A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Richard Dewar]

G'day Richard and Welcome to case book.

I simply can't agree, how can science solve the case when you are trying to apply it to things that have no connection to the case.

Walter MAY have written some letters, so what.

The Table Runner / Shawl MAY have had some connection to Koz and Kate but unless you could place it at the murder scene, which you can't, in fact the evidence makes it about 99% that it was never there, so what.

And what has science got to do with the Diary.

'm not saying theorizing alone will solve the case, it won't just look at the ongoing argument over Cross/Lechmere and if Fisherman and Lechmere [the poster] bring out a book you don't think it will be dissected if they are stupid enough, in my opinion, to put "Case Closed" or "Final Solution" or anythng similar on it.

I think you will find that is a large factor n people's responses. Those who play "parlour games" or involve themselves in "mere theorizing" on the whole admit that their answer isn't conclusive. Those who try to claim they have solved it are the ones that attract the attack, look at Dale's book in Van Gogh if it ever comes out.

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.

[GUT]

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.

G'day Richard and Welcome to case book.

I simply can't agree, how can science solve the case when you are trying to apply it to things that have no connection to the case.

Walter MAY have written some letters, so what.

The Table Runner / Shawl MAY have had some connection to Koz and Kate but unless you could place it at the murder scene, which you can't, in fact the evidence makes it about 99% that it was never there, so what.

And what has science got to do with the Diary.

'm not saying theorizing alone will solve the case, it won't just look at the ongoing argument over Cross/Lechmere and if Fisherman and Lechmere [the poster] bring out a book you don't think it will be dissected if they are stupid enough, in my opinion, to put "Case Closed" or "Final Solution" or anythng similar on it.

I think you will find that is a large factor n people's responses. Those who play "parlour games" or involve themselves in "mere theorizing" on the whole admit that their answer isn't conclusive. Those who try to claim they have solved it are the ones that attract the attack, look at Dale's book in Van Gogh if it ever comes out.

[Richard Dewar]

In Defense of Mr Edwards, Ms Cornwell, and Ms Harrison

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.

[jmenges]

Ask away

Janet Martin- Director of Marketing and Corporate Communications.

http://livjm.ac.uk/corporatecommunications/100926.htm

She's the one who provided Dr. Louhelainen with the following 'out', on Sept. 24th, for the podcast interview:

"We suggest that the timing for this is inappropriate at the beginning of term and that you are not available to conduct an interview at this time."

JM

[mickreed]

G'day Chris

I think the answer is "or what" ie I suspect "been advised by the Corporate Communications office at his University to not give further interviews "at this time" was a convenient excuse, but a lot of people say that I'm a skeptic.

Has anyone asked the Corporate Communications office what the official view of JL's silence vis-à-vis four world experts over his key fining of 314.1C?

[mickreed]

I suppose it could be, but it seems to me to read more like a description of the murderer's modus operandi:
... his eyes lit up and he said this is exactly what has been reported about Jack. This is his way of operating and this is a great find.

Problem is, with Jari's pronouncements, is that we now know he doesn't always get the right end of the stick when talking to native English speakers, which is why he won't do interviews without RE.

As Chris says, this must make his life difficult at LJMU.

Personally, I suspect it's hogwash. Somebody, the publishers, or RE himself, think the Jari needs a minder.

[GUT]

Yes, there were plans for one in September, with Russell Edwards and Jari Louhelainen, but the latter withdrew because he said he had "been advised by the Corporate Communications office at his University to not give further interviews "at this time"."

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=247222&postcount=625

That was on 24 September. Which, thinking about it, makes his "tweet" about "seven weeks of interviews, invited talks and photo shoots for magazines etc" even stranger. Has he been defying their advice for the last month, or what?

G'day Chris

I think the answer is "or what" ie I suspect "been advised by the Corporate Communications office at his University to not give further interviews "at this time" was a convenient excuse, but a lot of people say that I'm a skeptic.

[Chris]

I have followed most of what's been posted regarding the DNA evidence (or lack of) and it's been a fascinating read. Has there been any suggestion here from Jonathan or his crew of an upcoming podcast devoted to the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match?

Yes, there were plans for one in September, with Russell Edwards and Jari Louhelainen, but the latter withdrew because he said he had "been advised by the Corporate Communications office at his University to not give further interviews "at this time"."

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=247222&postcount=625

That was on 24 September. Which, thinking about it, makes his "tweet" about "seven weeks of interviews, invited talks and photo shoots for magazines etc" even stranger. Has he been defying their advice for the last month, or what?

[mickreed]

All this talk of Mr Edwards fixating on Koz, I wonder who was next on his hit list he'd already tried Deeming, I suspect if he had failed with Koz he would have moved on to Druitt, Tumblety or Ostrog or anyone else you mght want to name.

He'd bought the table cloth now he had to make it pay off.

G'day Gut

To give RE his due, I'm not quite sure he tried Deeming first. That was Robin Napper who, allegedly, had to persuade RE to let JL look at the shawl.

However, your implication (as I read it) that RE is a chancer par excellence, is not something I feel inclined to argue with.

[mickreed]

Yes. The book seems to confuse reflective UV with fluorescence caused by UV illumination.

But at any rate it says "It is known that urine and saliva fluoresce under ultraviolet light but they tend to give off an orange hue, whereas seminal fluorescence is usually greenish."

The picture Bunny posted above suggests otherwise.

This is quite interesting on this topic

http://forensics.org.my/img/Article%2004.pdf

[mickreed]

Mick I was under the impression RE had a preference for Dianne Thalmann as er ... she did not know if it was Russian ?

cheers, gryff

Correct Gryff. She, when asked, said effectively that since she had no idea where it came from, it could be Russian - or presumably Turkish, Australian, the golden road to Samarkand, but she wasn't asked about those

[Sticks]

I have followed most of what's been posted regarding the DNA evidence (or lack of) and it's been a fascinating read. Has there been any suggestion here from Jonathan or his crew of an upcoming podcast devoted to the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match?

[pinkmoon]

This whole shawl thing was wrong from the start it fed on the fact that people wanted the impossible to know the indenity of jack the ripper which we will never know. Any book that states case close will always sell well but the trade of will always be that the next author who comes along will suffer because people will think here we go again and not buy their book Stewart Evans excellent book on tumblety sufferd such a fate thanks to the maybrick diary fiasco .

[GUT]

All this talk of Mr Edwards fixating on Koz, I wonder who was next on his hit list he'd already tried Deeming, I suspect if he had failed with Koz he would have moved on to Druitt, Tumblety or Ostrog or anyone else you mght want to name.

He'd bought the table cloth now he had to make it pay off.

[MrBarnett]

I suppose it could be, but it seems to me to read more like a description of the murderer's modus operandi:
... his eyes lit up and he said this is exactly what has been reported about Jack. This is his way of operating and this is a great find.

If Jari is giving a verbatim report of RE's response, you may be right.

But RE had already fixed on Kos as his man, so
so it's not surprising his eyes lit up and what he probably said was more like 'This is exactly what has been reported about him- this is what he did..'

MrB