Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[AdamNeilWood]

I'm a bit confused, as well. Is this not what we should expect writers to do? Shouldn't they seek the input of those with valuable informaiton and/or research to contribute?

Absolutely, Patrick.

[PaulB]

I can confim that, and edorse Traceys post.

Chris has been nothing but professional, honest and generous in our dealings with each other.

Monty

Quit right my friend. Nobody, but nobody should question the honesty and integrity of Chris. Some people have already taken that kind of thing too far.

[Robert]

The more scrupulous, meticulous and honest you are, the more suspicious you appear. This is, as the hippies used to say, a crazy scene, man.

[Roy Corduroy]

Roy
(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.

Thank you Chris, for answering all of my questions.

You must think this a worthwhile experiment or you would not have involved yourself. That alone puts it in a new light for me. I"ll get a copy of the book and read it.

Oh no, my questions in no way suggest anything wrong, and if anyone construes it that way I apologize.

In my book you are top shelf, Chris, your research finds, interpretation, and most importantly, your comportment in dealing with sensitive issues of peoples' ancestors.

Roy

[Patrick S]

The more scrupulous, meticulous and honest you are, the more suspicious you appear. This is, as the hippies used to say, a crazy scene, man.

"Crazy scene", indeed. The overall impression one gets from viewing much of what's been written on this ever expanding thread is not a flattering one.

Granted, there has been some lucid and productive discussion. But, there seems an excess supply of anger and indignation with respect to the "shawl" and Edward's book. Dr. J has taken his share of abuse, even as it's clear he was before and continues to be a respected name in his field. Ah! But we have people googling things that seem (to non-experts) to cast Edwards and Dr. J as lying, money-grubbing publicity whore's, peddling a lie in search of their respective fortunes. It's clear that many view this business as an attack on their personal "Jack the Ripper".

I suppose we all have our own picture of "Jack", loathe as we may be be to admit it. However, we should all be prepared to abandon our respective versions of the killer in favor any more accurate representation supported by evidence, science......anything other than our own prejudices and pet theories.

A few appear willing to let this thing play out. Many are not prepared to wait for any further informtion, peer-review, Q&A with Edwards and Dr. J, etc. They do not need to read the book. They do not desire input from the scientific community. They require no further discussion. It's fraud, flat out. It's a fake.

"None of this matters because the shawl cannot have been at any of the murder sites." Posted again and again and again. As if that means ANYTHING at all . OF COURSE the shawl could have been at ANY and ALL of the murder sites. Unless the shawl is proven to have been made/manufactured after the murders were committed (that seems to not be the case to this point in time) and there is no photographic evidence of the shawl on vacation, say, in the Swiss Alps at the time of the murders....well...since it may have been a part of the physical universe in 1888 there is absolutely NO reason at ALL why it COULD NOT have been at ANY of the murder sites.

It astounds me that most on this board can invent and/or support any set of circumstances where anything is POSSIBLE, so long as it supports their opinion. Yet, this shawl COULD NOT have been at ANY of the murder sites? Please.........

The Simpson story is likely not true. It's likely invented or has been mangled by generations so that's unrecognizable next to the truth. Alas, that does not mean that the shawl COULD NOT have been in Mitre Square. Further, it need not have been at any of the murder sites to cast a very large shadow of suspicion. Should Aaron Kosminski's DNA and Eddowe's DNA exist on one article, that's more of a "suspect" victim connection than we have nearly anywhere else. I'm not sure that DNA "proof" exists. I'm not an expert. So, instead of googling it, I'll wait a bit, and see what others educated in such things have to say about it.

That leaves the viability of the reasearch and findings. The jury is VERY CLEARLY still out. I cannot fathom that I've found myself on a soapbox DEFENDING this book and the science that 'supports' it. But here I am.

Kudos to all those who have dug into Simpson and Kosminski, etc. THAT is the kind of thing that makes "Ripperology" an immensely interesting and enjoyable pursuit and does credit to eveyone involved. The rest of us should just relax a bit and see what comes of all this. Alas, getting too exercised and stating emphatically one way or the other is a poor reflection on this, our shared chosen interest.

[lynn cates]

Sigmund

Hello Patrick. Thanks.

I fail to see what a Viennese psychiatrist has to do with this? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

I'm a bit confused, as well. Is this not what we should expect writers to do? Shouldn't they seek the input of those with valuable informaiton and/or research to contribute?

Of course, it depends on who is sought, but they don't come much better that Chris, Rob and JB.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Moyes mistakes were multiple Phil. What we have here is a single very basic very uncharacteristic mistake for an expert in the field to make. Was it he who made the mistake which appears in the book?

Hello Observer,

I am afraid to say I believe you are in err.

Multiple errors have been made, including the methodology of the gathering of the data. No point in going over the errors again though, they are listed way way back..

best wishes

Phil

[pinkmoon]

Well, he won't have time to run his shop if, as I posted a couple of days back, the reports in the Barnet Post are true. Namely that he and his forensic team, are going into the cold case solving game.

Watch out UCOS.

