|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 33
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 9:20 am: | 
|
Hi Caz,
Are you of the opinion that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper?
Apologies if I'm revisiting old ground here. I'm a newish entrant to this discussion forum after all. 
Best,
Ben |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 606
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 9:27 am: |
|
"Hi Caz,
Are you of the opinion that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper?
Apologies if I'm revisiting old ground here. I'm a newish entrant to this discussion forum after all. "
Hi Ben - The Diary is a tad "controversial", to say the least, and this thread is about the new DNA testing proposal, so might I gently suggest moving your question to one of the Diary threads?
Render unto Diary World that which is Diary World's...
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4217
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 9:40 am: |
|
Isn't it strange, that it only takes once for the Diary to be mentioned and all of the sudden it has taken over a complete thread and disguised it beyond recognition.
Can't you pro- or con Diary people keep your discussions about the authenticy of the Diary to those hundreds of threads that already exists on the subject? It's not like we need yet another one.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 07, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 34
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 9:46 am: |
|
I'll happily draw a discreet veil over the diary controversy. It was never my intention to derail the current discussion.
Back to Eddowes hair and Hutchinson's statement. Far more interesting. |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 410
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 10:44 am: |
|
Hi,
I notice that the hair sample displayed by Stephen seems to be cut.
Am I wrong in thinking DNA can only be obtained from hair that has been pulled - retaining the root?
Bob |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2287
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 11:30 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Can't you pro- or con Diary people keep your discussions about the authenticy of the Diary to those hundreds of threads that already exists on the subject? It's not like we need yet another one.
Not when respected posters like Diana, who never posts in Diary World, and Chris George, who does so on occasion, make black-and-white statements that need correcting, qualifying or clarifying. It's just wrong to expect such statements to go unaddressed. Next time someone mentions the D or M word on a thread which you deem inappropriate, moan at them and not at those who have a legitimate response to make.
Hi Spiro,
Unless your ongoing research involves proving authenticity...
No, that's not the aim. Our ongoing research involves establishing the diary's true origins, whatever they are. Our aim, if anything, would be to prove once and for all, for people like you with an interest, 'the how, why and if of it all'.
BTW, the planet Pluto was discovered in 1930, as was Neptune in Victorian times, by mathematical projections of their unseen positions.
Well we can't promise to discover the diary's true origins using mathematical projections, but I know some people who can be relied on to swear that two and two make five, for anyone who would like it to. 
Love,
Caz
X |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1985
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 11:58 am: |
|
Caz,
Can you clarify something for me?
You state that Diana and Chris do not post regularly in the diary world, or do so only on occasion, well....what the hell kinda point is that?
If Diana and Chris T are wrong then they are wrong. Im sure correction would be welcomed or at least debated.
However, the fact that they do not post regularly or not at all is irrelevant. I cant see how that supports your arguement. Makes you come across all snobbish......most unattractive.
Its no real surpirse to me why only a small core do post in the diary world. And why the Goodfellows have gone.
Good day Madam
Monty
It begins.....
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4218
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
"Not when respected posters like Diana, who never posts in Diary World, and Chris George, who does so on occasion, make black-and-white statements that need correcting, qualifying or clarifying. It's just wrong to expect such statements to go unaddressed."
What you could do is to answer them on a relevant Diary thread (how many do we have now at this time?) and in a post here simply direct them to it, just by saying: 'Hey, Diana, I have a response for you on the xxx thread').
And yes, my post was directed to Diana, Ben and Chris as well. I certainly didn't direct it only to you and John Omlor.
I am getting furious about how the Diary forgery and authenticy debates manages to manipulate themselves into too many thread on this Board.
The Diary came into this discussion because of the DNA, and I myself suggested that it would be interesting to see if DNA could be found from relatives of Maybrick and if those same traces of DNA could be found in the Diary. That is the only relevance the item in question has to this thread. Most of us have heard all the arguments already, and for those who against all odds hasn't, and really are interested, there are plenty of threads to chose from.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 07, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 858
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 1:55 pm: |
|
I'm glad I'm respected. WORD WORD |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1665
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 1:56 pm: |
|
Hi Caz:
You quote me where I said, "It is a modern hoax with no provenance."
