Cid
Proper break this time
I assume the book... If I can remember where it was, I'll see whether it's relevant to yours.
Aaron Kosminski Named As'Jack the Ripper.' DNA match between Kosminski and victim Catherine Eddowes.
- Thread starter Bakunin
- Start date
I assume the book... If I can remember where it was, I'll see whether it's relevant to yours.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Lurdan
old wave
A sceptical article about this "peer reviewed paper" :
Does a new genetic analysis finally reveal the identity of Jack the Ripper? - Science
and a pretty blunt monstering of it in Forbes :
Archaeological Geneticists Call Jack The Ripper DNA Study 'Unpublishable Nonsense'
I know jack shit about DNA and thus, even in a field like ripperology that consists of nothing except 'Jack' shit, I can't make judgements about the science. But without getting into that, for me the stench of bullshit is overwhelming.
This is not an account of new research but a write up of the same piece of "DNA research" which kicked this thread off. At least the elementary howler identified last time round has been removed.
To reinforce the main claims about what can be inferred from the presence of two different kinds of mitochondrial DNA, this paper states :
The authors don't bother to identify which contemporary eyewitness description of the killer is 'generally considered reliable'. Perhaps that's just as well since they would then be torn apart by ripperologists as well as other scientists.
But the main red flag for me is the way they present the shawl's provenance. They write :
They then reprint a typewritten letter from the pre-2007 owner of the shawl, David Melville-Hayes which affirms the family legend that his Great Great Uncle, a Police Officer, had stolen this shawl from the crime scene.
Even assuming that this family legend is an honest account of what was believed about the shawl, the way the shawl's history is presented in this paper is selective to the verge of dishonesty.
The earliest confirmable fact about the shawl is that in 1988, the 100th anniversary of the murders, two strips of it were cut off and framed with an authentication certificate attached. Presumably this was done by it's owner, Melville-Hayes, who was an antique furniture restorer.
In 1989 these were in the possession of the owners of a video shop in Clacton. This alerted Paul Harrison, a ripperologist, to the existence of the shawl, and he wrote about it in a 1991 book.
About the same time, Melville-Hayes decided to either loan or give the shawl (it's not clear which), to the Metropolitan Police 'Black Museum'. Reportedly the museum had the shawl examined by someone from one of the big auction houses who felt it was early 20th century. It was never put on display and in due course was returned to Melville-Hayes.
In 1997 two more ripperologists, Andy and Sue Parlour, wrote about the shawl in another book, in which they established that there really had been a policeman named Amos Simpson, and attempted to address the trifling problem that he was in the Metropolitan Police, whereas Catherine Eddowes was murdered within the City of London, her body was found by a City of London Police Officer, and that it was the City of London Police who conducted the investigation into her murder.
By now the framed fragments of shawl had passed into the hands of an antique dealer and allegedly were then acquired by the Parlours. I understand they were also loaned the rest of the shawl, and it was displayed at a Ripper event in 2001.
In 2007 Melville-Hayes put the shawl up for auction in Bury St Edmunds. It failed to meet the reserve price (reportedly £10,000), and was subsequently acquired for much less by Russell Edwards whose book and DNA claims kicked this thread off.
For twenty years the shawl had passed through a variety of settings, it had been handled and examined by different people, bits had been cut off and framed to produce a collectable, it had been put up for auction, and eventually was sold. These various settings seem to have involved rather a lot of antiques dealers and ripperologists.
So when this paper says
are they bollocks. Only the fact that it was 'stored in the Metropolitan Police Crime Museum' is mentioned in this paper, and it seems pretty clear to me that this form of words is intended to convey a misleading impression about the shawls authenticity.
Andy Parlour, Sue Parlour and David Melville-Hayes holding the shawl.
From a book entitled 'Jack the Ripper a Psychic investigation'
.
In addition to having watched enough episodes of 'Antiques Road Trip' to be a little sceptical about the world of antique dealers, I have also seen enough episodes of CSI for the phrases "chain of custody" and "cross contamination" to spring to mind. In Russell Edwards book I recall there was an explanation of how the 'cutting edge' DNA analysis employed was able to ignore traces left by subsequent handling. I note that this is not referred to in this paper, and I see that the issue of contamination is one of those raised by the papers scientific critics.
