Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Patrick S]

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.

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?

[AdamNeilWood]

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.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hey Jeff,

I would imagine that only a physical examination of the actual item by a number of independent experts, who are not asked leading questions, like, 'could this come from Russia?', would be acceptable.

If Edwards will permit the shawl to be so examined, then I, for one, might feel less sceptical about him. And, to be fair, maybe he will. Let's see. It's his property and it's obviously up to him.

All I can say is, unless he does allow the item to be analysed by an impartial group of experts, then his work is never likely to be of any real value, except, possibly to his bank account.

Unfortunately I'm not an expert to know which experts would be best in this case. But if anybody wishes to suggest someone and PM me their name, I'll ask if this would be possible.

It could be that Edwards is already under contact and be unable to co-operate even if he was willing to do so.

I guess we could approach the Parlours or one of the people who own alternative framed sections. Do we know how many shawl pieces exist and who owns them?

Yours Jeff

[Patrick S]

Hello Patrick. I have heard that it is no longer shawl, dress nor table runner. It now seems to be a scarf.

Cheers.
LC

Well. That changes everything, Lynn.......FRAUD!!!!!!!

[Debra A]

I can confim that, and edorse Traceys post.

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

Monty

Absolutely.
Personally speaking, Chris has been upfront the whole way through this with me. I knew about Chris's involvement with tracing a descendant but he didn't go into details about it and I didn't ask because I trust him implicitly.

[lynn cates]

scarfing it down

Hello Patrick. I have heard that it is no longer shawl, dress nor table runner. It now seems to be a scarf.

Cheers.
LC

[Patrick S]

Hey Jeff,

I would imagine that only a physical examination of the actual item by a number of independent experts, who are not asked leading questions, like, 'could this come from Russia?', would be acceptable.

If Edwards will permit the shawl to be so examined, then I, for one, might feel less sceptical about him. And, to be fair, maybe he will. Let's see. It's his property and it's obviously up to him.

All I can say is, unless he does allow the item to be analysed by an impartial group of experts, then his work is never likely to be of any real value, except, possibly to his bank account.

This thread (now threads) has gone round and round. Yet, every few days we get to the nub of it, as Mick has here: Have patience.

It's an excellent, entertaining, and (often) enlightening topic for (occasionally productive) conversation. But, in the end we must come back to reality: As of now it's fairly impossible to judge the validity of the shawl, Edwards claims, Dr. J's processes and results.

As far as the science goes, we are forced to rely on opinion from other "experts" who either refute of support the science. Still, Dr. J is, himself an expert, isn't he? So it's really all a matter of which expert you choose to believe. At this point, this thing is akin to placing a wager on a horse. We're in mid-race. At some point they'll come down the stretch and we'll have a winner. To beat this analogy to death....Some races are easy picks. I put my money against Cornwell before I even read her book. I cashed my ticket after finishing it when she failed to convince, not only me, but all those whose opinions I'd come to respect. No wagers for me on this one. I'm sitting this race out. That is to say (and now I'm trampling on the corpse of this analogy), I don't have a horse in this race.

[mickreed]

How on earth did this come round to taking a swipe at Chris?

You've got me beat, Robert.

[mickreed]

Y
So as far as I can see we still have a large number of different 'expert' opinions, which should really be fairly easy to clarify?

Hey Jeff,

I would imagine that only a physical examination of the actual item by a number of independent experts, who are not asked leading questions, like, 'could this come from Russia?', would be acceptable.

If Edwards will permit the shawl to be so examined, then I, for one, might feel less sceptical about him. And, to be fair, maybe he will. Let's see. It's his property and it's obviously up to him.

All I can say is, unless he does allow the item to be analysed by an impartial group of experts, then his work is never likely to be of any real value, except, possibly to his bank account.

[Robert]

How on earth did this come round to taking a swipe at Chris?

"He's that swot who keeps finding out things. Let's get him at playtime."