Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[mickreed]

Did you have any inkling, Chris, that Mr. Edwards would use the contacts you provided to test their DNA against "the Eddowes shawl?"

This probably doesn't apply to you Roy, but I have noticed (and received by pm) some suspicious remarks about those named in the acknowledgements in the book.

I don't share these suspicions. I'll help anybody (and have many times over the years) with a research query and hope, sometimes vainly, that they will acknowledge that help.

But what they do with that help is nothing to do with me, and I wouldn't expect to be held in any way responsible for what conclusions they may draw.

Of course, if they claim my help as their own work, then I do get pissed off.

[RockySullivan]

I admit I find it a bit less than thrilling that the "persuasive" "statactics" were coming from someone involved with with snake oil salesman and thanked in the book.....

[mickreed]

I admit I find it a bit less than thrilling that the "persuasive" "statactics" were coming from someone involved with with snake oil salesman and thanked in the book.....

Come on, Rocky. If Edwards is a snake oil man, and I suspect he is, it doesn't follow that those who helped, perhaps not even knowing the first thing about him, are somehow suspect as well.

After all, the stats that Chris et al are pursuing will, if proven correct, be a huge nail in RE's coffin.

[RockySullivan]

Come on, Rocky. If Edwards is a snake oil man, and I suspect he is, it doesn't follow that those who helped, perhaps not even knowing the first thing about him, are somehow suspect as well.

After all, the stats that Chris et al are pursuing will, if proven correct, be a huge nail in RE's coffin.

From what I recall chris was quite convincing with his conviction that Edwards had already proved Eddowes DNA was on the shawl...or atleast he believed the statistics did in fact indicate the DNA was eddowes

[mickreed]

From what I recall chris was quite convincing with his conviction that Edwards had already proved Eddowes DNA was on the shawl..

Well Rocky, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I happen to know from private discussions, from a couple of weeks back, that Chris was not as convinced as you seem to suggest. Without, I hope, disclosing too much from private contacts, he felt, at that time, that the Eddowes stuff was 'just about adequate for a popular book' which is a long way from accepting it as 'proof'. I should say that the 'convincing' part of the book appears to be in Louhelainen's own words, rather than Edwards's. The latter goes on to reach any number of unjustified conclusions from Louhelainen's words, but that's a different story.

That was before the discovery that 314.1c is not necessarily the extremely rare thing Edward's (and Louhelainen apparently) claimed it to be, but rather an 'error in nomenclature'. Based on the scientists own words, I also thought that there might be something in this - but maybe not. Since then, Chris has been exemplary in trying to get to the bottom of this.

[RockySullivan]

Well Rocky, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I happen to know from private discussions, from a couple of weeks back, that Chris was not as convinced as you seem to suggest. Without, I hope, disclosing too much from private contacts, he felt, at that time, that the Eddowes stuff was 'just about adequate for a popular book' which is a long way from accepting it as 'proof'. I should say that the 'convincing' part of the book appears to be in Louhelainen's own words, rather than Edwards's. The latter goes on to reach any number of unjustified conclusions from Louhelainen's words, but that's a different story.

That was before the discovery that 314.1c is not necessarily the extremely rare thing Edward's (and Louhelainen apparently) claimed it to be, but rather an 'error in nomenclature'. Based on the scientists own words, I also thought that there might be something in this - but maybe not. Since then, Chris has been exemplary in trying to get to the bottom of this.

well said...of course i'm not accusing chris of anything either and he was rather helpful in explaining the alleged eddowes statistics in a way i could understand

[mickreed]

well said...of course i'm not accusing chris of anything either and he was rather helpful in explaining the alleged eddowes statistics in a way i could understand

On yer, Rocky

[mickreed]

Early Title

ChrisG in jtrforums pointed out that the book was originally to be called Jack the Ripper Decoded and is offered as a forthcoming attraction on Amazon, Book Depository and elsewhere. In fact, if Amazon is to be believed, it may be another book entirely, due out on 25 Jun 2015. However other sites say it was due out 1 September 2014.

On one site the following appears:

About the Author
Russell Edwards is a successful property developer from North London who has a detailed knowledge of the Ripper crimes. His co-writer is a much published author and noted crime historian, John Bennett.

http://www.booktopia.com.au/jack-the-ripper-decoded-russell-edwards/prod9781447264224.html

What does John have to say about this?

[drstrange169]

>>... if Amazon is to be believed, it may be another book entirely, due out on 25 Jun 2015<<

I believe that's the paperback version.

[pinkmoon]

Come on, Rocky. If Edwards is a snake oil man, and I suspect he is, it doesn't follow that those who helped, perhaps not even knowing the first thing about him, are somehow suspect as well.

After all, the stats that Chris et al are pursuing will, if proven correct, be a huge nail in RE's coffin.

Good morning,I agree that most people involved in this shawl pantomime have acted with integrity I have no doubt that the previous owners the parlours had no doubt that the shawl was genuine( let's face every family that has a descendent who lived in Whitechapel during these murders or worked on the ripper case has a story to tell) but we are back to same point again there is no proof that the shawl is genuine.Imagine trying to do your family history and you pick the wrong person as your great great great great great great grandmother the end result of your research would be WRONG.