Still, even if the historical provenance of this shawl is little better than an article of faith, and the scientific conclusions drawn in this "peer reviewed paper" are open to challenge, that doesn't mean the paper is without value.
When the shawl failed to meet it's reserve price at auction in 2007 it was sold to Russell Edwards for £5,200. The auctioneers are reported to have said at the time :
In July 2015, the year after Russell Edward's book was published, the shawl appeared on the website of an American collectables company Moments in Time. The price was said to be $4.75 million dollars (or £2.9 million pounds in this Daily Mail article). I can find no mention of the shawl ever being sold and the page for it is still on the Moments in Time website.
The authors of this paper conclude :
What a very valuable and 'scientific' conclusion in the process of persuading some thick cunt to part with a large sum of money.
It doesn't end there of course. Over the last 50 years the most popular theories about the Whitechapel murders have been "the toff did it" and "the immigrant did it". I guess a widespread restatement of the latter theory has its uses in the present climate. I see that Andrew Anglin, the loathsome anti-semite who runs the Daily Stormer, has taken time out from riding the intense wave of far right exultation that greeted the live streaming of the Christchurch murders, to draw attention to the fact that Kosminski was a Polish Jew.
The business of pimping out murder victims by cunts, entrepreneurs and other assorted scum continues to be a profitable one.
*Grrrr. Lurdan goes back to fantasizing about a serial killer in Whitechapel who disembowels ripper tour guides*
Does a new genetic analysis finally reveal the identity of Jack the Ripper? - Science
and a pretty blunt monstering of it in Forbes :
Archaeological Geneticists Call Jack The Ripper DNA Study 'Unpublishable Nonsense'
I know jack shit about DNA and thus, even in a field like ripperology that consists of nothing except 'Jack' shit, I can't make judgements about the science. But without getting into that, for me the stench of bullshit is overwhelming.
This is not an account of new research but a write up of the same piece of "DNA research" which kicked this thread off. At least the elementary howler identified last time round has been removed.
To reinforce the main claims about what can be inferred from the presence of two different kinds of mitochondrial DNA, this paper states :
(...)
The authors don't bother to identify which contemporary eyewitness description of the killer is 'generally considered reliable'. Perhaps that's just as well since they would then be torn apart by ripperologists as well as other scientists.
But the main red flag for me is the way they present the shawl's provenance. They write :
They then reprint a typewritten letter from the pre-2007 owner of the shawl, David Melville-Hayes which affirms the family legend that his Great Great Uncle, a Police Officer, had stolen this shawl from the crime scene.
Even assuming that this family legend is an honest account of what was believed about the shawl, the way the shawl's history is presented in this paper is selective to the verge of dishonesty.
The earliest confirmable fact about the shawl is that in 1988, the 100th anniversary of the murders, two strips of it were cut off and framed with an authentication certificate attached. Presumably this was done by it's owner, Melville-Hayes, who was an antique furniture restorer.
In 1989 these were in the possession of the owners of a video shop in Clacton. This alerted Paul Harrison, a ripperologist, to the existence of the shawl, and he wrote about it in a 1991 book.
About the same time, Melville-Hayes decided to either loan or give the shawl (it's not clear which), to the Metropolitan Police 'Black Museum'. Reportedly the museum had the shawl examined by someone from one of the big auction houses who felt it was early 20th century. It was never put on display and in due course was returned to Melville-Hayes.
In 1997 two more ripperologists, Andy and Sue Parlour, wrote about the shawl in another book, in which they established that there really had been a policeman named Amos Simpson, and attempted to address the trifling problem that he was in the Metropolitan Police, whereas Catherine Eddowes was murdered within the City of London, her body was found by a City of London Police Officer, and that it was the City of London Police who conducted the investigation into her murder.
By now the framed fragments of shawl had passed into the hands of an antique dealer and allegedly were then acquired by the Parlours. I understand they were also loaned the rest of the shawl, and it was displayed at a Ripper event in 2001.
In 2007 Melville-Hayes put the shawl up for auction in Bury St Edmunds. It failed to meet the reserve price (reportedly £10,000), and was subsequently acquired for much less by Russell Edwards whose book and DNA claims kicked this thread off.