And take me to task saying, "Now you should know better than to make such a statement of opinion as if it is established fact. Please show some respect for Ian who, as a professional scientist, has to keep his mind firmly open while any testing process is ongoing. And the diary testing process is as ongoing as they come! "
Well, Caz, you would not want to give Prof. Findlay the idea that the Diary is the real deal, would you. You and I both know it is a fake. What we don't know who did it or why it was done.
Finally you say to Ian Findlay--
"The diary has not been proved a modern artefact (and for reasons too complex to go into here, 'modern' in this case means post-1987). It hasn't been dated at all yet.
"And because its provenance is not known to Chris George, he concludes, somewhat illogically and pompously, that it cannot possibly have one. It's like someone saying there can be no new planets out there if the experts have not found and named them yet."
Caz, you are not seriously saying the Diary HAS a provenance are you? Some kind of hidden provenance that ties it irrefutably to James Maybrick? The document has no provable provenance.
Rare documents and fine arts experts know what a provenance is. It is an unbroken chain of ownership stretching back to the person believed to be the original owner, that is, if you believe the Diary, Liverpool cotton merchant James Maybrick of Battlecrease House. The Diary lacks such provenance, totally. You can't claim the existence of something that does not exist. Now, Caz, that really is wishful thinking on your part.
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4220
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 2:09 pm: |
|
And here we go again... 
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Lindsey Millar
Chief Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 504
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 2:18 pm: |
|
Hi Bob,
I notice that the hair sample displayed by Stephen seems to be cut.
Am I wrong in thinking DNA can only be obtained from hair that has been pulled - retaining the root?
I thought so too, actually. Maybe Ian - or someone else - can confirm that 'cut' samples of hair have been successfully tested for DNA. Google/Alta Vista merely bring up "roots only" links. Such is my limited knowledge.
That said, whether this plait of hair *really did* belong to Catherine Eddowes or not, I'd like to see testing go ahead anyway. Even if the results are non-conclusive. One never knows.
Unless there's a ploy to attempt to make money/seek notoriety/falsely accuse a random person/promote oneself as a Jack the Ripper author when book sales are dropping/destroy art work, I'd like to see where this investigation goes.
(*If* this really is Eddowes' hair, I wonder when it was cut? The plait is too long and straight to fit my image of Kate from the mortuary photos. Although with only B&W photos to go by, I can't dismiss the colour.)
I'd still like to see Ian take this further.
Lyn
Although present on the (odd) occasion, I have no clear recollection of the events leading up to it.
Winston Churchill
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4221
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 2:38 pm: |
|
I agree with you about the hair, Lyn. I wonder when it was cut too and it feels a bit too straight for me as well, even though it's braided.
Still, interesting nevertheless.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1666
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 2:59 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn
Don't really mean to invoke the Maybrickian debate here. You are correct that Caroline Morris and I should continue on the Maybrick boards if there really is anything to discuss. Excuse the interruption everyone. 
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1667
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 3:10 pm: |
|
Hi all
In regard to the supposed braid from Eddowes' hair I too view it as a questionable "artifact" from the case without actual evidence that it did come from Eddowes. As we say, we appear to lack proper documentary proof that it did come from Kate Eddowes. Her hair in the black and white photographs appears black although red hair can appear black in a black and white photograph. The notion that it actually did come from Eddowes appears to me as dodgy perhaps as the idea of the "Eddowes shawl" which does not appear in inventory of her belongings... sorry Andy and Sue... or the recent watch offered for sale on eBay that supposedly belonged to Dr. Tumblety but that came without supporting documentation to prove Dr. T actually ever owned it. As I noted in Brighton, the engraving in the watch of the name "Dr. Francis Tumblety 1885" appears to me period-looking (see below), if a bit too convenient, but of course a clever forger might be able to simulate such old looking lettering. This is by the way not meant as an aspersion on the jeweller who sold the watch on eBay who as far as we know came by the timepiece honestly and genuinely offered it as a possible link to a Ripper suspect. I fear there may be some people out there who may be getting a "kick" out of floating cod Ripper artifacts on the market not necessarily for monetary gain. Who knows.
Chris
(Message edited by Chrisg on November 07, 2005)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
|
Kevin Braun
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 139
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 3:56 pm: |
|
Hi Bob,
On November 07, 2005 you wrote...
I notice that the hair sample displayed by Stephen seems to be cut.
Am I wrong in thinking DNA can only be obtained from hair that has been pulled - retaining the root?
I am not a DNA expert, and maybe Ian can help us, but I think your post is the bottom line on the subject(no roots, no conclusive DNA).
If anyone has the Eddowes apron section in their private collection, now maybe the time to go public.
KB
Cell-Track DNA system |
Lindsey Millar
Chief Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 505
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 7:11 pm: |
|
Chris,
I too view it as a questionable "artifact" from the case without actual evidence that it did come from Eddowes
Well, yes, of course. (I mean, aren't we all agreed on that?) But why not test it anyway?
Who knows what might show up?
(Yes, I know.. But I still want to see what happens.)
Lyn
Although present on the (odd) occasion, I have no clear recollection of the events leading up to it.
Winston Churchill
|
Ian Findlay
Police Constable
Username: Ifindlay
Post Number: 4
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 8:59 pm: |
|
Dear all,
Certainly having roots (or follicle) on hair makes DNA fingerprinting much easier. However there can also be cellular material on the hair, e.g. dandruff even if follicle is not intact. Of course the hair may have been washed which doesn't help.
Also when hair is cut, it is clenched which can result in some hairs with intact follicles being pulled out.
Ultimatly we don't know until we test it.
Ian |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 411
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 3:35 am: |
|
Dear Ian,
Many thanks for that update.
Bob |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2288
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 5:29 am: |
|
Hi Monty,
However, the fact that they do not post regularly or not at all is irrelevant. I cant see how that supports your arguement. Makes you come across all snobbish......most unattractive.
I'm really sorry I came across like that, Monty, but it certainly wasn't intentional. The offence is entirely in the eye of the beholder - yours in this case.
I merely meant that if posters are going to introduce questionable statements or downright errors of fact here (which rightfully concern threads they apparently haven't visited to absorb all the information there) it is only fair for the readers here that corrections and clarifications are made here.
Hi Glenn,
The Diary came into this discussion because of the DNA, and I myself suggested that it would be interesting to see if DNA could be found from relatives of Maybrick and if those same traces of DNA could be found in the Diary. That is the only relevance the item in question has to this thread.
So you can bring it up here; you can even see some merit in funding a test for Maybrick DNA in the dreaded document. (If I had said that, I'd have been roasted alive!  ) But I'm in the dog house for correcting Diana and Chris George's claims that the diary has been proved modern, which, if true, would have rendered your original suggestion pointless. So my correction is entirely relevant.
Most of us have heard all the arguments already, and for those who against all odds hasn't, and really are interested, there are plenty of threads to chose from.
An argument is an argument, but a fact is a fact. And we are talking here about posters who don't visit the right threads but choose to post wrong or misleading statements on the wrong one.
Hi Chris G,
Well, Caz, you would not want to give Prof. Findlay the idea that the Diary is the real deal, would you.
No I wouldn't, and I didn't. I simply let him know that the diary has not been dated yet and the testing process is ongoing. As a scientist, Ian would hardly infer that I was claiming it was the real deal. You stated it was a modern hoax; anyone would think you were afraid of any further testing and wanted the door firmly shut on the possibility.
You and I both know it is a fake. What we don't know who did it or why it was done.
You can put words and opinions in my mouth, that I haven't expressed, and you can make assumptions about what I know and what I don't know. But it won't help your credibility by doing so.
The document has no provable provenance.
Something else you are assuming. You have no idea what remains to be discovered and what will never be discovered. I can play that game too.
The document has no provable modern forgers.
...but of course a clever forger might be able to simulate such old looking lettering.
I don't think the lettering on the Tumblety watch looks particularly old. I used to do my capital letters like that when I was a teenager (yes I know that was in the dark ages).
Would you say that the lettering on the Maybrick watch (upper and lower case with ornate capitals) was done by a 'clever forger' too? Or was it a much more amateur job that any kid of the sixties could have done?
Love,
Caz
X |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1986
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 5:44 am: |
|
Caz,
which rightfully concern threads they apparently haven't visited to absorb all the information there
Aparently?
Just because they do not post on these threads does not mean they have not visited or taken on board the information.
it is only fair for the readers here that corrections and clarifications are made here.
I agree, as long as the readers are informed factually and supposition is clearly put forward as supposition or personal opinion.
Love
Monty
It begins.....
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3214
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 6:37 am: |
|
Hi all,
Right, back to the hair-I must admit my first 'gut reaction' was that it seemed lighter than I had imagined in my image of Kate-but,things fade with age and so that could be an explanation I suppose,sadly though I'm still very 'suspicious' as to the authenticity of it but that's in the nature of the beast I suppose!
Auburn hair,as I imagined Kate had, would I feel look 'black' in a b/w photograph,especially when matted with blood as it appears to be in the mortuary pics,and as has been stated before,(with respect to red handkerchiefs), any form of red,especially dark 'auburn' red will appear to be black.
Chris- looking closely at the watch,I feel that the quality of the engraving is too crude to be considered as a genuine 'artifact',(apart from the unlikely possibility that it is genuine and its 'timely' (sorry!) appearance on the Ripper scene),the letter forms aren't defined well enough to match that executed by any Victorian engraver worth his salt IMHO.
Ian- The likelihood is that at some point in the mortuary Kate's hair was washed of course but certainly in some of those pictures matting can be seen quite clearly,I think. Now ,WHEN this hair was taken,if indeed it was,from Kate may have a bearing on this.
Best of luck though,we wait with bated breath (and some trepidation) for your results!
Best
Suzi |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1874
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 7:11 am: |
|
Hi all,
In an attempt to move the Maybrick part of this discussion away, I have posted a short message defending Chris George's credibility on the "Ink" thread over in Diary World.
For anyone interested, that debate can now continue there.
Thanks,
--John |
Ian Findlay
Police Constable
Username: Ifindlay
Post Number: 6
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 9:04 am: |
|
Dear all,
I have started a new thread, called "Appeal for Ripper Items" with the following text.
Hopefully to encourage items, perhaps previously unknown, to appear.
"You may be aware that I've become involved in DNA testing a number of alleged Ripper artifacts using a new DNA fingerpritning system that has obtained DNA fingerprints from 160 year old hairs.
If anyone has Ripper items, please contact me if you'd like them DNA tested. In confidence if you prefer - my email address is ian.findlay@gribbles.com.au.
Now is your chance . . .
Hopefully we can work together to at least try and point us in right direction.
regards
Ian
Professor Ian Findlay" |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1668
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 9:09 am: |
|
Hi John
Thanks for the defense of my credibility. Most appreciated. From a distance, I have noted a firestorm going on in the Maybrick threads which I have done my best to avoid. Thus, I may or may not drift down that way depending on conditions. 
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2298
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Hi Monty,
Just because they do not post on these threads does not mean they have not visited or taken on board the information.
Isn't that even worse, if they've taken on board the information and still post misleading or incorrect information?
I wrote:
'...it is only fair for the readers here that corrections and clarifications are made here.'
And you responded:
I agree, as long as the readers are informed factually and supposition is clearly put forward as supposition or personal opinion.
Absolutely. I agree with you here 100%. If you see anyone else, apart from Chris George, putting forward supposition as if it is definitely ascertained fact, I'm sure you will let me know.
I mean, why on earth would the diary threads even exist, let alone enjoy so much traffic, if the diary had been proved a modern hoax, as Chris quite clearly tried to convince the good Professor?
Love,
Caz
X |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1671
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 1:55 pm: |
|
Hi Caz
I can say the Maybrick Diary is a modern hoax, which you are correct in saying has not been proven, just as you can say it has a provenance, which equally has not been proven. Touché? Bottom line though is that the Maybrick document is not the real deal, which you and I both know is true.
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1990
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 4:55 am: |
|
Caz,
I wouldnt know how to post a misleading piece of information.
Unlike some. 
Monty
It begins.....
|
BelindafromHenmans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Mike, the letter writers can't be identified and discredited if the dna matches with several 'unknown!' And probably it will, though in reality, probably nothing will turn up.
But in the circumstances it would certainly be good to establish that they are not written by Walter Sickert, once and for all. The London National Archives, having helped Patricia Cornwell, possibly want to remove themselves from Ripperology's and the Art World's 'Persona non Grata' list at top speed by helping disprove her asap. Time is of the essence where share prices are concerned! Can't say I'd blame them, but see my post above for my opinion of the investigation's generic value. I am interested to see that the professor appears to be a good professional. This will make a welcome change where forensic testing re Ripper is concerned. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 3:57 am: |
|
Hi ho
Hello JVO .....nice to see you outside the dungeon of Diary World and getting a little sun..
Dont want to hijack the thread but regarding the diary....
If DNA or whatever was found on the diary pages, at least there exists a set of people against whom the found DNA could be compared (Barrets, his ex-wife, some of the publishers, whoever may have had a lot of contact with the diary). And of course if no DNA was found that could match the descendants of Maybrick, that could be another piece in the puzzle/nail in the coffin.
But a question for Ian:
Does DNA age with time? Can "old" DNA be distinguished from "recent" DNA? Do the molecules undergo any change with time and if so, can different DNA samples extracted from, in this case, the page or whatever, be placed in some jkind of temporal sequence in relation to each other or anything?
Mr P. |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 3:04 pm: |
|
Stephen,
If that's Eddowes' hair it must have been shorn off weeks or months before she was killed - either that, or it was cut away from her head after death, thoroughly washed and then plaited. I'm sure you know that the (in)famous mortuary photographs of Eddowes show a matted mass of hair - no braids - apparently looped round a peg, holding her body vertical against a wall.
What's the provenance of your pigtail? (Never thought I'd ever say that ;) |
Neal Stubbings
Inspector
Username: Neal
Post Number: 216
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 2:46 pm: |
|
Today I posted some hair samples kindly donated from one of the direct descendants of Catherine Eddowes, hopefully there's a chance the plait can proved to be Catherine's or otherwise?
Neal Shelden/Stubbings |
Ian Findlay
Police Constable
Username: Ifindlay
Post Number: 8
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 3:48 pm: |
|
Dear all,
In answer to some queries:
1. If we can get profiles from the stamps etc at National Archives, it would be interesting to compare to Sickerts - at least on the perspective of the Cornwell book. However we would need Sickert DNA or profiles and I don't know if Cornwell would release that.
2. Regarding share prices. Does this refer to me? I have afull-time appt at Grififth univiersity which as a university doesn't have shares. I also work for Gribbles Molecular Science which is a subsidiary of a $1.3 Billion dollar company so any possible findings would have very little effect on share price.
3. DNA does change with time, it starts to degrade. Although older DNA looks different to young DNA, actual time period i.e. 100 years or 200 years old cannot be determined. Also its possible for inhibitors to make young DNA look old. When we do DNA fingerprinting we also compare with people in the lab to ensure that they have not caused any contamination and its their profile we are finding. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2802
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 5:17 pm: |
|
The only thing that Cornwell would release is a new book or a bad fart.
Same thing I suppose.
I want to know who Gribbles is.
He sounds like he has a few bob. |
Ian Findlay
Police Constable
Username: Ifindlay
Post Number: 9
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 8:52 pm: |
|
Dear all,
It has come to my attention that the press may have given the impression that the Ripper letters are being sent from London to me in Australia for DNA testing. This is not correct.
To clarify:
1. A braid of Eddowes hair and some hairs from a known direct descendant ARE being sent to me in Australia. Hopefully we can get DNA from both and hopefully determine the authenticity or otherwise of the braid.
2. I have been in discussion with the National Archives in London who have the Ripper letters. They have been extremely helpful and we are currently in discussions re DNA testing stamps etc but this would mean me going to London to collect samples. There has been no suggestion of the letters leaving London.
Hope this helps,
Ian |
BelindafromHenmans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 3:13 pm: |
|
Events have presumably overtaken may last post. Only kidding guys about the terrible British Institution...and its interest in Ripper 'share prices!'
;-) They're not responsible for Patricia Cornwell's "findings" at the National Archives and you can't blame the National Archives for taking her on trust.
I hope the appeal for ripper items is highly productive. Objective forensics is always a good idea. |
Belindafromhenmas
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 4:58 pm: |
|
NB Correction for Prof. Findlay:
Patricia Cornwell's book states that because of the treatment that the Jack the Ripper letters had been subjected to during the conservation process, she could only successfully test the envelope/stamp on the Openshaw letter. She acknowledges that this letter was written after the bulk of the Jack the Ripper letters, and that it is deemed by other experts, such as Evans, to be a hoax. None of the other letters threw up even so much as non conclusive mitrochondrial dna (the dna form that she states she found on the Openshaw letter). Furthar she also states that the Walter Sickert letters she tested for comparison with the Jack the Ripper letters threw up only mitrochondrial dna- and admits that the results were what scientists call 'non significant.' This is all there is so far in terms of 'dna in the Ripper letters' and re Walter Sickert. Almost nothing. It is important that the professor does not begin by exageration or innacuracy in any shape or form.
My suggestion is that the professor also carry out control testing, ie using an approach similar to that deployed by Patricia's experts, as well as his own method of testing. We will then get a clearer picture of what really is the case. |
BelindafromHenmans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 3:13 pm: |
|
Events have presumably overtaken may last post. Only kidding guys about the terrible British Institution...and its interest in Ripper 'share prices!'
;-) They're not responsible for Patricia Cornwell's "findings" at the National Archives and you can't blame the National Archives for taking her on trust.
I hope the appeal for ripper items is highly productive. Objective forensics is always a good idea. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1684
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 9:47 am: |
|
Hi Ian
In regard to Patricia Cornwell sharing her results with you, if she is indeed serious about furthering scientific investigation of the case and open to discussion of her findings, she should be willing to share the DNA profiles with you.
Belinda is correct, I believe, in indicating that the "Ripper letters" and, I understand, the envelopes at the National Archives had been heat treated and sealed in plastic before Ms. Cornwell requested to test them, thus rendering it impossible for her to obtain DNA from them.
This was not the case with the Openshaw letter and envelope which had been in private hands and thus the letter and envelope and the stamp on the envelope could be tested for DNA.
You probably will know, I think, that the City of London Record Office also has a run of Ripper letters and I don't know whether the letters in their archive received the same heat treatment making them moot as prospects for research. Possibly someone in the Ripper community or else the City of London Record Office itself can inform you about that question.
Last, I would highly recommend, if you don't have it the book by Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner, Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell. Stewart and Keith provide a complete rundown and an informed discussion of the hundreds of letters received by the authorities that were alleged to have been written by the killer, along with other missives such as suspect Roslyn D'Onston Stephenson's letter to the City of London police of October 16, 1888.
Best regards
Chris George
(Message edited by Chrisg on November 10, 2005)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3178
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 4:50 am: |
|
Hi,
I guess that rules out ruling in Bulling and Dear Boss?
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2304
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 5:36 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
I can say the Maybrick Diary is a modern hoax, which you are correct in saying has not been proven, just as you can say it has a provenance, which equally has not been proven. Touché?
No, because I think you'll find I didn't claim it has a provenance (I will only do that when I can reveal the evidence for it); I simply said you couldn't be sure it hasn't, which you now appear to be acknowledging, by saying it has not been proven.
I'm glad you are also acknowledging that the diary hasn't been proved a modern hoax, despite your statement - of opinion - that it is one.
That's what I thought you should clarify, so thanks for doing so.
Bottom line though is that the Maybrick document is not the real deal, which you and I both know is true.
Again, you can stop that right now - assuming what I know to be true. The investigation has taken the kind of turn that makes it impossible for me to know anything for certain.
Hi Monty,
Caz,
I wouldnt know how to post a misleading piece of information.
Unlike some
Be not a niggard of your speech. Why are you afraid to spit it out? What misleading information are you thinking about here? And if you don't correct it but leave it to mislead others, isn't that just as bad?
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on November 11, 2005) |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1879
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 8:42 am: |
|
Well, I tried anyway.
Sorry,
--John |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3179
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 12:03 pm: |
|
Caz, come on now - lets not use that certain word.
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1015
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 12:21 pm: |
|
Well, I for one have yet to see one iota of evidence that the Diary is genuine. The burden of proof as ever is on those reckless individuals who hang their hopes on iron pyrites. No one else has to do a single thing and can call the Diary what they wish - a roll of toilet paper is too good a comparison in my opinion.
Phil
(Message edited by Phil on November 11, 2005) |
Belindafromhenmans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 12:52 pm: |
|
True Chris, but the letters at the Guild Hall also fell at the first hurdle with Patricia's forensic team. The harsh reality is, when a government seals evidence away for one hundred years, it's in order to successfully obscure the past. What's needed is insight, the vital few clues and some very good detective work. There's just no way round it. |
Sergeant Charles Eyton
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 9:28 pm: |
|
As you are all no doubt aware I am something of an anomaly on these boards and am able to lay my hands on quite valuable pieces of evidence at the drop of a hat.
Well below I have a "before" shot of one Eddowes' moturary photographs and as you can all clearly see the lock of hair is authentic.
So put away your scientific apparatus and keep you DNA to yourselves once again Sergeant Charles Eyton has saved the day. The story of the Rape of the Lock has come to an end.
Eyton |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 308
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 6:02 am: |
|
Somewhat in poor taste but I'm afraid I did laugh. Jeff
PS wouldnt Eddows DNA be available via her surviving relatives? |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 309
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 7:11 am: |
|
Somewhat in poor taste but I'm afraid I did laugh. Jeff
PS wouldnt Eddows DNA be available via her surviving relatives? |
Neal Stubbings
Inspector
Username: Neal
Post Number: 217
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 3:18 pm: |
|
Three Eddowes relatives have now provided hair samples for the DNA tests. |
Melissa Lynn Turcios
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 10:06 pm: |
|
QUOTE: Am I wrong in thinking DNA can only be obtained from hair that has been pulled - retaining the root?
YES. Hair is only protein, you know, like fingernails or bone (not marrow!) and during keratinisation it undergoes dehydration and catabolizes organelles/nucleic acids as it lengthens. By the root is the 'skin tag' where keratinisation hasn’t yet happened (nDNA!), while in the hair shaft there is no longer a nucleus (no nDNA!).
However, there might be some mitochondrial DNA within the hair shaft. (Because keratinisation occurs from tip to root* this is most likely if the sample was taken from close to the root). IF there is mtDNA, it's up to you folk to decide whether mtDNA is reliable. (fyi: It’s genetic material passed on maternally and is not significantly unique among individuals of the same extended family.)
Then, there’s contamination. Hair that has been treated chemically (whether for vanity or preservation) or handled by multiple people wouldn't yield as reliable results, naturally. Cleaning away contaminants may prove difficult because it may destroy genetic information** or may be in too fragile a condition (though in all likelihood it's been well taken care of). Supposing it hadn't been stored in a relatively cool climate, the mtDNA would have degraded by now.
Hate to be a spoilsport! – but I don’t think this procedure can answer THE BIG QUESTION; I can only hope that he can solve the smaller ones.
…What kind of seventeen-year-old knows this?
Melissa Turcios
*Think of a conveyor belt: as the hair keratinizes it lengthens so that the part that passed through first ends up at the end.
** They ARE hoping for contamination, n’est-ce pas? On the chance that Jack the Ripper managed to salivate or whatever on this sample of hair that was ‘authenticated’ by mtDNA, say the scientists DO get mtDNA. They would then compare it to… the letters that most people believe are hoaxes? Patricia Cornwall’s Walter Sickert mtDNA? How many of the suspects have had no surviving relatives?
Now, my question:
- What about the piece of apron found at Goulston Street? If it still exists, the evidence on it is either Eddowes’ or Jack the Ripper’s. Now, (I’m sure this has been said before)- rather than Jackie ripping off a piece of apron to store the kidney/uterus or wipe his knife (since he didn’t do that for his other murders) suppose that Jack accidentally cut himself and ripped off a portion of the apron to stem the blood flow. This accounts for why it was ‘wet’ (because blood smears don’t normally make a large portion of apron wet). Forensically, I think THAT’s all we have to go on. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