I don't think the police would be to happy about this.

[pinkmoon]

help

Right two points I'm a bit confused about perhaps you could all help me is Mr Edwards claiming that eddowes was wearing the shawl the night she was killed or is he claiming Kosminski took it with him to the murder site when he committed eddowes murder.

[Patrick S]

Right two points I'm a bit confused about perhaps you could all help me is Mr Edwards claiming that eddowes was wearing the shawl the night she was killed or is he claiming Kosminski took it with him to the murder site when he committed eddowes murder.

I'm not sure who this addressed to, and I'm not quite sure that Edward's has asserted that both of these things are concurently true, but I'll take a shot:



Who cares what Mr. Edwards says? Perhaps he can't keep his story straight. Maybe the family told one story and his research (if he actually did research) told another. Perhaps he bought the shawl and made up a story that sounded good to him. I could't say. It doesn't really matter. People are incredibly unrealiable. Witness can't remember things. Stories change. Family traditions, more often than not, are not entirely true (if they are true at all). Thus, we should put little to no stock in them.

So, we are left with the the science. The DNA. Is that proven? No. Far from it. But, at least in my view, it's not been disproven quite yet. Therefore, I'll refrain sitting in the corner of a darkened room chanting, "None of this matters because the shawl cannot have been at any of the murder scenes!', just yet.

If Dr. J's work is judged solid by his peers, then I will immerse myself in discussions about where the shawl came from. Despite your tedious matra, it certainly could have been at any and all of the murder sites. It could have been at Battle of Hastings. As I said in a previous post, the laws of the physical universe certainly allow for such things, don't they?

Further, IF it's proven that there is arterial blood or DNA from a kidney that DNA belonged to Katherine Eddowes on the shawl, along with DNA from Aaaron Kozminski, then you have ONE article with DNA from both a contemporary suspect and a victim. At that point, the "provenance" of the shawl matters much less, doesn't it?

Is it enough to say, "case closed". No. It is enough to tilt this whole whodunnit game we play drastically toward Kozminski? I'd say so.

Again, I detest having to defend this shawl business, but when people run around yelling the sky is falling before any of the facts are in, someone must.

[pinkmoon]

I'm not sure who this addressed to, and I'm not quite sure that Edward's has asserted that both of these things are concurently true, but I'll take a shot:



Who cares what Mr. Edwards says? Perhaps he can't keep his story straight. Maybe the family told one story and his research (if he actually did research) told another. Perhaps he bought the shawl and made up a story that sounded good to him. I could't say. It doesn't really matter. People are incredibly unrealiable. Witness can't remember things. Stories change. Family traditions, more often than not, are not entirely true (if they are true at all). Thus, we should put little to no stock in them.

So, we are left with the the science. The DNA. Is that proven? No. Far from it. But, at least in my view, it's not been disproven quite yet. Therefore, I'll refrain sitting in the corner of a darkened room chanting, "None of this matters because the shawl cannot have been at any of the murder scenes!', just yet.

If Dr. J's work is judged solid by his peers, then I will immerse myself in discussions about where the shawl came from. Despite your tedious matra, it certainly could have been at any and all of the murder sites. It could have been at Battle of Hastings. As I said in a previous post, the laws of the physical universe certainly allow for such things, don't they?

Further, IF it's proven that there is arterial blood or DNA from a kidney that DNA belonged to Katherine Eddowes on the shawl, along with DNA from Aaaron Kozminski, then you have ONE article with DNA from both a contemporary suspect and a victim. At that point, the "provenance" of the shawl matters much less, doesn't it?

Is it enough to say, "case closed". No. It is enough to tilt this whole whodunnit game we play drastically toward Kozminski? I'd say so.

Again, I detest having to defend this shawl business, but when people run around yelling the sky is falling before any of the facts are in, someone must.

Thanks for reply,if they had tested the piece of apron left at the goullston street message and the result came back with a d.n.a from Kosminski and eddowes you know what I'd go for that I'd be shouting case closed but and its a big but I just can't see Kosminski or eddowes having a shawl like that in their possession then we are asked to believe a policeman who couldn't possibly be anywhere near the murder scene steals it takes it home for his wife who dosnt even clean it and then passes it down through the family I just can't see it sorry it's just too far fetched ever theory on something this old needs a leap of faith but this requires so many leaps it just falls to pieces.

[Varqm]

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.

[pinkmoon]

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.

Good evening,I can't see how it can ever be proved it was at the murder scene and because of that we have nothing.

[Hercule Poirot]

Yes but...

...

Further, IF it's proven that there is arterial blood or DNA from a kidney that DNA belonged to Katherine Eddowes on the shawl, along with DNA from Aaaron Kozminski, then you have ONE article with DNA from both a contemporary suspect and a victim. At that point, the "provenance" of the shawl matters much less, doesn't it?

Is it enough to say, "case closed". No. It is enough to tilt this whole whodunnit game we play drastically toward Kozminski? I'd say so.

Again, I detest having to defend this shawl business, but when people run around yelling the sky is falling before any of the facts are in, someone must.

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.