Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[Chris]

I would also love to know exactly what specific input those researchers had with the book. I note that one of those named researchers has in the past been directly involved in almost every controversial issue surrounding Ripperology that has emerged over the years and here he is yet again involved in another, coincidence?

You do realise this isn't like one of your books, don't you?

I mean, the text wasn't actually written by the people mentioned on the acknowledgments page...

[Phil Carter]

When the ......book has rapidly faded from view it will be those poor unfortunate authors with books about to be published, or those that are currently being written that will suffer simply because the public will have seen and read all this crap about the case being closed etc etc and that Aaron Kosminski was the killer, and that will no doubt effect future sales, and also the way new people coming into this mystery will look at it.

Hello Trevor,

Hope you are well ?

Agreed, and THERE lies the rub... Which is why this imho arrogant "case closed" nonsense should be exposed as untrue, publically, by his own peers, and then referred to the national Press, asap, imho.


best wishes


Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Monty,

Looking on from afar here, and one with a long memory that works far better than the shorter one...I can well remember the reaction of the "Ripperological Community" to Patricia Cornwell's claims. Being fair here, it wasn't exactly welcoming and pleasant by any means. Far from it in fact.

Now I happen to be one who remembers the worst of the lot, the acrimony of the Diary. That was far worse than the reaction Cornwell's book recieved. Far far worse. And people ended up quite angry with each other.. and this vitriol in turn spilled out into, and out over the reputation of the field itself. Ripperology became a laughing stock to serious historians and their like.

I think I would be fair if I said that SINCE Joseph Gorman Sickert's tale came out via Stephen Knight, the community of interested enthusiasts has grown immeasurably. That leads to greater peer review, and views.

By the time of the Diary, all sorts of things had crept out of the Ripperological woodwork.. and since then...since "The Final Solution" nearly 40 years ago....everything that does come into the light that is new, that is unseen, that is different, gets the "under the microscope" attitude applied to it. This is both positive and negative. For serious researchers discovering quite ordinary things will also get the same treatment, rightly or wrongly.

Because of TWO things... the "blatant trying to pull wool over the eyes" syndrome, and the "let's see if we can make something that is nigh on foolproof" syndrome, all attitudes have swayed towards the sceptical.
We cannot be blamed, any of us, for that. Except blame ourselves.

However, it seems to me that defending Russel Edwards' role in all of this is not, imho, correct. The author has blatantly claimed "case solved".. when it is far from it. Whether the publisher wanted it that way, whether he has an agent that has encouraged it, or whether the author himself is utterly convinced of it... makes absolutely no difference.. the fact is that it has been said and we, the Ripperological community, have come to the point where such "assinine statements" as Monty so aptly phrased them, are just not acceptable any more. That applies to others wishing to fool, cheat, or have a laugh at the field's expense in some way shape or form.

In my honest opinion, if this field is ever to be taken seriously at any point in time, then a time like now is ideal. To show the watching world that we do not just "accept" this overkill publicity anymore. And like the Diary, like Patricia Cornwell's claims, there should rightly be a backlash. Woe betide anyone trying to bounce along on the shoulders of this recently produced baby. Or for that matter, any follow-up from anyone promoting without certainty. And it will have to be exactly that. PROVEN ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. Not just self belief in it. Not just publishers and their pretty wording.

In my view therefore, Mr Edwards cannot be defended by anyone for his words or actions. Only he himself can stand alone and defend himself. Just as the scientific field as well as the Ripperological field can look at the DNA process undertaken, and call foul if need be. Then the good Finnish Doctor will have to face his questioning too. The pair of them are responsible for different matters that interweave into a common proposed, and claimed, solution to the world's biggest murder mystery ever.

As I understand it, both will be appearing at Salisbury at the annual Ripperological Conference this year. I also understand that in Mr. Edwards' case, submitted questions will be put to him, live. For the sake of this field, I endearingly hope that those questions are not pre-vetted to protect Mr Edwards in any way from the backlash that is certain to be shown IF the questions are allowed to be open and frank, and be asked, in public.

