A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[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.

[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".

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[GUT]

You should take that tin helmet off, GUT

Why?

I'm told I look better with it on.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.