[Chris]

Roy

I'm afraid I'm not going to submit to a lengthy online interrogation, but briefly:
(1) Yes - of course Russell Edwards explained why he wished to contact members of the family and
(2) It wasn't that I had no urge to find other descendants before; it was simply that the research involving tracing descendants had been done several years ago and I had moved on to other things (mostly not involving the Ripper case at all).

If you want to know whether I was paid to trace them, I wasn't.

[Chris]

From what I recall chris was quite convincing with his conviction that Edwards had already proved Eddowes DNA was on the shawl...or atleast he believed the statistics did in fact indicate the DNA was eddowes

That's absolutely untrue.

[Jeff Leahy]

Good morning,I agree that most people involved in this shawl pantomime have acted with integrity I have no doubt that the previous owners the parlours had no doubt that the shawl was genuine( let's face every family that has a descendent who lived in Whitechapel during these murders or worked on the ripper case has a story to tell) but we are back to same point again there is no proof that the shawl is genuine.Imagine trying to do your family history and you pick the wrong person as your great great great great great great grandmother the end result of your research would be WRONG.

Hi Pinkmoon

I don't think the sincerity of the Parlours or the Simpson family has ever been called into question. Clearly they believe the MAterial was a shawl taken from the murder scene.

At some point it was taken to experts, still never clarified, who believed the material was screen printed. Thus making it impossible to be the genuine artefact.

It would appear this was in er. As a number of new examinations seem to say the material is hand or woodblock printed.

Of corse we all have family legends that appear not to be exactly as we thought them as children, and as many here I had my own memories of my Aunt taking me around london and the east end as a child. And while much we are told appears to be wrong.. I believe the Royal connection was popular at that time thanks to Barlow and Watts.. Sometimes kernels of fact remain.. Like there was a famous killer called Jack the Ripper.

So why oral histories should always be treated with caution, I see no reason that some basic facts might not contain kernels of truth.

So far there is no evidence that the Shawl was anywhere near Mitre square.

However if a positive DNA match could be made to the Eddows descendant, especially if it was proved to be arterial blood as some have claimed. Then the 'kernels' of that story might give us some reason to start questioning if it could have been.

Personally I'd like an independent analysis of the 1820-30 dating claim being made given what I've read on this thread. But just because it seems Aparent Amos was nowhere near Mitre Square on the night in question doesn't mean that he may have been covering up for someone who was or just 'caging' a few drinks off the story, much like Pearly Poll.

Just some thoughts

Jeff

[Chris]

I happen to know from private discussions, from a couple of weeks back, that Chris was not as convinced as you seem to suggest. Without, I hope, disclosing too much from private contacts, he felt, at that time, that the Eddowes stuff was 'just about adequate for a popular book' which is a long way from accepting it as 'proof'. I should say that the 'convincing' part of the book appears to be in Louhelainen's own words, rather than Edwards's. The latter goes on to reach any number of unjustified conclusions from Louhelainen's words, but that's a different story.

Just to be clear, I've managed to find the private email Mick is quoting from, and what I wrote - in response to a comment that the DNA discussion in the book (as mediated through my notes) was fragmentary - was this:
"Yes, I felt the description of the "Eddowes" comparison was just about adequate for a popular book, but for the "Kozminski" comparison I don't really understand what was done, especially regarding what went into that database comparison which produced the T1a1 result, and why they wouldn't have been able to get the T1a1 directly from M's sample."
[emphasis just added]

That related purely to the adequacy of the description of what had been matched in the book .

That was before the discovery that 314.1c is not necessarily the extremely rare thing Edward's (and Louhelainen apparently) claimed it to be, but rather an 'error in nomenclature'. Based on the scientists own words, I also thought that there might be something in this - but maybe not. Since then, Chris has been exemplary in trying to get to the bottom of this.

Actually, I was already aware then of the difficulty with 314.1C. But I initially hoped that it would be possible for Dr Louhelainen to clarify privately what had happened before I posted anything publicly here.

[mickreed]

Personally I'd like an independent analysis of the 1820-30 dating claim being made given what I've read on this thread.

Hi Jeff

I'd just like to see some analysis of the dating. We don't have any really. So far as I can make out from the book, the only science on this said the dye was organic, which means it could have been made at any time up to today lunchtime.

The rest was, it seems, all done from photos. The only people to do it from physical contact with the shawl, were Sothebys years ago who came up with the Edwardian silk-screen notion.

If I read Edwards correctly:

1. Christies thought it was early, English or possibly continental.

2. Sothebys thought it later, possibly French.

3. Thalmann thought it early, not English, but beyond that, no real clue. Only when pressed by Edwards for a Russian origin, did she say it could have. Her real thoughts were "I honestly can't say" and "this is a bit of a mystery to me".

Now that, to me, is not analysis.