Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[lynn cates]

bottom line

Hello Tom.

"Come on, folks. It's a great tale, but all the mitochondrial DNA in the world cannot put that shawl in Mitre Square, in the hands of Kozminski, or in Eddowes' blood."

That's the bottom line.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Stewart, no offense but you've clearly demonstrated you have not read the book and that you are not likely too either and yet post after post from you seems to speak from authority on the subject. It's not really on becuase all it does is spread disinformation and derails proper discussion.

As I've stated from the start, there is definitely a lot to be talked about regarding this book, there are holes which could and should be filled or exposed and yet you and a few others have done nothing but backslap yourselves senseless about it all being a fraud, all the time demonstrating very clearly to anyone that has read this book that you have really no clue about it outside of tabloid fluff. All this does is spread nonsense and does not create a very good impression, to put it politely.

This is hilarious. Stewart getting schooled by a newbie for acting like an authority on the subject. As though reading the book would change the fact that it's about a shawl that Stewart has been aware of for 20 years and already knows had no connection to the Ripper case.

What is not so funny is the exchange between Stewart, Chris, and House. No sense of any of us falling out over this business.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

No read it again one in a 100 births has a mutation, he says if one million women give birth 1000 will have a mutation. Not one mutation in 1000 generations and your question was proof that a mutation can occur in one or two generations.

For heaven's sake, I was quoting from what you copied and pasted in your post: "occasionally there is a change or mutation in one or more of the ‘letters’ of the mtDNA code – about one mutation every thousand generations"

[christoper]

G'day Chris

I'm no expert on DNA. But have had lengthy sessions with them both in preparation and in cross-examining them.

As I understand it mtDNA can be stable over a fairly long period, but when it does mutate it can mutate drastcally in one or two generations.

100% agree. Especially post Industrial Revolution, environmental and occupational hazards have been causing mutations at a more rapid rate than occurred prior.

The speed of mutations is not going to be the same for all people--as the rate of mutation is very different for some one who lives in a pristine environment versus living downwind of a steel mill. Or who works in an office versus a coal mine.

[Observer]

I didnt say I go along with those ideas, in fact I do believe 1,2 and 4 were killed by the same hand.
But trust me, questions and opinions on Kelly being a seperate victim have been raised many times on this site over the last ten years

regards.

I'm well aware of the opinions which have been raised questioning Kelly's "membership" in the canon. I have took part in those discussions. None of the arguments have persuaded me to change my mind. I still believe Kelly to have been a victim of Jack The Ripper.

Regards

Observer

[Stewart P Evans]

What about...?

It would prove nothing. But if you made the comparison using the same sequence as Dr Louhelainen, the chance probability of a match to Catherine Eddowes would be only 1 in 290,000.
The fact that he found such a match to the shawl requires explanation. I say again, I don't know what the explanation is. But if we can't offer any plausible explanation, then no one is going to believe us. And quite rightly.

What about the Eddowes descendants who handled the shawl a few years ago?

[anna]

Well said Tom...

Stewart..your input and opinions are valued very much on these boards.

How rude of a newbie to suggest such a thing,to an authority on the subject.

I hope he issues an apology.

With regards

ANNA.

[robhouse]

Rob (House) gives us a George Bush ultimatum whereby we either accept the science or we're accusing Edwards and his doctor of fraud. I'm certainly not accusing anyone of fraud.

Please re-read the quote Tom, that's not what I said. I gave 3 options: 1. science is flawed, science is accurate, or it is fraud. I could also add science is inconclusive.

But since I am now being denigrated for doing research, and buddying up with Chris Phillips, I think I will leave here.

RH

[Chris]

What about the Eddowes descendants who handled the shawl a few years ago?

Well, that certainly might be an explanation. But my impression from the discussion on this thread was that someone had misremembered, and the shawl hadn't been handled by the Eddowes descendants.

Adam Wood posted:
Before everyone gets carried away with this statement, the 'gentleman concerned' got his facts mixed up and mistakenly believed this was the case, which he has since recognised.
The shawl was actually displayed in a glass case at the Bournemouth conference of 2001, with no Eddowes descendants present. I was the organiser of this event and personally took the shawl from Andy and Sue Parlour, placing it in a glass cabinet for two hours and then it was returned.
What was displayed at Wolverhampton was a replica of Kate's clothing and possessions produced by Andy and Claudia Aliffe.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=306961&postcount=797

If there was another occasion, on which Eddowes descendants did handle the shawl, that would obviously be relevant. But is there any evidence of that?

[Chris]

But since I am now being denigrated for doing research, and buddying up with Chris Phillips, I think I will leave here.

I thought I was being denigrated for buddying up with "House".

(By the way, what is "buddying up"? It sounds like an Americanism.)

[spyglass]

I'm well aware of the opinions which have been raised questioning Kelly's "membership" in the canon. I have took part in those discussions. None of the arguments have persuaded me to change my mind. I still believe Kelly to have been a victim of Jack The Ripper.

Regards

Observer

Ok, so we almost agree,

But my original point was that it could only prove Kosminski killed Eddowes, it couldnt prove he killed anyone else...however likely.

Regards.

[paul g]

Well said Tom...

Stewart..your input and opinions are valued very much on these boards.

How rude of a newbie to suggest such a thing,to an authority on the subject.

I hope he issues an apology.

With regards

ANNA.

What was rude about the reply. It was honest not vulgar or insulting and direct.
The point regarding not having read the book was a very valid observation.

[anna]

But I think Andy and Sue Parlour have their DNA all over it..I'm sure I have a picture in one of my books of them holding the "shawl",without gloves on.

[robhouse]

What about the Eddowes descendants who handled the shawl a few years ago?

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=306961&postcount=797

[Amanda Sumner]

Hear Hear. Some of the logic employed in this thread is a joke! I laugh at it. Ha Ha. You'll not get an answer.

Why would he not get an answer? I've just come back on the boards and seen this.
I agree that the drawing does not show all the many layers of clothing that Eddowes wore that night, but it does show, very clearly, no shawl. No shawl was reported as being found in the vicinity either, nor was there any mention of a shawl, of any description, in the very detailed inventory made at the mortuary.
There are no records to show Amos was in Mitre Sq that night, and any records there are for that area, Amos Simpson's name is not on them.
These are historical facts.

You may laugh and find it amusing, but I do not. A book has been published that fly in the face of these facts and therefore I see no reason to believe any of it.

So you now both have your answer. I tend to say how it is. It's not in my nature to go into flights of fantasy. Any DNA found on that shawl has nothing to do with the Ripper.

I think my logic is as good as anyone's on here.

Amanda