A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[GUT]

My point in a nutshell. In fact I think the phrase was an Australian "crime enthusiast", which made me sound like Ned Kelly.

More thoughtfully, someone recently told me I was like a "very polite pit-bull".

[ATTACH]16393[/ATTACH]

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.

[RockySullivan]

I salute those who are trying to use physical evidence to try to solve the case.

In some ways, the Shawl issue is very similiar to the Maybrick Diary and the Sickert/Ripper letter controversies.

Compare the attacks these proponents have suffered compared to the reverence shown to noted authors and researchers who have proposed solutions to this case without the slightest evidence.

Although those proposing a scientific resolution to this case may be wrong in their specific cases, if this case is ever solved it will be by their path rather than the mere theorizing done in most so-called solutions.

We should thank those whose use of physical evidence elevates the debate to a forensics puzzle rather than parlour game.

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.

[Tom_Wescott]

My point in a nutshell. In fact I think the phrase was an Australian "crime enthusiast", which made me sound like Ned Kelly.

More thoughtfully, someone recently told me I was like a "very polite pit-bull".

[ATTACH]16393[/ATTACH]

They're just buttering you up because of your Industry ties. At least now we know who runs the cartel.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mickreed]

My point in a nutshell. In fact I think the phrase was an Australian "crime enthusiast", which made me sound like Ned Kelly.

[ATTACH]16393[/ATTACH]

There's a film here. Chris Phillips played by Mick Jagger - or if he's now too old, could be Russell Brand or who?...

[Tom_Wescott]

If any one dares to claim case closed then they have to make sure their evidence stands up if it dosnt and its wrong then you cannot expect people to hand over their hard earned money for a book which is clearly not true it's to easy to say "we have made a mistake" after selling a lot of books I have no problem with people making money out of this only if they have done the research and their facts stand up.

There's a fine line, I suppose. For instance, Paul Begg called his book 'The Facts', which some could take issue with by pointing out that some of what's in his book is open for debate. I subtitled my book 'The True Story of the First Whitechapel Murders', but I included quite a bit of speculation (albeit reasoned), so no doubt there's those who will argue that I can't guarantee the versions as I offered are 'true'. I can't argue with that. However, it conveyed the gist of what I wanted people to get - that my book focused on the earlier murders and presented the information in a new way. Know what I mean? So, if an author has convinced himself beyond doubt that he has solved the case, is he really lying when he titles his book as 'final' or 'conclusive'?

In my opinion, MJ Trow's book is crap, but unless a few authors (not Edwards), he did not fake some relic or write a hoax document to substantiate his story. But he is dogmatic about his conclusions which made it a difficult read. Same with Beadle. But could they be called liars just because they believe in a truth that isn't obviously so? No.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

So says you, an Aussie blogger with ties to the Ripper Industry.

My point in a nutshell. In fact I think the phrase was an Australian "crime enthusiast", which made me sound like Ned Kelly.

More thoughtfully, someone recently told me I was like a "very polite pit-bull".

[pinkmoon]

If any one dares to claim case closed then they have to make sure their evidence stands up if it dosnt and its wrong then you cannot expect people to hand over their hard earned money for a book which is clearly not true it's to easy to say "we have made a mistake" after selling a lot of books I have no problem with people making money out of this only if they have done the research and their facts stand up.

[Tom_Wescott]

There are authors, many contemporary, who have accused suspects of being the murderer with no evidence whatsoever. Yet the motives of those authors are rarely if ever questioned.

The difference I have seen, dating back to the Maybrick fiasco, is that when an author proposes a suspect and offers physical evidence, they are the focus of derision and scorn and their very motives are questioned.

I have no problem with critiques of the logic and scholarship behind a work. When that becomes a personal attack against the author's integrity and motives, when that same standard is not applied to others, I question the critic's agenda.

What physical evidence? The Diary was approached with an open mind and showed to be a fake. Cornwell tested letters not sent by the killer himself, and the Abberline diary had Abberline's name misspelled. These books were derided because they were nonsense.

Keep in mind the shawl has been known to us and discussed since the 90s. The research had already been done and it was not accepted as legit. And not because some author was pushing it, because nobody was. Historically, it was insignificant, therefore it was rather obvious to many of us that this science would not check out. Sure enough, as you've seen, it doesn't check out.

So what exactly is your beef, Richard? That Edwards is getting more flack than other 'final solution' authors? That's just because his book is current and is higher profile. I assure you he's getting less flack than Cornwell and the Diary, probably because of his choice of suspects.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Richard Dewar]

Questioned Motives

There are authors, many contemporary, who have accused suspects of being the murderer with no evidence whatsoever. Yet the motives of those authors are rarely if ever questioned.

The difference I have seen, dating back to the Maybrick fiasco, is that when an author proposes a suspect and offers physical evidence, they are the focus of derision and scorn and their very motives are questioned.

I have no problem with critiques of the logic and scholarship behind a work. When that becomes a personal attack against the author's integrity and motives, when that same standard is not applied to others, I question the critic's agenda.

[Tom_Wescott]

Thank you for the welcome back. . .it's been many years. I am not endorsing any of the recent attempts to link physical evidence to the solution of this case. What I do question is the derision launched in the proponents direction compared to little, if any, criticism directed at those who propose solutions to the case with absolutely no evidence at all.

All of the revered authorities on the case who have books naming suspects follow the same pattern: someone in the past thought their suspect might be the Ripper, the current author believes the suspect is the type of person who might have done the killings, and they have found no evidence to rule out the individuals opportunity to commit the killing.

I think we can all agree that this is very thin. Yet in our community, there isn't the same attack on motives of these celebrated followers of the case versus the "outsiders" who are trying to prove the case with evidence.

My point is that if the case is ever solved it will be with physical evidence not speculation.

I know where you're coming from, Richard. I said about the same thing in a podcast recently. I likened Naming Jack the Ripper to old school Ripperology where every book was a 'final solution' and was presented just as you described. I don't think it's anything more than that, really. And nobody has faulted Edwards for spending his money to get the shawl tested. He's faulted for taking the public's money and failing to deliver on his promising of naming the Ripper. I don't know how long you've followed the boards, but 'final solution' authors receive their fair share of derision. The more obscure book the less derision, perhaps. But you should have seen what happened to Uncle Jack, etc.

I will agree that the classic authors are handled with kid gloves. It's a bit of a peeve of mine as well, but one I suppose we have to live with.

Also, keep in mind that the rest of us already knew that the shawl had never belonged to Eddowes and was not a Ripper artifact, so from our perspective, Edwards has not had a Ripper relic tested.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Without wishing to be priggish, I think there some of us who would prefer it to be a question of historical scholarship rather than either a puzzle or a parlour game.

And I don't think the debate has been elevated at all by this DNA analysis.

So says you, an Aussie blogger with ties to the Ripper Industry.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

We should thank those whose use of physical evidence elevates the debate to a forensics puzzle rather than parlour game.

Without wishing to be priggish, I think there some of us who would prefer it to be a question of historical scholarship rather than either a puzzle or a parlour game.

And I don't think the debate has been elevated at all by this DNA analysis.

[mickreed]

We all know The authors who you are referring to with maybrick, sickert and the shawl, but who are these other "celebrated" authors you are referring to?

Well, I don't know who Richard is referring to, but there are plenty of authors who are 'revered', - that may be too strong a word - but often for reasons other than their conclusions.

Leonard Matters, for example. Dr Stanley was, almost certainly, not real. But Matters did bring together a lot of new (at the time) information as well as excellent photos.

Stephen Knight's theory is, surely, nonsense, but again he did bring information to public awareness, some of which seems to have since vanished.

There are loads more, many did bring something new to the case that is of value to us now.

This latest book brought nothing to the case other some spurious science about the shawl. Without the science there is nothing.

And there is no science now.

[Richard Dewar]

We all know The authors who you are referring to with maybrick, sickert and the shawl, but who are these other "celebrated" authors you are referring to?

Abby,

Virtually every noted Ripper expert who has authored works naming a suspect has followed the same pattern. First, they find someone in the past who suspected the individual being the killer. Next, the author makes the argument that the suspect is the kind of man who would commit such a crime. Finally, the argument is made that there is no evidence to eliminate this killer from being able to physically carry out the murders.

I don't want to single out specific authors - many of them, I believe, are superior students of the case. But their works, to me, always seem damaged by this venture into speculation.

Perhaps due to their reputations and scholarship within the community, they don't seem to receive the same level of critical scrutiny that the "outsiders" do when they propose a suspect.

[Abby Normal]

Thank you for the welcome back. . .it's been many years. I am not endorsing any of the recent attempts to link physical evidence to the solution of this case. What I do question is the derision launched in the proponents direction compared to little, if any, criticism directed at those who propose solutions to the case with absolutely no evidence at all.

All of the revered authorities on the case who have books naming suspects follow the same pattern: someone in the past thought their suspect might be the Ripper, the current author believes the suspect is the type of person who might have done the killings, and they have found no evidence to rule out the individuals opportunity to commit the killing.

I think we can all agree that this is very thin. Yet in our community, there isn't the same attack on motives of these celebrated followers of the case versus the "outsiders" who are trying to prove the case with evidence.

My point is that if the case is ever solved it will be with physical evidence not speculation.

We all know The authors who you are referring to with maybrick, sickert and the shawl, but who are these other "celebrated" authors you are referring to?