Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[Chris]

I think this discussion is getting altogether too hypothetical. Is there any point arguing over what the implications would be of conclusive DNA matches, when we don't have any conclusive DNA matches?

In fact we don't have any information at all about the statistical significance of the matches that have been found, except for one number which is now very much open to question.

I think we need more information, and I think it's pointless speculating about what the implications of having more information would be, until we have it.

[RockySullivan]

I believe it has been said numerous times before that all this does is establish a connection between Kominski and Eddowes the nature of which has still not been established. We haven't had a serious explanation yet as to when the traces on the fabric were made. The night of the murder or before?

In my humble opinion unless more circumstantial evidence leading to the unique possibility that Kominski did it is presented the provenance of the fabric still matters otherwise we simply have a situation a court would define as hearsay.

I've seen nothing so far that links Kozminski at all to the shawl....and apparently the eddowes DNA was simply a computer database error....then again I'm not a sucker and wouldn't even download the book to read it for free....

[mickreed]

The questioning of Chris' involvement with Russell Edwards' book is absolutely ridiculous.

If he or anyone else knew they'd face an inquisition every time they offered help or information to an author not much would get written.

Spot on, Adam.

From what I've seen so far, and that includes the book, I don't think there is much of a case to be made for Edwards's argument. Until we see the real, detailed, science then there's isn't much more that we can say about that either, unless the work that Chris et al are following up on, bears fruit.

At present, it's as ludicrous to say 'impossible' as it is for Edwards to say 'proven beyond any doubt'.

And as Adam says, it's quite wrong to go for anyone who may have given Edwards a hand in finding something out at some point. Absolutely bloody ridiculous. That's what people do all the time - help others.

Perhaps I shouldn't drag some kid out from under a bus, in case he/she turns out to be the next Pol Pot or Hitler. Get bloody real, people.

[RockySullivan]

I think this discussion is getting altogether too hypothetical. Is there any point arguing over what the implications would be of conclusive DNA matches, when we don't have any conclusive DNA matches?

In fact we don't have any information at all about the statistical significance of the matches that have been found, except for one number which is now very much open to question.

I think we need more information, and I think it's pointless speculating about what the implications of having more information would be, until we have it.

Good post Chris and I'm sorry I misunderstood you before. I thought you were saying statistics proved that eddowes DNA was very likely on the shawl...but I see now that's not what you were arguing

[Jeff Leahy]

I think this discussion is getting altogether too hypothetical. Is there any point arguing over what the implications would be of conclusive DNA matches, when we don't have any conclusive DNA matches?

In fact we don't have any information at all about the statistical significance of the matches that have been found, except for one number which is now very much open to question.

I think we need more information, and I think it's pointless speculating about what the implications of having more information would be, until we have it.

Agreed . But surely in the mean time getting a better professional or 'expert' opinion on the actual age of the shawl would be useful if that was something that could be arranged and done independently with Russel Edwards.

And given that a number of people here have direct contact with Russel I don't see why that would not be possible if all parties were happy for that to happen.

As I said earlier it might be that RE is unable to do so due to contract obligation. But it might be a simple way forward without complicated science, which I don't pretend to understand

Yours Jeff

[Patrick S]

there is absolutely NO reason at ALL why it COULD NOT have been at ANY of the murder sites.
Patrick S

I see a garage sale in Mitre Square during Eddowes murder. because a lot of the thousands of items made in pre-1888 and 1888 potentially could have been there. A spin/lore could make it appear even so.
That's why we have courts,so they could prove otherwise because one man says something most of us end up in jail. That's why there's is peer review otherwise we came from microbes from Mars.

At most the shawl sample match (and this is not even clear yet) could prove one of Eddowes descendants came in contact with the shawl one way or another but it's just a piece of family history with nothing to do with the murder.

What if the samples came from 1900's. There is no reliable test to prove this. But what if it did.

The Dr's paper has yet to be released.

That this shawl has anything to do with the murders is not even close to resembling a fact. It's got a long way to go.

I'm not sure we disagree. My point is simple: Just as there is no evidence to support 'case closed', there is no evidence (yet) that the shawl is a complete dead-end, fraud, pick your euphemism.

[Patrick S]

I believe it has been said numerous times before that all this does is establish a connection between Kominski and Eddowes the nature of which has still not been established. We haven't had a serious explanation yet as to when the traces on the fabric were made. The night of the murder or before?