Like Monty says, and I am in TOTAL agreement with him, in making "such asinine statements like the arrogant 'case closed' statement then (Mr. Edwards) should be prepared to back them up fully." I sincerely hope the Whitechapel Society don't funk their duty in this matter. Mr Edwards made his worldwide bed... and now he must lie in it and face the music from his peers, imho.


regards



Phil

Hi Phil
This whole shawl issue and Kosminski`s viability as a suspect needs to need put into simple perspectives which it is hoped that all and sundry will understand and will result in all those self taught DNA experts who have emerged on this and the other site over the past two weeks to go back to a normal life.

Firstly, from an evidential perspective the shawls provenance is not proved. The story as how Simpson acquired it does not stand up to close scrutiny. Its age has not been proven, and even if it were to have come from that same time period it would not take us any further because of Simpsons so called explanation of acquisition.

The suggestion that DNA has been found on the shawl that is Eddowes and Kosminski and that links them both to the shawl is far from conclusive. The DNA is questionable in any event as is the methods the control samples were obtained along with the contamination issues over the ensuing years.

The DNA is Mitochondrial DNA that is secondary. No matter what further tests or re tests are done on this it is always going to stay secondary, and a long way short of Edwards or anyone else for that matter saying that any DNA from that Shawl came from Eddowes or Kosminski which is what this whole debacle is about.

I would love to know at what point did Edwards become aware that the results were not as conclusive as he suggests?

I would also love to know exactly what specific input those researchers had with the book. I note that one of those named researchers has in the past been directly involved in almost every controversial issue surrounding Ripperology that has emerged over the years and here he is yet again involved in another, coincidence?

In my opinion this book and its contents and all that have been associated with it have set Ripperology back. Prior to this book’s publication the public have been gradually coming to terms, and now readily accept that all that they have seen in documentaries and read before in many Ripper books may not have been correct.

When the final nail has been put in Mr Edwards coffin and the book has rapidly faded from view it will be those poor unfortunate authors with books about to be published, or those that are currently being written that will suffer simply because the public will have seen and read all this crap about the case being closed etc etc and that Aaron Kosminski was the killer, and that will no doubt effect future sales, and also the way new people coming into this mystery will look at it.

[Phil Carter]

......However, I do not like the arrogant 'case closed' statement by Edwards when the reality is far from it. Cornwell stated the same and got burned. You make such asinine statements then be prepared to back them up fully.

That's the rub. .....


Just my take.

Monty

Hello Monty,

Looking on from afar here, and one with a long memory that works far better than the shorter one...I can well remember the reaction of the "Ripperological Community" to Patricia Cornwell's claims. Being fair here, it wasn't exactly welcoming and pleasant by any means. Far from it in fact.

Now I happen to be one who remembers the worst of the lot, the acrimony of the Diary. That was far worse than the reaction Cornwell's book recieved. Far far worse. And people ended up quite angry with each other.. and this vitriol in turn spilled out into, and out over the reputation of the field itself. Ripperology became a laughing stock to serious historians and their like.

I think I would be fair if I said that SINCE Joseph Gorman Sickert's tale came out via Stephen Knight, the community of interested enthusiasts has grown immeasurably. That leads to greater peer review, and views.

By the time of the Diary, all sorts of things had crept out of the Ripperological woodwork.. and since then...since "The Final Solution" nearly 40 years ago....everything that does come into the light that is new, that is unseen, that is different, gets the "under the microscope" attitude applied to it. This is both positive and negative. For serious researchers discovering quite ordinary things will also get the same treatment, rightly or wrongly.

Because of TWO things... the "blatant trying to pull wool over the eyes" syndrome, and the "let's see if we can make something that is nigh on foolproof" syndrome, all attitudes have swayed towards the sceptical.
We cannot be blamed, any of us, for that. Except blame ourselves.

However, it seems to me that defending Russel Edwards' role in all of this is not, imho, correct. The author has blatantly claimed "case solved".. when it is far from it. Whether the publisher wanted it that way, whether he has an agent that has encouraged it, or whether the author himself is utterly convinced of it... makes absolutely no difference.. the fact is that it has been said and we, the Ripperological community, have come to the point where such "assinine statements" as Monty so aptly phrased them, are just not acceptable any more. That applies to others wishing to fool, cheat, or have a laugh at the field's expense in some way shape or form.

In my honest opinion, if this field is ever to be taken seriously at any point in time, then a time like now is ideal. To show the watching world that we do not just "accept" this overkill publicity anymore. And like the Diary, like Patricia Cornwell's claims, there should rightly be a backlash. Woe betide anyone trying to bounce along on the shoulders of this recently produced baby. Or for that matter, any follow-up from anyone promoting without certainty. And it will have to be exactly that. PROVEN ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. Not just self belief in it. Not just publishers and their pretty wording.

In my view therefore, Mr Edwards cannot be defended by anyone for his words or actions. Only he himself can stand alone and defend himself. Just as the scientific field as well as the Ripperological field can look at the DNA process undertaken, and call foul if need be. Then the good Finnish Doctor will have to face his questioning too. The pair of them are responsible for different matters that interweave into a common proposed, and claimed, solution to the world's biggest murder mystery ever.

As I understand it, both will be appearing at Salisbury at the annual Ripperological Conference this year. I also understand that in Mr. Edwards' case, submitted questions will be put to him, live. For the sake of this field, I endearingly hope that those questions are not pre-vetted to protect Mr Edwards in any way from the backlash that is certain to be shown IF the questions are allowed to be open and frank, and be asked, in public.

Like Monty says, and I am in TOTAL agreement with him, in making "such asinine statements like the arrogant 'case closed' statement then (Mr. Edwards) should be prepared to back them up fully." I sincerely hope the Whitechapel Society don't funk their duty in this matter. Mr Edwards made his worldwide bed... and now he must lie in it and face the music from his peers, imho.


regards



Phil

[Patrick S]

Honestly? no I'm not.

Its none of my business what anyone does.

I must admit, the evidence leads, however in this case, it looks as if the suspect has been followed.

Monty

This is precisely why it's impossible to write a completely credible suspect-driven book. There is precious little evidence in this 126 year old case. This is also why the best 'Ripper' books do not present a 'prime suspect'. However, in order for a book to sell well outside the Jack the Ripper subculture, it usually requires a suspect, arrest, indictment, and conviction. Case closed.

[Monty]

Did you not wonder why Edwards or any of those advising him didn't consult you with regards to your back ground or me for that matter. I am sure that if he had then he would have been told in no uncertain terms that his evidence he sought to rely on was far from conclusive.

Now after the event we have to regularly tell the press and the public exactly that and explain why it is inconclusive.

Yet those that he did consult were happy to perhaps encourage him to publish the book. Should they not have sought to clarify some of the major issues with him first. Or were they so blind they could not see? or did they genuinely want Kosminski to be the elusive Ripper?

If Edwards was told and still went ahead with the publishing then he fully deserves all the ill feeling towards him that some might want to levy

Honestly? no I'm not.

Its none of my business what anyone does.

I must admit, the evidence leads, however in this case, it looks as if the suspect has been followed.

Monty

[Patrick S]

So, we are back to questioning the motives of those who Edwards consulted in writing his book. Wonderful. Classy, as well.

It seems obvious that Edwards was/is no expert when it comes to the Whitechapel murders, Jack the Ripper, the victims, the "suspects", etc. Therefore, it seems reasonable that he might consult someone recognized as such to help him flesh out detail and provide some background. Is the expectation that he would sumbit a description of the techniques used to extract the DNA from the shawl, the DNA comparisons, and results to every individual consulted for review and approval? I'm not sure how many books of this type would be published if the authors sought unanimous approval from everyone listed in the credits.

I'm not sure how Edwards book is - ultimately - any diffrent from any of the other 'suspect' books we've seen. Paley draws a conclusion and selects a "Ripper" that the majority do not endorse. Yet, 'The Simple Truth' is fairly well regarded for it's construction and detail. House's book on Kozminski, while not quite as sensational or agenda driven, profiles the same suspect. Yet, it's hailed on these pages, even managing to convince a few that Kozminski was the killer, if some of the posts I've read are to be believed.

Cornwell, took a lot of heat for her (in my view) absurd conclusions. Yet, I don't think quite this much. Alas, she - like Edwards - is a compartive outsider, not part of the community. Perhaps she committed the same sins as Edwards: not praying at the right alters and paying the appropriate tributes before publishing?

Thus, we've nearly ceased to discuss the content of the book, or even the science involved. Yet, we do have several Ripperological experts posting quite actively here, whereas previously they'd been fairly quiet. Clearly, they view Edwards as 'not one of us' and his book not a serious contribution to the Ripper library.

