A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[drstrange169]

It's out there as common knowledge,

"Jack the Ripper’s back in the news, with a new book claiming to have definitively established Aaron Kosminski as the true killer already lambasted as a comedy of errors by members of the scientific community."

http://londonist.com/2014/10/ripper-referencing-steampunks-set-to-unnerve-islington.php

[Caligo Umbrator]

*Deleted*

[mickreed]

Hi,
Looks like Koz is in the clear.
That organ of truth, The Mail, published this just under 2 years ago and it seems to me to contain evidence of such importance and startling clarity that I am surprised anyone ever thought to compose another word on the matter of the case.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...h-problem.html

Looks convincing to me.My maths is shite, so there's no chance of me challenging it.

[GUT]

And did anyone notice this bit in the sidebar:

"ROBERT MANN: Historian Mei Trow points the finger at mortuary attendant Robert Mann. He was well educated in anatomy, lived locally and came from a poor background. The first two victims, Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman, are known to have been delivered to his mortuary."


My bolding.

[GUT]

Hi,
Looks like Koz is in the clear.
That organ of truth, The Mail, published this just under 2 years ago and it seems to me to contain evidence of such importance and startling clarity that I am surprised anyone ever thought to compose another word on the matter of the case.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...h-problem.html

See maths has the answer [I wonder if he got 42] and it is the Daily Mail, so how could it be wrong. At least he doesn't say "Case Closed".

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi,
Looks like Koz is in the clear.
That organ of truth, The Mail, published this just under 2 years ago and it seems to me to contain evidence of such importance and startling clarity that I am surprised anyone ever thought to compose another word on the matter of the case.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2225283/Jack-Ripper-mystery-solved-Uruguayan-professor-UK-used-mathematical-approach-problem.html

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Good work Gryff,

It's easy to see that 314.1C is so vanishing rare. I think that only 1 in 290,000 would have called it that.

Well maybe er ... 2 in 290,000 Mick

cheers, gryff

[mickreed]

Wonders if this falls into "parlour games" ?

cheers, gryff

Good work Gryff,

It's easy to see that 314.1C is so vanishing rare. I think that only 1 in 290,000 would have called it that.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Getting back to the topic of this thread:

A different look at the 314.1c/315.1c issue as laid out by Chris.

Left Mouse and Drag - rotates. You can also use the arrow keys.
Scroll Wheel - zoom in and out
The ? is clickable

A DNA Mystery

A computer from last few of years with decent video card.

Windows 7 + : You can use IE11, Chrome, Firefox
Windows XP: Chrome, Firefox
Recent Mac OS: Chrome, Firefox

Wonders if this falls into "parlour games" ?

cheers, gryff

[RockySullivan]

Not stupid, just uninformed. When someone buys a book they expect the person who wrote it knows what they're talking about and they're willing to take a lot on faith. As should be the case. The stupid ones are people like me who knew Cornwell was full of it, but I still bought her book and paid into her coffers.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi tom uninformed is a better word. I always find myself skipping over the parts of ripper books where the author starts to try to prove their suspect. I've never read a ripper author whose looking at the bigger picture. They all focus on certain aspects to fit their "solution". That's why I find casebook so much more informative. But I believe torso & jack are one so that's not a very popular theory among the authors.

[mickreed]

Why?

I'm told I look better with it on.

Well' don't blame me if the old Bill (or Jacquie Lambie) take pot-shots at you.

[GUT]

You should take that tin helmet off, GUT

Why?

I'm told I look better with it on.

[mickreed]

I still bought her book and paid into her coffers.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I bought it too, Tom. But only for 50 cents at the local Salvoes - may have been a dollar. Excellent door stop.

[mickreed]

Hey What's up with Ned? was once told I look like him, but that was a loooooooong time ago, with more har and less weight.

You should take that tin helmet off, GUT

[Tom_Wescott]

I think the differences is many ripper authors are respected for their research and info they've uncovered while Cornwall & Edwards hardly research at all, but rather try to misrepresent science in a way stupid people will believe. There's nothing to respect about that.

Not stupid, just uninformed. When someone buys a book they expect the person who wrote it knows what they're talking about and they're willing to take a lot on faith. As should be the case. The stupid ones are people like me who knew Cornwell was full of it, but I still bought her book and paid into her coffers.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott