Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Stewart P Evans]

Anyway...

Anyway, let's see what nonsense another day brings.

[anna]

The" painted on" aspect of some flowers is interesting.

Anyone know where this item was in the early 1970's ?

As schoolgirls, my friends and I used to paint flowers on our dresses and blouses..it was just the fashion to do so,and it made mass produced items seem individual.

Please take this suggestion lightly,as it was only a thought.

[Chris]

No actually you asked me for proof that it could mutate in one or two generations. It can.

Of course I didn't ask you that.

Obviously it can, but the probability of a mutation happening in 5 or 6 generations is extremely small.

What I asked you was for evidence to back up your opinion that "when it does mutate it can mutate drastcally in one or two generations" [my emphasis]

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=308048&postcount=1689

[Jeff Leahy]

Why on earth would you say that? I mentioned no name.

Then I also have no idea what you are talking about..obviously I write my own posts…dyslexic though they sometimes may be..

Hi Adam

While your about could you give any more information on the original dating of the Shawl? Would be most helpful if you could

Yours Jeff

[Chris]

Spontaneous, random mutations happen at a slow rate. However, such mutations are trivial compared to the mutations that occur due to other factors (environmental, occupational exposures). Talking about the mutations that occur spontaneously does not give us any idea of the total mutations from all processes that might occur. spontaneous mutations are only a small factor.men exposed to more of the nasties--working in steel mills that kind of thing.

Again, if you're suggesting that the overall mutation rate -from whatever cause - is other than extremely small, it will be interesting to see the evidence. If you're not suggesting that, the point may be interesting, but it's not really relevant to the discussion.

[Trevor Marriott]

Some serial killers do masturbate after committing murder, so this is entirely possible. Many take "trophies" from their victims, to remind them of the crime as a sexual stimulant later. For the Ripper to have masturbated at the crime scene would have been too risky.

I would propose the following as a possibility in this case:

Kozminski kills Eddowes and takes the shawl with him when he leaves the square.

At some other location, away from the crime scene, perhaps in MET territory, he masturbates, with the shawl as a sort of souvenir/ stimulant. He then wipes up and discards the shawl.

It is later picked up and kept as a souvenir by a MET PC.

Somehow Simpson ends up owning it, and the story evolves over time.

RH

So now we stretch the approx 5 minute time window the killer had in Mitre Square to allow for him to walk in the square carry out the murder, mutilate the body, remove organs in almost total darkness, cut a piece of her apron and then stop to have a J Arthur before he left.

Come on get real !

[Henry Flower]

So now we stretch the approx 5 minute time window the killer had in Mitre Square to allow for him to walk in the square carry out the murder, mutilate the body, remove organs in almost total darkness, cut a piece of her apron and then stop to have a J Arthur before he left.

Come on get real !

Trevor, doesn't your neck ever get sore from this constant head-shaking and tut-tutting over everyone else's stupidity?

You really should read the things you're replying to. First the book, now this post. Look:

At some other location, away from the crime scene, perhaps in MET territory, he masturbates

So AK's J Arthur does not have to be fitted into the window of time between the sighting of Eddowes alive and the discovery of her corpse. It's being hypothesized that it takes place subsequently, at another location. See?

Or to put it another way, as the written word seems beyond your comprehension:

[MrBarnett]

Trevor,

Rob suggested the Jodrell took place at another location. Perhaps he abandoned the shawl and the apron piece in Goulston Street.

MrB

[Phil Carter]

Hello Stewart,

I have a thought that this shawl business is a double edged sword for those who support the "Kosminski is the Ripper" claim.

It could be argued that IF this debate gets to The Diary levels and the outcome is found that the shawl claim is worthless- then the Kosminski suspect will be seen-by Joe Publc- to be a non-starter.

However IF the machinations surrounding this shawl can (like The Diary in the mind of Joe Public) be kept going and continue to fuel interest- then all will be good. Which is a very good reason for people to not support the Edwards claim yet not write it off either.

I cannot see this Edwards fellow standing up to factual debate against the provenance of the Simpson story for long either- judging by his radio and tv comments...which may be slightly enbarrassing?

best wishes


Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Hmmm...

Hmmm, first topic of the day appears to be w*nk*ng, that seems somehow appropriate.

[Tecs]

Ah, but it's glorious nonsense! Does anyone here actually expect that these cases will be solved to the satisfaction of all reasonable, non-crackpot investigators? After all this time? With evidence coming and going all the time, and most of it lost a century ago? Instead we have the chase to keep us going, and now and then when someone announces something “new” we get to have fun looking it over, kicking its tires, and maybe ripping it to shreds. If you want to play real detective and help solve recent cases—y'know, help people—there are sites like websleuths.com. JtR is more for fun.

You do get points for using “farrago.”

'Tis better to travel in hope than to arrive?


regards,

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

"I was just trying to point out that there are those of use who believe there is every reason to suspect Aaron Kosminski long before the Shawl."

Just as there are those of us who don't suspect him for ANY reason. But that's for another thread.

Cheers.
LC

Lynn
What everyone is missing is that Aaron Kosminski in any event may not be the Kosminski mentioned in the contentious MM and the SM. His antecedents simply do not fit.

But of course those proponents of Kosminski will say the police in question got their facts mixed up. Talk about changing the goalposts.

Now we have got back to JTR killing all the victims which is clear that he didnt, and Aaron Kosminski being Jack the Ripper.

and despite all that has been said and written over the past few days some still want to accept this secondary DNA as being positive evidence to link Eddowes and Kosminski to the shawl.

The public and many ripperologists have been sucked in by this misleading daily mail article and now cant see the wood for the trees.

[The Good Michael]

Hmmm, first topic of the day appears to be w*nk*ng, that seems somehow appropriate.

And some of us are winking at the w*nk*ng.

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

Legendary

And some of us are winking at the w*nk*ng.
Mike

A bit like the legendary Winky-W*nky bird...?

[Henry Flower]

J.Arthur

Mr B, I'd forgotten about 'Jodrell' as euphemism for a Tommy. Very pleased to have been reminded about it, thank you.