwise there's nothing worth reading on this subject at all.

[Lechmere]

Clearly there is new material in Russell's book - the DNA stuff - and little used material such as the 1890s report about a shawl.
Russell also very obviously put considerable financial investment in creating his case. If he makes money as a result of this so what?
A lot of the criticism seems to be based on mean spirited envy at him making money - or rather on the assumption that he is making money. As if that is illegitimate.
And I dont know that Whitechapel is eager to shake it off. I doubt any other district in the world would. I rather suspect that mo
most other districts in the world would welcome having such a well known historical phenomenon on their doorstep - as yes, it brings wealth - or can bring wealth - from tourism.

[lynn cates]

correct

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Actually, that is correct.

Cheers.
LC

[pinkmoon]

Clearly there is new material in Russell's book - the DNA stuff - and little used material such as the 1890s report about a shawl.
Russell also very obviously put considerable financial investment in creating his case. If he makes money as a result of this so what?
A lot of the criticism seems to be based on mean spirited envy at him making money - or rather on the assumption that he is making money. As if that is illegitimate.
And I dont know that Whitechapel is eager to shake it off. I doubt any other district in the world would. I rather suspect that mo
most other districts in the world would welcome having such a well known historical phenomenon on their doorstep - as yes, it brings wealth - or can bring wealth - from tourism.

What I find distastefull about the whole shawl business is the fact we are been told case closed it was Kosminski that's that and it so obviously not.That shawl can never be used as any form of evidence to support the claim of case closed because even if it could be dated to 1888 it can never be placed at the murder scene so to make any money out of this and money will be made no doubt of that is simply wrong and I personnelly think we need to use common sense and ask ourselves how d.n.a could have found its way onto the shawl.

[mickreed]

Hmmm. OK .. yeah that is curious. I'm going to assume it is a correction to the original entry, because that seems more logical. It would be interesting to know why and when those red additions were made, however.

Hi Mabuse

The way you might be able to check this would be to look at other documents in the series and see if the same hand and red pencil is found on them It may then be possibly from context or even something explicit to get an idea on this. A bit of a long shot but probably a necessary one (always assuming the answer is important).

I'm due to be the UK next year, and will be in the LMA. If I have time, I'll try and have a butcher's.

[mickreed]

What I find distastefull about the whole shawl business is the fact we are been told case closed it was Kosminski that's that and it so obviously not..

And that, PinkMoon, is the nub of it.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom
Your self published book is full of your own - in my opinion - contentious theories. Are you suggesting that everyone should self publish now to avoid being bossed around by the publisher?

Yes, I am. Duh. Also so you can get a lot more of your money instead of handing it over to your publisher. Full control, more money. That's the way to go.

Are you also suggesting that the author of this book lied? If so about what?

Not at all. Where did you get that from? You're saying that an author has no control over what is published under his name. I'm saying he does.

Incidentally I think this site is attracting more new members than ever before. More people than ever before are going on guided tours. More are joining the Whitechapel Society and signing up for their Conference.
That Russell Edwards is a real bastard isn't he? He has a lot to answer for.
He's probably putting money in your pocket Tom through your book sales, and you are sharing your profits with a publisher.

Actually, I think I'm the only Ripper author who has publicly stated my sales - which were already quite good - have improved and that I'm delighted about that. I've also congratulated Edwards on his success.

But none of that means I'm drinking his Kool Aid and won't speak my mind on the matter. I've been posting here since the 90s and have spoken out against every piece of nonsense that's been posted here - my own nonsense aside (that's why we have Monty). I've been a published author exactly 7 months. That changes nothing, except now I get a little throwback for all my hard work.

You're welcome.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. You know who else is raking it in right now? That guy who put out the Charles Cross book who wasn't you.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom's book shed new light on what has been a century of bullshit. Sure it is contentious, but I raise my hat to him for that. It comes as no surprise to learn that he did not [could not?] go with some short-sighted mainstream publisher.

Thanks, Simon. And it was 'did not'. Anybody who can write half decent could publish a book through a publisher. But you get a pittance for an advance and see no money after that and it takes years to get your book out. Meanwhile, they're bossing you around. Fek that, I say. It ain't 2005 any more, so thankfully, you don't have to go through all that unless you want to. I'd do it for a $20,000 advance, but ain't nobody to give me that for a non-fiction Ripper book.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

What I find distastefull about the whole shawl business is the fact we are been told case closed it was Kosminski that's that and it so obviously not.That shawl can never be used as any form of evidence to support the claim of case closed because even if it could be dated to 1888 it can never be placed at the murder scene so to make any money out of this and money will be made no doubt of that is simply wrong and I personnelly think we need to use common sense and ask ourselves how d.n.a could have found its way onto the shawl.

