Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Chris. Thanks.

Not referring to those who have already rejected the nonsense. I meant only the gullible science worshipers.

Cheers.
LC

“When convention and science offer us no answers, can we not finally turn to the fantastic as plausibility?”

Fox Mulder-The X Files, Episode 1 1993

[Chris]

No offense, but if you read the posts (yes, 4000+), you'll find your dictum a tad naive.

OK. If you're accusing me of being naive, who exactly are you accusing of being a "gullible science worshiper"?

Let's have some names.

[lynn cates]

fantastic

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

True; however, I may differ as to what counts as fantastic.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

drop it

Hello Chris. Thanks.

Well, not you. And I do not accuse you.

Let's drop this, eh?

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

Well, not you. And I do not accuse you.

Let's drop this, eh?

The point is, Lynn, that everyone here has been well aware of the problems with the provenance of the "shawl", from the very beginning. It's been the most obvious thing in the world. It's ridiculous to pretend that anyone here has said this solves the case, or is a "gullible science worshipper", or anything like that.

Drop it by all means.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Chris. Thanks.

Well, not you. And I do not accuse you.

Let's drop this, eh?

Cheers.
LC

As suggested your fighting a battle you can't win?

[lynn cates]

battle

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

I still don't know what battle you refer to?

But I am GLAD to drop it. After all, NOTHING has changed.

Cheers.
LC

[PaulB]

Hello Chris. Thanks.

Well, not you. And I do not accuse you.

Let's drop this, eh?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn
There was a post on this thread from Admin which told people not to make allegations unless they were willing and able to provide the evidence to support them. Doesn't accusing people as being science worshippers fall within that rule? I think one should drop this, but it does no harm to remind ourselves of Admins rule.

[PaulB]

One of the most sensible posts on here. As the shawl was not at the murder scene it hardly matters what was or is on it now. Any DNA is irrelevant to the case.

Amanda ( S )

So if - and let me emphasise that, if - the shawl did have victim and suspect DNA on it, but it couldn't be shown to have been at the murder scene, you would advocate discarding it, binning it as worthless, dismissing the DNA as irrelevant?

[Monty]

Since I've left this thread, thhere has been so much written, so forgive me if my question is basic but,

Is the DNA, for both parties conclusive?

Simple question, really would like a simple answer for this simple man.

Cheers
Monty

[pinkmoon]

None of this is true because the shawl couldn't have been at any of the murder sites.

[Chris]

Since I've left this thread, thhere has been so much written, so forgive me if my question is basic but,

Is the DNA, for both parties conclusive?

Simple question, really would like a simple answer for this simple man.

I think everyone who has been following the thread would agree that the evidence presented to date is far from conclusive.

[Monty]

I think everyone who has been following the thread would agree that the evidence presented to date is far from conclusive.

Thank you Chris.

Monty

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Paul. Thanks.

Given that Chris and I have decided to drop this, perhaps this admonition is redundant?

But thanks.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Welcome to Ripperology.

The Kosminskians would point out that Aaron Kosminski was a bonafide police suspect, whereas Lechmere (Cross) was merely a bonafide witness.

The Lechmerians would point out that Aaron Kosminski might be the Kosminski named by Swanson who might be the unnamed Polish Jew suspect described by Anderson and if so was indeed the Kosminski all but exonerated of the murders by Macnaghten in his memoranda.

Meanwhile, there's the majority of Ripperologists saying twasn't either of them.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Of course, no matter what the evidence looks like and no matter who is pointed out and by whom, it will still apply that a majority of Ripperologists will say: "Nah, that´s not the guy." The only differences we´ll ever see are differences in amplitude - some suspects and some suspect promotors will be given a bit more slack. But never enough to create a consensus, God forbid!

Please observe that this is not something I claim out of bitterness over having had my man rejected - I always knew that was gonna happen. Throw Le Grand to the wolves, and you will see yourself, Tom!

There are two main problems attaching to this issue, and they are easily enough defined:

1. There have been so many crap suspects presented over the years that what should be a field of serious research has been turned into a freak show, with the added effect of all suspects being reflex-wise dissed, sometimes with inadequate before-hand consideration.

2. People will use the wrong threads to conduct this specific debate on. Like you and me right now, Tom!

The best,
Fisherman