Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[drstrange169]

Hello Sauropod,

"I must admit I'm a little nonplussed at all the hostility toward Edwards."

Mick's post #325, pretty much some up my views, must be an Australian thing;-)

Edwards research went no further than simply repeating other peoples work, I would actually categorize his research as lazy, compared to some here.

He has provided one useful service, in that, he has sparked some genuine researchers to look into new areas.

All that said I. for one, have no hostility towards Edwards, but after seeing his website cashing in on the slaughter of innocent women and glamourizing the killer buy selling trivial, branded junk like yo yo's and lip gloss, I was morally disgusted. Do you think that's wrong to fell that way?

[mickreed]

I don't thinks it suspect he's getting paid... It looks suspicious that there claiming he's not paid...

I don't know any more than you do Rocky. I don't feel suspicious without evidence.

What does seem to be the case is that JL used his university's facilities to do these tests. He even said in a Finnish press interview, that some of his colleagues were upset about that. I can understand why they would be. If I were a UK taxpayer, I'd be asking the questions as well.

I would think that if money changed hands, the university would have something to say about it. It was their facilities used and they would want to get the financial benefit surely, even if JL did the work in his own time. I think it would be unlikely for an institution, or large company, to allow its staff to use its facilities to line their own pockets.

[GUT]

I don't thinks it suspect he's getting paid... It looks suspicious that there claiming he's not paid...

Well even that's not really suspicious, if he WAS trialing a new method he may do it for free, especially given the failure in the Deeming attempt [and was he paid for that].

[RockySullivan]

I don't thinks it suspect he's getting paid... It looks suspicious that there claiming he's not paid...

[mickreed]

The book appears to me to be a bunch of Koala droppings [if you get my drift].

I get it, GUT. Koalaminski was JtR - proven by the droppings.

[mickreed]

Mickreed you sound like a decent human being you are been very charitable in what you say.

Thanks Pink. Charity doesn't come into it. I think the book is a stinker. I just don't make claims of crookery without evidence. I prefer, in the first instance, the stuff-up over the conspiracy. There is plenty to suggest the former, nothing, yet, to point to the latter.

And, for the record, I do feel that RE, deliberately or otherwise, plays very fast and loose with the facts. I do worry that JL seems still to be appearing alongside him in what I see as promotional events for the book. I do think that JL's reputation may be tainted by this association, but that's his problem, not mine.

As for RE's reputation, anyone who can use the fate of Kate Eddowes and the others, to sell JtR lip balm for 4 quid a go, deserves any flak going.

http://www.jacktherippertoursandstore.co.uk/Store/CategoryID/8

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

c) the 'sperm head expert' couldn't find any and thought they 'should be there'. He went on to say that they epithelial cells could have come from anywhere. It was RE who ignored that claim to insist they were from semen, merely because they fluoresced, as do many other things, including the bleach that the previous owner (or his mother) used to try and remove stains.

As no sperm heads were found, I would like to know if areas of the shawl away from the "semen stain" were also sampled for epithelial cells - internal control samples. And if so did they also have the same mtDNA as those from the stain and the Kosminski relative?

cheers, gryff

[GUT]

Yes, GUT. I don't like Rocky's insistence of lies and fraud. I certainly consider it most unlikely that JL would be involved in such things

The book is risible. It's not necessarily fraudulent. I do think that RE is intellectually dishonest, even if only with himself. He won't be the first to fall into that trap.

The book appears to me to be a bunch of Koala droppings [if you get my drift].

Dr L from all I can find is a respected scientist, with little to gain and a lot to be lost. I just can not but the proposition that he deliberately lied.

[pinkmoon]

Yes, GUT. I don't like Rocky's insistence of lies and fraud. I certainly consider it most unlikely that JL would be involved in such things

The book is risible. It's not necessarily fraudulent. I do think that RE is intellectually dishonest, even if only with himself. He won't be the first to fall into that trap.

Mickreed you sound like a decent human being you are been very charitable in what you say.

[mickreed]

Why does it look suspicious for a professional to get paid to do a job.

If you have any proof that the Dr lied please produce it.

Yes, GUT. I don't like Rocky's insistence of lies and fraud. I certainly consider it most unlikely that JL would be involved in such things

The book is risible. It's not necessarily fraudulent. I do think that RE is intellectually dishonest, even if only with himself. He won't be the first to fall into that trap.

[mickreed]

I must admit I'm a little nonplussed at all the hostility toward Edwards. I realize he comes across as rather full of himself, and I know that ripperologists have been burned before (Maybrick diary, "Case Closed," etc.). Still, to dismiss his book so cavalierly strikes me as a bit peculiar. After all, the guy ...

Hi Sauropod. For me the hostility comes from, as Christer says, RE's total insistence that he knows the answer. To see him in video clips, and you realise that the persona he presents in the book, is but a pale shadow of the one on TV.

b) found a leading DNA expert to examine it
c) also obtained the services of a top expert in "sperm head" analysis (surely one of the most arcane specialties on earth)
d) went to great lengths to have the experts salvage and analyze mitochondrial DNA from the shawl
e) tracked down a matrilineal descendent of Eddowes and got her permission to take samples of her DNA
f) found a matrilineal descendent of Kosminksi and obtained her DNA also; and
g) obtained access to the records of Kosminski's institutionalization.

b) the 'DNA expert',,Jari Louhelainen was found for him by someone else in an earlier TV programme, with Robin Napper, when they were trying to link the shawl to Deeming. At that time the DNA was 'too contaminated' to make any judgement.

c) the 'sperm head expert' couldn't find any and thought they 'should be there'. He went on to say that they epithelial cells could have come from anywhere. It was RE who ignored that claim to insist they were from semen, merely because they fluoresced, as do many other things, including the bleach that the previous owner (or his mother) used to try and remove stains.

d) See (b) above. No great lengths required.

e) She'd already been found by FindMyPast and had featured on a TV show.

f) I think (and I may be wrong here) that M was found by a member of this forum.

g) These had already been found by Martin Fido and others. They are widely available.

I've read a number of Ripper books, though fewer (I'm sure) than many of the posters here. I can't think of too many that involve this degree of detailed scientific investigation. Even if Edwards is wrong, he ought to be congratulated for his sustained efforts, which required considerable perseverance.

Sorry, Sauropod, the scientific investigation here is minimal. And what there is is largely ignored if it doesn't fit his case. And most of it doesn't. I mean, how can anyone, unscientifically, ask if the shawl came from Russia and be told by the expert that they haven't got the faintest idea and that they whole thing is a mystery, so therefore it 'could have', and claim from that that the expert said it could 'well have come from Russia' and that Kosminski 'brought it with him'?

And I'm not sure he is wrong. To believe he is, we have to assume that Dr. Louhelainen made a bush-league error regarding mutation 314.1C, which hardly seems likely. We also have to assume that blurry, low-resolution photos give us a better idea of the floral print on the shawl than direct visual inspection of the garment itself.

I reserve judgment on JL's findings until we know more, although it's looking very iffy.

According to the book, none of the 'shawl experts' - Christies, Sothebys, and Thalmann ever say the shawl. All they had was photos on which to assess it. They all disagreed with the others.

[MrBarnett]

Well, in my opinion there's nothing to suggest that at all.

That hair must cost a fortune to maintain. Unlike RE's. Do you think there might be some kind of syrup share in the deal?

[GUT]

I think the claim that jari wasn't paid for his work is telling. He was likely paid...very well and he's likely in on the con. He is in a way more to blame than Edwards because he has a scientific responsibility. I'm sure hair was paid very well to lie about the results but to admit so would make him look suspicious. All just my opinion of course

Why does it look suspicious for a professional to get paid to do a job.

If you have any proof that the Dr lied please produce it.

[mickreed]

Mick, as I have said before, Dr. JL will likely try to publish "on improved methodology/technology used to extract epithelial cells and not to an analysis and meaning of the actual results".

I recall, Gryff. You did.

[Chris]

I think the claim that jari wasn't paid for his work is telling. He was likely paid...very well and he's likely in on the con. He is in a way more to blame than Edwards because he has a scientific responsibility. I'm sure hair was paid very well to lie about the results but to admit so would make him look suspicious. All just my opinion of course

Well, in my opinion there's nothing to suggest that at all.