For twenty years the shawl had passed through a variety of settings, it had been handled and examined by different people, bits had been cut off and framed to produce a collectable, it had been put up for auction, and eventually was sold. These various settings seem to have involved rather a lot of antiques dealers and ripperologists.
So when this paper says
are they bollocks. Only the fact that it was 'stored in the Metropolitan Police Crime Museum' is mentioned in this paper, and it seems pretty clear to me that this form of words is intended to convey a misleading impression about the shawls authenticity.
Andy Parlour, Sue Parlour and David Melville-Hayes holding the shawl.
From a book entitled 'Jack the Ripper a Psychic investigation'
.In addition to having watched enough episodes of 'Antiques Road Trip' to be a little sceptical about the world of antique dealers, I have also seen enough episodes of CSI for the phrases "chain of custody" and "cross contamination" to spring to mind. In Russell Edwards book I recall there was an explanation of how the 'cutting edge' DNA analysis employed was able to ignore traces left by subsequent handling. I note that this is not referred to in this paper, and I see that the issue of contamination is one of those raised by the papers scientific critics.
Still, even if the historical provenance of this shawl is little better than an article of faith, and the scientific conclusions drawn in this "peer reviewed paper" are open to challenge, that doesn't mean the paper is without value.
When the shawl failed to meet it's reserve price at auction in 2007 it was sold to Russell Edwards for £5,200. The auctioneers are reported to have said at the time :
In July 2015, the year after Russell Edward's book was published, the shawl appeared on the website of an American collectables company Moments in Time. The price was said to be $4.75 million dollars (or £2.9 million pounds in this Daily Mail article). I can find no mention of the shawl ever being sold and the page for it is still on the Moments in Time website.
The authors of this paper conclude :
What a very valuable and 'scientific' conclusion in the process of persuading some thick cunt to part with a large sum of money.
It doesn't end there of course. Over the last 50 years the most popular theories about the Whitechapel murders have been "the toff did it" and "the immigrant did it". I guess a widespread restatement of the latter theory has its uses in the present climate. I see that Andrew Anglin, the loathsome anti-semite who runs the Daily Stormer, has taken time out from riding the intense wave of far right exultation that greeted the live streaming of the Christchurch murders, to draw attention to the fact that Kosminski was a Polish Jew.
The business of pimping out murder victims by cunts, entrepreneurs and other assorted scum continues to be a profitable one.
*Grrrr. Lurdan goes back to fantasizing about a serial killer in Whitechapel who disembowels ripper tour guides*
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
This is an interesting perspective: Hallie Rubenhold: ‘Jack the Ripper's victims have just become corpses. Can’t we do better?’
Cid
Proper break this time
A sceptical article about this "peer reviewed paper" :
Does a new genetic analysis finally reveal the identity of Jack the Ripper? - Science
and a pretty blunt monstering of it in Forbes :
Archaeological Geneticists Call Jack The Ripper DNA Study 'Unpublishable Nonsense'
I know jack shit about DNA and thus, even in a field like ripperology that consists of nothing except 'Jack' shit, I can't make judgements about the science. But without getting into that, for me the stench of bullshit is overwhelming.
This is not an account of new research but a write up of the same piece of "DNA research" which kicked this thread off. At least the elementary howler identified last time round has been removed.
To reinforce the main claims about what can be inferred from the presence of two different kinds of mitochondrial DNA, this paper states :
(...)
The authors don't bother to identify which contemporary eyewitness description of the killer is 'generally considered reliable'. Perhaps that's just as well since they would then be torn apart by ripperologists as well as other scientists.
But the main red flag for me is the way they present the shawl's provenance. They write :
They then reprint a typewritten letter from the pre-2007 owner of the shawl, David Melville-Hayes which affirms the family legend that his Great Great Uncle, a Police Officer, had stolen this shawl from the crime scene.
Even assuming that this family legend is an honest account of what was believed about the shawl, the way the shawl's history is presented in this paper is selective to the verge of dishonesty.
The earliest confirmable fact about the shawl is that in 1988, the 100th anniversary of the murders, two strips of it were cut off and framed with an authentication certificate attached. Presumably this was done by it's owner, Melville-Hayes, who was an antique furniture restorer.