In my humble opinion unless more circumstantial evidence leading to the unique possibility that Kominski did it is presented the provenance of the fabric still matters otherwise we simply have a situation a court would define as hearsay.

To what end? Are we going to convict Kozminski? Are we going to provide comfort and closure to the victims families and friends? Circumstantial evidence, more likely than not, is all we'll ever have in a 125 year old murder case. We are asked to believe that a carman was the killer because he gave a 'false' name and walked through Whitechapel to work each day. We are asked to believe that one of the victims lovers was "Jack" because he had a speech impediment and disapproved of her being a prostitute. We are told that it's more than likely a well known artist is the killer because his DNA may have been on a Ripper letter (that was almost certainly not sent by the killer). The burden of proof here is not akin what's required in a court of law. But, we can draw reasonable conclusions. As reasonable people we should be able to do that. Now we have article presented that MAY have Eddowes DNA and Kozminski's DNA present (that's far from proven, of course), and suddenly we have a much higher standard of proof?

[Patrick S]

I think this discussion is getting altogether too hypothetical. Is there any point arguing over what the implications would be of conclusive DNA matches, when we don't have any conclusive DNA matches?

In fact we don't have any information at all about the statistical significance of the matches that have been found, except for one number which is now very much open to question.

I think we need more information, and I think it's pointless speculating about what the implications of having more information would be, until we have it.

My point. Although....with much fewer words.

[Hercule Poirot]

I think this discussion is getting altogether too hypothetical. Is there any point arguing over what the implications would be of conclusive DNA matches, when we don't have any conclusive DNA matches?

In fact we don't have any information at all about the statistical significance of the matches that have been found, except for one number which is now very much open to question.

I think we need more information, and I think it's pointless speculating about what the implications of having more information would be, until we have it.

I feel the same way. If we were programming a piece of software with so many "if"s, it would obviously create a stack overflow and endless loops freezing our computers. Maybe this is why we are now on "part 2" of an seemingly endless story. Will we reach season 1 part 3 of "Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl"? LOL

[Tom_Wescott]

Russell Edwards is not the enemy

You guys know that, right? Edwards is not the enemy. He's a guy who put out a book, the conclusions of which I don't agree with, nor do a lot of the folks who post here. That doesn't make him a bad person. And hell, Kosminski might actually be the Ripper, even if his DNA isn't on a shawl. And I'm on the record as stating I don't believe it is.

I'm only typing this because there seems to be the suggestion that Chris Phillips is a lousy person because he helped Edwards out. And there's liable to be backlash against Bennett for possibly ghostwriting the book. I'm certain there's some people who don't agree with the conclusions in my book, but I sure as hell would hope there wouldn't be a backlash against the good folks in my acknowledgments page - a huge portion of which don't agree with all or any of my conclusions, but were good enough to help me with facts, research, or putting me in touch with other people who could help.

Also, if you pay me enough, I might just ghost write your book. Writers write and they like to get paid for it. That doesn't make them traitors, or evil, it makes them working writers.

Incidentally, I thought the book was very well written and I assumed there was a ghost writer. Kudos to Bennett or whoever did the writing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[pinkmoon]

You guys know that, right? Edwards is not the enemy. He's a guy who put out a book, the conclusions of which I don't agree with, nor do a lot of the folks who post here. That doesn't make him a bad person. And hell, Kosminski might actually be the Ripper, even if his DNA isn't on a shawl. And I'm on the record as stating I don't believe it is.

I'm only typing this because there seems to be the suggestion that Chris Phillips is a lousy person because he helped Edwards out. And there's liable to be backlash against Bennett for possibly ghostwriting the book. I'm certain there's some people who don't agree with the conclusions in my book, but I sure as hell would hope there wouldn't be a backlash against the good folks in my acknowledgments page - a huge portion of which don't agree with all or any of my conclusions, but were good enough to help me with facts, research, or putting me in touch with other people who could help.

Also, if you pay me enough, I might just ghost write your book. Writers write and they like to get paid for it. That doesn't make them traitors, or evil, it makes them working writers.

Incidentally, I thought the book was very well written and I assumed there was a ghost writer. Kudos to Bennett or whoever did the writing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Good post Tom,I have got no problem with the end result of this journey what I have a massive problem with is the beginning of the journey because this journey has no beginning unless this shawl can be placed at the murder scene untill that can be done we have nothing to make claims of case solved and make money out of this is just plain wrong I have no problem with people making money out of their claims as long as they have researched things properly this hasn't been done in this case.I just wish the piece of apron found at goulston street was still kicking around and it was that what was tested then it would be case closed.