Again, I'm defending a book that I didn't particulary enjoy (although, that's typical of many of the Ripper books I've read over the years) and am quite skeptical of. Yet, what I've been reading lately on this thread smacks of petty jealousy and a childish sense of ownership of a topic that many feel they've a patent on.

It's clear to anyone willing to pay attention that Edwards' book is a net positive for everyone with an interest or stake in anything 'Ripper' related. Instead of asking, "Why didn't he talk to me!?", why not wait your chance to engage the author, speak with the scientist, and see what actual DNA experts have to say once the media sensationalism has died down?

The guy may have written a lousy book. I think that's somewhat subjective. Alas, it seems he's guilty of something far, far worse: never having heard of some who regard themselves as kings of the Jack the Ripper castle.

[Fantasio]

Maybe we can put all the nonsense about Chris, and the others, behind us. They seem to me to be good people.

Chris' wonderful researches are one of the reasons I've been reading Casebook since many years. It's a pity there aren't many others like him.

[Trevor Marriott]

I don't think John ghost wrote the book, there are a few errors in it which John just would not include, but yes, Chris, John, Pat et al should not be lambasted for helping a guy out. That's what the majority of us do, if we believe in their theory or not. Some of us even help those out who have abused us in the past.

However, I do not like the arrogant 'case closed' statement by Edwards when the reality is far from it. Cornwell stated the same and got burned. You make such asinine statements then be prepared to back them up fully.

That's the rub. And, like the rest of us, I'm sure John, Chris and all associated cringe every time Russell Edwards makes that claim, however, just because they aided in the work, we must not assume they agreed nor endorse the conclusions reached.

Just my take.

Monty

Did you not wonder why Edwards or any of those advising him didn't consult you with regards to your back ground or me for that matter. I am sure that if he had then he would have been told in no uncertain terms that his evidence he sought to rely on was far from conclusive.

Now after the event we have to regularly tell the press and the public exactly that and explain why it is inconclusive.

Yet those that he did consult were happy to perhaps encourage him to publish the book. Should they not have sought to clarify some of the major issues with him first. Or were they so blind they could not see? or did they genuinely want Kosminski to be the elusive Ripper?

If Edwards was told and still went ahead with the publishing then he fully deserves all the ill feeling towards him that some might want to levy

[anna]

Thank you Monty


I shall treasure them with all my heart.


Anna.

[Monty]

Such negativity Anna,

You have my sympathies.

Monty

[anna]

There you have it Monty...

Mr Edwards is clever in what he does...which is why the word" successful" is quoted before his chosen career when it is described.

The real loser in the end is Dr Jari....poor man.

He thinks he is working on a book,and has become the target of countless criticism of his work.

There are people on here who would like him to prove this case..and for them,as they are nice guys...I hope he comes up with what they desire.

Until then we just have to sit back and wait to see what happens.

[Monty]

It is the business of people to wonder why someone who obviously knew the background of this item,and the annoyance it was cause here,would want to be involved in the first place.

IF John did do that...it appears he was taken in by Mr Edwards,just like all those who still discuss and those that believe in the crap he came up with,to get the copies of his book shifted.

For what I know of John, he would try and help anybody if he could. He also doesn't fool easily.

He'd be curious, and supportive, even if he disagreed.

And there is nothing wrong in that.

Monty

[anna]

Just saying....

It is the business of people to wonder why someone who obviously knew the background of this item,and the annoyance it was cause here,would want to be involved in the first place.

IF John did do that...it appears he was taken in by Mr Edwards,just like all those who still discuss and those that believe in the crap he came up with,to get the copies of his book shifted.

[anna]

I'm just waiting for this all to play out and end....yawn.

We are now into the second part of a very long thread about some DNA which is obviously now a ruse to sell a book..like the locket before it. Mr Edwards would have been well aware of it's dodgy past when he purchased it from the auction house in Suffolk. He is a property developer,they are a money making machine,that fights like hell to get what they want..they don't take no for an answer,and will twist and turn things to get to their ultimate goal..then when that has been achieved...they leave...which is exactly what he has now done.

Leaving everyone here to discuss some "magic DNA" that was supposedly found deep down in a thin bit of silky highly contaminated material. Laughingly filmed under lab conditions by guys in forensic suits for his tv interview.

Mr Edwards has moved on...with his forensic team,he is going to solve cold cases...look out CSI.