Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[RockySullivan]

No, RockyS, that's not fraud. That's just bad use of evidence.

However, I think I know where you're headed - the book is iffy, and I doubt that you're wrong there.

I guess a better word than fraud would be con. It's a con on the public. the conman find dna tests generic enough to not prove anything either way...yet because he uses the word DNA he's able to con the blind/deaf/dumb public into thinking he's solved the ripper case with "DNA proof".

[Theagenes]

So I just now noticed this, but I think the blood is in the wrong place. Like if the center front of her bodice was soaked in blood but not the back neckline. Blood makes sense, bloody clothing makes sense, bloody center of the bodice with no corresponding wound requires some explanation.

And because there has been some discussion of this "table runner" style, yeah it looks like a table runner. This particular style is usually not called a shawl, though it is clearly more of a shawl than a scarf. If you were to try and google similar looking things you would probably use "stole" or "wrap". Which are types of shawls, but... it's like the difference between socks and hose is more in your soul than in the design, but people looking for hose are probably looking for dress socks. The difference between a shawl and a stole is in your soul, but for communicating this specific style you probably want to say "stole".

In doing some online research, people that sell vintage shawls seem to refer to this type as a "long shawl" as opposed to the square-shaped shawls that are more common. Whether this is technically correct or not, I have no idea but it seems to be a common usage among "shawl people." I've seen it suggested by someone else here that it should be more properly referred to as a "stole" but I don't know if that's accurate either.

[mickreed]

the fraud is not that they fabricated the DNA Results...the fraud is they fabricated what the DNA results mean....so far as I can tell....the DNA results in no way conclusively prove that Koz is the Ripper...yet edwards claims just that...hence you have the fraud.

No, RockyS, that's not fraud. That's just bad use of evidence.

However, I think I know where you're headed - the book is iffy, and I doubt that you're wrong there.

[pinkmoon]

Stating The Bleeding Obvious

Time to say the same thing again this shawl was not taken from any of the murder scenes in fact a lot of people date it's manufacture years after the murders SO HOW CAN IT CONTAIN ANY D.N.A FROM EDDOWES OR KOSMINSKI???????????the d.n.a must have come into contact with the shawl years after the murders.

[Errata]

So I just now noticed this, but I think the blood is in the wrong place. Like if the center front of her bodice was soaked in blood but not the back neckline. Blood makes sense, bloody clothing makes sense, bloody center of the bodice with no corresponding wound requires some explanation.

And because there has been some discussion of this "table runner" style, yeah it looks like a table runner. This particular style is usually not called a shawl, though it is clearly more of a shawl than a scarf. If you were to try and google similar looking things you would probably use "stole" or "wrap". Which are types of shawls, but... it's like the difference between socks and hose is more in your soul than in the design, but people looking for hose are probably looking for dress socks. The difference between a shawl and a stole is in your soul, but for communicating this specific style you probably want to say "stole".