A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Richard Dewar]

The Press, for the Most Part, Didn't Get It Wrong

The mainstream establishment media, for the most part, have gotten the story correct. Almost everything I have read in the initial stages of the unveiling of Mr Edward's book, revealed his contentions about the shawl but also had caveats indicating that peer review and verification would be needed to confirm.

Even in the postings on this site, I have seen less than a handful of posters at any time saying the case was solved by Mr Edwards.

Let's put what happened in perspective. Yet another book was published accusing someone of being Jack the Ripper. The only difference was that this book claimed to have scientific proof.

Some of us initially were intrigued but wanted more information while others immediately dismissed the book's contentions. Few ever accepted the book's theories as facts.

[GUT]

Here’s what I hope will be my final words on this subject. It will likely be read in academic institutions all over the place.

Some dreadful editing that introduces typos and at least one error that wasn’t in the submission. I never mentioned ‘11 poor women', just 'poor women’. Still never mind.

http://theconversation.com/still-a-mystery-dna-hasnt-named-jack-the-ripper-after-all-33312

Cheers

G'day Mick

Well written, one small comment if I may, you say:

There are so many examples of conclusions not following from the “evidence” that it seems astonishing that it was picked up by a publisher.

It seems that this applies right through the "Ripper" world, am yet to see one suspect that would get past committal proceedings. It seems that evidence and common sense mean nothing when someone latches onto a suspect.

[Richard Dewar]

G'day Mick

Well written, one small comment if I may, you say:



It seems that this applies right through the "Ripper" world, am yet to see one suspect that would get past committal proceedings. It seems that evidence and common sense mean nothing when someone latches onto a suspect.

Excellent point. Virtually all books, articles naming suspects do so without evidence. Most books follow the same pattern: they mention a contemporary who thought the person was the murderer, the author hypothesizes that this is the kind of person who would have been the murderer, and that the suspect physically could have carried out the murders.

The only suspects for which any evidence has been propounded are Maybrick, Sickert and Kosminski. And in each of those cases, the evidence has been seriously challenged.

[mickreed]

G'day Mick

Well written, one small comment if I may, you say:

It seems that this applies right through the "Ripper" world, am yet to see one suspect that would get past committal proceedings. It seems that evidence and common sense mean nothing when someone latches onto a suspect.

G'day GUT. Of course, you're right. I do think this book is especially bad though, in that it never gets beyond the laughable, apart from, it seemed, the DNA, and as we now know, that is a comedy in its own right.

[drstrange169]

"... am yet to see one suspect that would get past committal proceedings."

Could a descendant sue for defamation?

[GUT]

"... am yet to see one suspect that would get past committal proceedings."

Could a descendant sue for defamation?

Not in Australia today, at one stage the answer may have been different.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Getting the Message out

Here’s what I hope will be my final words on this subject. It will likely be read in academic institutions all over the place.

Some dreadful editing that introduces typos and at least one error that wasn’t in the submission. I never mentioned ‘11 poor women', just 'poor women’. Still never mind.

http://theconversation.com/still-a-mystery-dna-hasnt-named-jack-the-ripper-after-all-33312

Cheers

Well done Mick!

I did wonder about the ‘11 poor women' though - but you can't trust them editors

Hope lots of academics read it!!!

cheers, gryff

[mickreed]

Well done Mick!

I did wonder about the ‘11 poor women' though - but you can't trust them editors

Hope lots of academics read it!!!

cheers, gryff

G'day Gryff

Thanks.

Well, I've emailed them and said 'WTF'. They also removed a bit I put in about JL's comment about Johnny Depp being 'tongue in cheek' which I think it was. Quite a few other editing horrors as well, but, yes, '11 poor women' makes me look stupid, so that's a bit more serious. Looking stupid is one of my strengths, so I don't need any extra help in that direction.

[drstrange169]

Finally a comment from Edwards ... well some evasions would be more accurate, but at least we know he knows.

http://www.biography.com/news/naming-jack-the-ripper-interview

[GUT]

Finally a comment from Edwards ... well some evasions would be more accurate, but at least we know he knows.

http://www.biography.com/news/naming...pper-interview

Seems like the same old BS from Mr E to me. I also note that the stain still takes a giant leap to semen, Poland jumps to Russia, even when it's pointed out that there are reasonable hypothesis floating around consistent with innocence, even IF [and it's a darn big IF] the DNA was spot on, no way will he consider it.

[drstrange169]

The longer he delays the serious questions, the more money he can make.

[GUT]

The longer he delays the serious questions, the more money he can make.

And a tiny part of me can understand that, but gee what about some standards.

[Robert]

“I found the descendants of his sister, which was on the female line."

WHO found them? It wouldn't be one of those pesky Ripperologists, would it?

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

The longer he delays the serious questions, the more money he can make.

I note you laid out a few of the questions in a comment dusty

Is today not the day when he will answer some questions at the Whitechapel Society conference ?

Hope there will be some reports here.

cheers, gryff

[Ally]

Apparently, and this is just rumor at this point, the conference organizers banned people and at Edward's request, did not allow them or the question to be asked. So there was apparently nothing of any value obtained from it. Don't know if it's true or not, but it appears he weaseled out of the question.