[lynn cates]

eating

Hello Tom. Reminds me of a line by Chief Dan George in "Americathon."

"I gotta eat too. Does that make me a bad guy?"

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

You guys know that, right? Edwards is not the enemy. He's a guy who put out a book, the conclusions of which I don't agree with, nor do a lot of the folks who post here. That doesn't make him a bad person. And hell, Kosminski might actually be the Ripper, even if his DNA isn't on a shawl. And I'm on the record as stating I don't believe it is.

I'm only typing this because there seems to be the suggestion that Chris Phillips is a lousy person because he helped Edwards out. And there's liable to be backlash against Bennett for possibly ghostwriting the book. I'm certain there's some people who don't agree with the conclusions in my book, but I sure as hell would hope there wouldn't be a backlash against the good folks in my acknowledgments page - a huge portion of which don't agree with all or any of my conclusions, but were good enough to help me with facts, research, or putting me in touch with other people who could help.

Also, if you pay me enough, I might just ghost write your book. Writers write and they like to get paid for it. That doesn't make them traitors, or evil, it makes them working writers.

Incidentally, I thought the book was very well written and I assumed there was a ghost writer. Kudos to Bennett or whoever did the writing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

What ever is said here…theres lots of ins and outs, and many disagreements over the years within this community..

Tom you and I have had our own disagreements at time from time.

But I have to agree any suggestion that people have gotten involved for their expertise and they have influence over the 'author'..

Well its just daft

I know John Bennetts opinions fairly well, and I totally respect them..but I doubt he'd give a consummate Kosminskite like myself much time of day…god knows we argued into the night often enough..

As for Chris Philips, I hinted that I fell out with him many years ago over something on casebook I've long since forgotten…however despite that Chris gave me some much needed and invaluable advice on dealing with closed files at the national archive on the Stripper case recently…he didn't have to do that…but he did…presumably because he cares about the FACTS. And I fore one will be defending both guys integrity….God knows casual commentators like myself would have little to say... if it were not for these guys efforts..

So can we just get back to the facts and what can be done to clarify any claims without resorting to any personal criticism. Its not required, only the facts are required and the two guys under question are, if nothing else, bastions of the FACTS

Rant over.. Great post Tom...sorry about outburst.. Jx

[Monty]

You guys know that, right? Edwards is not the enemy. He's a guy who put out a book, the conclusions of which I don't agree with, nor do a lot of the folks who post here. That doesn't make him a bad person. And hell, Kosminski might actually be the Ripper, even if his DNA isn't on a shawl. And I'm on the record as stating I don't believe it is.

I'm only typing this because there seems to be the suggestion that Chris Phillips is a lousy person because he helped Edwards out. And there's liable to be backlash against Bennett for possibly ghostwriting the book. I'm certain there's some people who don't agree with the conclusions in my book, but I sure as hell would hope there wouldn't be a backlash against the good folks in my acknowledgments page - a huge portion of which don't agree with all or any of my conclusions, but were good enough to help me with facts, research, or putting me in touch with other people who could help.

Also, if you pay me enough, I might just ghost write your book. Writers write and they like to get paid for it. That doesn't make them traitors, or evil, it makes them working writers.

Incidentally, I thought the book was very well written and I assumed there was a ghost writer. Kudos to Bennett or whoever did the writing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

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

[Robert]

RESEARCHER : Excuse me, I wonder if you could help me. Do you perchance have any records pertaining to Jack the Ripper?

ARCHIVIST : Might have. Who wants to know?

RESEARCHER : My name's Smith and I'm writing a book about the murders.

ARCHIVIST : Oh yeah? And what does this book say?

RESEARCHER : Well, I'll be arguing that.....what business is it of yours?

ARCHIVIST : Look mate, if you're going to be thanking me and my staff for all the assistance we've given you, above and beyond the call of duty, then we want to know what's in the book.

RESEARCHER : But I haven't written it yet.

ARCHIVIST : Oh! So it's an airy-fairy book.

RESEARCHER : Look here - !

ARCHIVIST : I don't hold with airy-fairy books. Come back when you've written it.