Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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...

[Debra A]

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...

I shouldn't but I'm going to.

[Roy Corduroy]

Chris I would like to set the record straight here that I did not introduce negativism into this thread re you. In post 10 you answered Simon's query about your involvement in Mr. Edwards' project , and I honestly did not understand. So I asked you some clarifying questions in post 14 which you were kind enough to answer in post 26, for which I thanked you post 64.

As far as I can tell, it was post 16, where poster MickReed quoted a portion of my question to you and introduced something about 'negative Private Messages.' Which I know nothing of because I have neither sent nor received such negative messages.

You answered my question, Chris, which I think was a valid one. Research by yourself and others about Aaron Kosminski and various areas has been ongoing for 25 years. I didn't know if you were aware the Edwards research involved DNA testing of descendants and the shawl and you answered yes you were aware.

You and so many people here do and have done good research. I follow along and enjoy all of it and learn from it.

Thanks again,

Roy

[barnflatwyngarde]

I am probably repeating something that someone has already pointed out, but the posts re the shawl are so numerous I may have missed it.

Science is unique in that scientists publish their findings in order that they may be subjected to peer review. One of the major tools scientists like Dr Louhelainen have at their disposal is the use of Double Blind Review.

Nothing will be solved until the shawl is subjected to a rigid Double Blind Review by Dr Louhalainen's peers.

Having read Russell Edward's book, it struck me that the tests on the shawl all seemed a bit haphazard, a bit loose, but I may be being unfair here.

The shawl seems to inhabit the same hinterland as the Maybrick diary, but I am also reminded that all swans are white, until a black one turns up.

[Trevor Marriott]

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...

We are not talking about any of my books are we? Same old chestnut lets throw up a smoke screen and have a go at the poster ! its wearing a bit thin now.

Just answer the question as to what was your involvement and contribution was ?

Along with all the others, lets see some transparency !

[Chris]

We are not talking about any of my books are we?

But it's such an interesting subject!

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=7550

Just answer the question as to what was your involvement and contribution was ?

Oh sorry - forgot about your reading difficulties:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=312248&postcount=10

[Trevor Marriott]

But it's such an interesting subject!

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=7550

Oh sorry - forgot about your reading difficulties:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...8&postcount=10

Oh dear did I hit a nerve? guess it is you that cant read, as what you posted was not the answer to the question.

You are one of several ripperologists who have been involved in this book. Why do you and the others decline to tell everyone exactly what your involvement in a book and a major revelation that is in danger of going pear shaped was.

Every dog has his day !

[Chris]

Oh dear did I hit a nerve? guess it is you that cant read, as what you posted was not the answer to the question.

I do apologise - I keep forgetting.

You have to click on that red thing at the bottom of the message, and then you see the answer.

[Debra A]

Oh dear did I hit a nerve? guess it is you that cant read, as what you posted was not the answer to the question.

You are one of several ripperologists who have been involved in this book. Why do you and the others decline to tell everyone exactly what your involvement in a book and a major revelation that is in danger of going pear shaped was.

Every dog has his day !

This is Chris's latest research on the book's DNA revelations:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8370

[Trevor Marriott]

This is Chris's latest research on the book's DNA revelations:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8370

I am not questioning him or his dna research I realize he has been putting a great deal of work into it.

What I am trying to asceratin is that could all of this have been avoided if those advising him had been aware of the issues that have now arisen. Surely John Bennett astute as he is should have seen the warning signs and heard the warning bells ringing? Or was it a case that everyone was taken in by Dr Jari?

There has to be answers !

[Trevor Marriott]

This is Chris's latest research on the book's DNA revelations:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8370

For the record I was not singling you out