Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[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

[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

[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 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....

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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

[lynn cates]

Sigmund

Hello Patrick. Thanks.

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

Cheers.
LC