This is precisely what I've been saying. For some reason, this is incendiary to some.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

Debra Arif posted a link on jtrforums to another interview with Jari Louhelainen - this one broadcast on BBC Radio 5 live on 13 September. The programme will be available here for the next six days:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04gk6d8

The item on Jack the Ripper begins at 23.40.

The conclusion of the interview, at 28.50, goes like this:

Interviewer: So you - in other words you get a genetic match with the surviving descendant of Jack the Ripper. How much certainty do you have that this is what you think it is?

JL: So this work is based on mitochondrial DNA in both matching the victim and matching the suspect. So this is not valid in modern court. So there's some bit of uncertainty in that sense, about the same level as with the Richard III case, where they used also mitochondrial DNA. What we have is strongly suggesting that this is the case and I think Russell is using my DNA work and his own sort of circumstantial evidence to say very firmly that this is hundred per cent and conclusively Aaron Kozminski. But my DNA work actually gives strong suggestion at this point and it needs to be verified.

[mickreed]

Hi Mabuse

The way you might be able to check this would be to look at other documents in the series and see if the same hand and red pencil is found on them It may then be possibly from context or even something explicit to get an idea on this. A bit of a long shot but probably a necessary one (always assuming the answer is important).

I'm due to be the UK next year, and will be in the LMA. If I have time, I'll try and have a butcher's.

Hello again Mabuse.

Your posts have a habit of provoking thought. Following on what I wrote above:

I've spent the best part of 40 years working with (mainly) 19th century documents. I work with them almost daily even now. I am not saying anything for sure here, and I am certainly not a forensic handwriting expert, but that red annotation looks fairly unlike a nineteenth-century hand. Much more modern. It's certainly not the same hand as the person who completed the form.

This is from the 'Net and I'm not saying it's right but it does support what I've just said.

Colored pencils were first developed and made around 1920 by the A.W. Faber company, located in Stein, Germany.

Somewhere I have Henry Petroski's fine work on The Pencil: A History of Design and Circumstance. I must dig it out.

However, if I'm right about the annotations being much later, how did they get there? Was it done in the institution, by a policeman trying to justify some sort of case, or a Ripperologist who felt that the record didn't show the real story?

[Chris]

It's interesting to read this article from last year, quoting experts urging caution regarding the DNA match with Richard III:

http://io9.com/5981784/richard-iii-identified-not-so-fast-say-dna-experts

[mickreed]

It's interesting to read this article from last year, quoting experts urging caution regarding the DNA match with Richard III:
http://io9.com/5981784/richard-iii-i...ay-dna-experts

Hi Chris,

Yes I read that some while back (or something very like it). The point is that the DNA can't be definitive. It can be strongly suggestive of a connection but that's all.

With Richard III, we had lots of other evidence each piece , admittedly, circumstantial on its own. The burial site, the deformed spine, the wounds to the bone, the facial reconstruction which strongly resembled portraits of Richard, and so on. Even without the DNA, the case would have been reasonably strong.

With the shawl, we have the DNA (whatever that finally says), a dodgy family story, and a mass of speculation by Edwards.

[Tom_Wescott]

Debra Arif posted a link on jtrforums to another interview with Jari Louhelainen - this one broadcast on BBC Radio 5 live on 13 September. The programme will be available here for the next six days:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04gk6d8

The item on Jack the Ripper begins at 23.40.

The conclusion of the interview, at 28.50, goes like this:

Interviewer: So you - in other words you get a genetic match with the surviving descendant of Jack the Ripper. How much certainty do you have that this is what you think it is?

JL: So this work is based on mitochondrial DNA in both matching the victim and matching the suspect. So this is not valid in modern court. So there's some bit of uncertainty in that sense, about the same level as with the Richard III case, where they used also mitochondrial DNA. What we have is strongly suggesting that this is the case and I think Russell is using my DNA work and his own sort of circumstantial evidence to say very firmly that this is hundred per cent and conclusively Aaron Kozminski. But my DNA work actually gives strong suggestion at this point and it needs to be verified.

Thanks for posting this, Chris. Much obliged.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott