A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[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

[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

[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/article-2225283/Jack-Ripper-mystery-solved-Uruguayan-professor-UK-used-mathematical-approach-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".

[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.

[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/article-2225283/Jack-Ripper-mystery-solved-Uruguayan-professor-UK-used-mathematical-approach-problem.html

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

[Caligo Umbrator]

*Deleted*

[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

[Amanda]

Mmmm...

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-...-islington.php

OUCH !

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

I have heard of killers revisiting the bodies but never heard of the bodies re visiting the killer

[Caligo Umbrator]

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".

Hi, GUT.
I suppose that depends on whether he was using base 10 or base 13 to make the calculations.

Yours, Caligo.

[pinkmoon]

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

Hello tom,when someone writes a book about a subject 100 years old there are bound to be mistakes the information used to get the facts might well have been distorted over the years nothing we can do about that mistakes will happen (said the dalek climbing of the dustbin or the hedgehog climbing of the scrubbing brush) .To claim case closed using a piece of evidence that cant even be dated to 1888 let alone placed at any of the murder sites is bad then to use a scientist who cant even do the basic maths is wrong and then to sell lots of books on the back of this just leaves me speechless .Stewart Evans and Trevor Marriott along with other people have written books on this subject they have taken time and money to research their books not everyone on here will agree with what they have written but i dont begrudge them a penny of what they earn because of the effort taken to ensure what they have put onto paper is truthfull.Rant over.

[RockySullivan]

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.

The FBI profile does suggest a mortuary attendant as possible occupation

[GUT]

The FBI profile does suggest a mortuary attendant as possible occupation

My point rocky was the "Well educated in anatomy" part.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Links

If I am remembering correctly, 3 DNA searchable databases have been mentioned on this thread two of which correct for the entry of 314.1c and one that does not (and returns "global private variation").

I have a link to EMPOP database, would anyone have a links to the other two?

TY in advance if you can help.

cheers, gryff

[Richard Dewar]

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

Tom,

I have no problem with critiquing the scholarship and logic of any book or theory. What I consider unfair is attacking motive and integrity - which happened to the supporters of the Maybrick Diary, Patricia Cornwell, and those now proposing the Shawl/DNA theory.

To say someone is a fraud and just trying to sell books, implying what they are claiming they know to be untrue, is not fair. Especially when respected authors in the community have also proposed theories with no supporting facts.

"The Uncensored Facts," "The First American Serial Killer," "The Crimes Detection and Death" have all been written by noteworthy contemporary experts on the case. And, although the titles of their works suggest they have solved the case, I submit they haven't. But I am not going to suggest that their works are dishonest and a fraudulent effort to sell books - I don't think they are.

Shirley Harrison, Patricia Cornwell and now, Mr Edwards may be wrong but there isn't any indication they are intentionally perpetuating a fraud. To claim otherwise, as some have, is unfair.

Richard