DNA error

[Steven Russell]

Er, I think Tom was just being his usual rib-tickling self there, Steven.

Love,

Caz
X

Consider my ribs tickled.

[caz]

Jeff,

In light of the knowledge that the DNA on the shawl is not Eddowes or Kosminskis, I'm sure you'll agree that there's no way Kosminski could have been the Ripper and can once and for all be struck from the suspect list.

Tom,
Discrediting the shawl evidence in no way exonerates Kosminski. This is faulty logic. The case against him remains exactly as strong, or as weak, as it was before this shawl business was postulated (if that's the word I'm looking for).
Best wishes,
Steve.

Er, I think Tom was just being his usual rib-tickling self there, Steven.

Even with the DNA there's not much, I think I've seen at least 5 explanations that could make it all mean nothing even if the DNA was 110%.

Aaaargh! 110%???

I need to go and lie down in a darkened room now.

Love,

Caz
X

[Kosher Ripper]

It is interesting to note though how quickly the media label Kosminski just "a possible suspect" again once the new evidence is undermined in the press. Particularly given that evidence shows that Kosminski was ALWAYS the PRIME suspect in police custody and identified as such in a police line up.

Isn't that just a little suspicious?

[Steven Russell]

Jeff,

In light of the knowledge that the DNA on the shawl is not Eddowes or Kosminskis, I'm sure you'll agree that there's no way Kosminski could have been the Ripper and can once and for all be struck from the suspect list.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,
Discrediting the shawl evidence in no way exonerates Kosminski. This is faulty logic. The case against him remains exactly as strong, or as weak, as it was before this shawl business was postulated (if that's the word I'm looking for).
Best wishes,
Steve.

[pinkmoon]

Does anyone know what the law says on this matter? Is there any precedent for people getting their money back, given that the only thing this book had going for it as a selling point was the supposed science, which has now been shown to be a complete crock from start to finish?

People have been sold a bill of goods here. (And before the clever people jump in saying that they were too clever to fall for such nonsense and they cleverly tried to warn the rest of us, etc, I'm asking theoretically, hypothetically; it would be nice to see, for once, those who turn crap into gold having their gold taken from them and their turds handed back.)

See my post number 30

[pinkmoon]

I just posted this on the other DNA thread



One member here wrote to the distributors of another book and was given a refund so it can't hurt to try.

I havnt wasted my money on Mr Edwards book but I did buy "the fifth victim" thinking it was a factual well researched book when I read it and found out it was made up I contacted amazon who removed it from my kindle account and refunded my money.I think because this new book claims" case closed" there is a strong chance amazon might refund it's worth a go.

[Jeff Leahy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29480803

Todays Radio 4 program

I noted with interest that fairly shortly and following further research, scientistist should at least be able to figure out Aaron Kosminski's Hieght..

If indeed it is his DNA of course..

Although I would suspect a general estimate should eventually be available

Yours Jeff

[GUT]

Does anyone know what the law says on this matter? Is there any precedent for people getting their money back, given that the only thing this book had going for it as a selling point was the supposed science, which has now been shown to be a complete crock from start to finish?

People have been sold a bill of goods here. (And before the clever people jump in saying that they were too clever to fall for such nonsense and they cleverly tried to warn the rest of us, etc, I'm asking theoretically, hypothetically; it would be nice to see, for once, those who turn crap into gold having their gold taken from them and their turds handed back.)

I just posted this on the other DNA thread

Yep sure would have, there may [but it's a bg May] have been a case under false advertising legislation, but who'd throw the money at it.

One member here wrote to the distributors of another book and was given a refund so it can't hurt to try.

[Henry Flower]

Does anyone know what the law says on this matter? Is there any precedent for people getting their money back, given that the only thing this book had going for it as a selling point was the supposed science, which has now been shown to be a complete crock from start to finish?

People have been sold a bill of goods here. (And before the clever people jump in saying that they were too clever to fall for such nonsense and they cleverly tried to warn the rest of us, etc, I'm asking theoretically, hypothetically; it would be nice to see, for once, those who turn crap into gold having their gold taken from them and their turds handed back.)

[mickreed]

Opps, wrong thred

Best wishes

Mick Reed

[mickreed]

I have read the book. There was an awful lot of pages about how Russell Edwards became fascinated by Jack the Ripper, but not very much about how Amos Simpson could have got his hands on the shawl/table runner. Or, more to the point, how Kosminski could have acquired it.

Hi Rosella

In my view, no publisher with any integrity would have touched it, certainly not without a health warning.

It really is awfully weak.

My, I am getting in a fluster. It's just the continued silence from all of the defence that is getting to me.

[Rosella]

I have read the book. There was an awful lot of pages about how Russell Edwards became fascinated by Jack the Ripper, but not very much about how Amos Simpson could have got his hands on the shawl/table runner. Or, more to the point, how Kosminski could have acquired it.

[mickreed]

I thought the circumstances surrounding the shawl's provenance made the DNA identification shaky to begin with, but that's a pretty serious mistake to make. Was the bulk of Edward's case against Kosminski hanging on the DNA, or was there any other supporting evidence?

Hi Harriet and welcome.

Contrary to what some say here, the book is a triumph. It manages to make Cornwell look good.

[mickreed]

So are you claiming sanity???

I am. Nobody ever agrees with me, but.

[GUT]

Now you know why I always admit to being a Pom, Gut.

So are you claiming sanity???