In 1989 these were in the possession of the owners of a video shop in Clacton. This alerted Paul Harrison, a ripperologist, to the existence of the shawl, and he wrote about it in a 1991 book.
About the same time, Melville-Hayes decided to either loan or give the shawl (it's not clear which), to the Metropolitan Police 'Black Museum'. Reportedly the museum had the shawl examined by someone from one of the big auction houses who felt it was early 20th century. It was never put on display and in due course was returned to Melville-Hayes.
In 1997 two more ripperologists, Andy and Sue Parlour, wrote about the shawl in another book, in which they established that there really had been a policeman named Amos Simpson, and attempted to address the trifling problem that he was in the Metropolitan Police, whereas Catherine Eddowes was murdered within the City of London, her body was found by a City of London Police Officer, and that it was the City of London Police who conducted the investigation into her murder.
By now the framed fragments of shawl had passed into the hands of an antique dealer and allegedly were then acquired by the Parlours. I understand they were also loaned the rest of the shawl, and it was displayed at a Ripper event in 2001.
In 2007 Melville-Hayes put the shawl up for auction in Bury St Edmunds. It failed to meet the reserve price (reportedly £10,000), and was subsequently acquired for much less by Russell Edwards whose book and DNA claims kicked this thread off.
For twenty years the shawl had passed through a variety of settings, it had been handled and examined by different people, bits had been cut off and framed to produce a collectable, it had been put up for auction, and eventually was sold. These various settings seem to have involved rather a lot of antiques dealers and ripperologists.
So when this paper says
are they bollocks. Only the fact that it was 'stored in the Metropolitan Police Crime Museum' is mentioned in this paper, and it seems pretty clear to me that this form of words is intended to convey a misleading impression about the shawls authenticity.
Andy Parlour, Sue Parlour and David Melville-Hayes holding the shawl.
From a book entitled 'Jack the Ripper a Psychic investigation'
In addition to having watched enough episodes of 'Antiques Road Trip' to be a little sceptical about the world of antique dealers, I have also seen enough episodes of CSI for the phrases "chain of custody" and "cross contamination" to spring to mind. In Russell Edwards book I recall there was an explanation of how the 'cutting edge' DNA analysis employed was able to ignore traces left by subsequent handling. I note that this is not referred to in this paper, and I see that the issue of contamination is one of those raised by the papers scientific critics.
Still, even if the historical provenance of this shawl is little better than an article of faith, and the scientific conclusions drawn in this "peer reviewed paper" are open to challenge, that doesn't mean the paper is without value.
When the shawl failed to meet it's reserve price at auction in 2007 it was sold to Russell Edwards for £5,200. The auctioneers are reported to have said at the time :
In July 2015, the year after Russell Edward's book was published, the shawl appeared on the website of an American collectables company Moments in Time. The price was said to be $4.75 million dollars (or £2.9 million pounds in this Daily Mail article). I can find no mention of the shawl ever being sold and the page for it is still on the Moments in Time website.
The authors of this paper conclude :
What a very valuable and 'scientific' conclusion in the process of persuading some thick cunt to part with a large sum of money.
It doesn't end there of course. Over the last 50 years the most popular theories about the Whitechapel murders have been "the toff did it" and "the immigrant did it". I guess a widespread restatement of the latter theory has its uses in the present climate. I see that Andrew Anglin, the loathsome anti-semite who runs the Daily Stormer, has taken time out from riding the intense wave of far right exultation that greeted the live streaming of the Christchurch murders, to draw attention to the fact that Kosminski was a Polish Jew.
The business of pimping out murder victims by cunts, entrepreneurs and other assorted scum continues to be a profitable one.
*Grrrr. Lurdan goes back to fantasizing about a serial killer in Whitechapel who disembowels ripper tour guides*
Thanks, that all rings bells with my vaguely recalled source... I did have a dig, reckon it was possibly a Nature podcast put out at the time, but doesn't seem to be available now. There's also one from BBC's Inside Science, but goes into less detail than I remember...
Yeah, I think I just have a reaction against ripperologists. A shitty group of people...
Similar threads
