binnall wrote:
Gian responded to this story here:
http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/site_news.htmlSounds like it doesn't wash.
Yeah, I read that too. But, as a matter of fact I was extremely disappointed by his answer – especially how he chose to deal with the article and it's claims. I'll try to explain why – hope I don't come off as a grumpy (or really snarky – or maybe just manic) guy.
First of all – I really can't vouch for the claims in the Daily Mail article. Instead I hope independent DNA researchers get "on the case" as soon as possible – I eagerly await their results (no matter if the results are positive or negative). Why? Because the claims in the article –
should they be true – would be a really big breakthrough in the Ripper case.
Why is this you may ask? Well, because IF (and I know it's a big if) the claims are true, and there is a shawl with DNA traces (even if it's "just" mitochondrial DNA) that can be traced to both a Ripper victim and a Ripper suspect (even if you "only" can trace them through the mother's bloodline), then this find IS a big deal. Imagine finding something like this connected to a modern murder case – I have very big problems imagining a court simply going "Kosminsky again?", roll their eyes and then don't look into it further. The Ripper case is notorious for its lack of physical evidence and how we are only left with eyewitness reports, hearsay, and speculations. If the claims in the article are true this may actually not be the case anymore.
Now, on to some of the issues I have with Gian's answer. Don't get me wrong, I think he sounds like a great guy and what I hear of his
Scarlet Autumn book sounds great, but I really want to go through some of what he writes. To me, the text really illustrates the problems when your own theories get in the way. Sorry Gian.
1. First, he starts off with a smug little story, whose main point seems to be (at least to me) that anyone even considering the DNA claims is like the researcher who discovered the Piltdown skull. That skull is a known hoax, something that – according to Gian – the researcher would have been able to easily discover, had he only "bothered with all the circumstantial data". Unfortunately, genetic data (even if it's the mitochondrial DNA) doesn't work that way – it doesn't stop being valid just because someone thinks that it should. Once the Piltown man was examined in correlation with other existing data, the claims attached to it vanished into thin air. However, the only way claims based on DNA evidence could "vanish", like in the Piltdown skull case, would be if the DNA traces were proven to be faulty (for example misinterpreted, heavily decomposed or very contaminated) or simply false. Until that has happened, this is not a "Piltdown case", no matter what anyone claims.
I'm personally very open to the option that the facts in the article could be disproven – if so, the Daily Mail article will only be the latest in a long line of discarded Ripper "solutions". But we can't know this until the results have been analysed by other experts.
The problem boils down to this: either the DNA traces hold up to scrutiny or they don't. It's as simple as that. Once again: IF the claims are true, and there is a shawl with DNA traces (even if it's "just" mitochondrial DNA) that can be traced to both a Ripper victim and a Ripper suspect (even if you "only" can trace them through the mother's bloodline), then this find IS a big deal.
2. Next, he talks about how the researchers don't adhere to he scientific method. I can definitely see his point.
But yet we still return to the same spot again: IF the claims are true and there's DNA from both a victim and one of the suspects (even if we can only pinpoint it down to a "family" level due to limitations in mitochondrial DNA) – then that's a pretty fascinating discovery. Or at least it seems that way to me.
3. After this, Gian talks about the problems with the shawl. Among other things, he questions the provenance of the object. I'm with him all the way here – where did this item come from? And why is it suddenly resurfacing after some 126 years?
But unfortunately this was not the point of the article. The point was the DNA traces (supposedly) found on the shawl. Once again we return to the same spot: IF the claims are true and there is DNA that can be traced to both the victim (in the form of blood) and a suspect (in the form of semen) then that's an interesting find that could have great repercussions in the Ripper case.
4. He then talks about how the murderer could not have had time to sexually assault the victim. It would have been a fair point … if anyone had claimed this. As far as i know, no-one claims that the semen and the blood must have been added to the cloth at the exact same time.
Instead, we still have the same point again: according to the claims, there exists a shawl with DNA-tested bloodstains that appear to be from the victim and DNA-tested semen stains that apperar to come from one of the named suspects. Once again: if these claims are true, then this shawl is a pretty interesting find. Why are these DNA traces found on this item? Had a shawl, with (what at least appeared to be) blood from the victim and semen from one of the suspects, been found during a murder investigation today, it would have been considered extremely important to the case (at least until analysis proved otherwise).
5. Next he discusses Aaron Kosminsky, and the problems of him being a suspect. Once again, if Gian had just been refuting yet another Ripper theory, his points would have big merit.
But … wait for it … what about the claims about DNA traces? If the claims are true and hold up for scrutiny, then I think it would make you want to look twice – even at the suspects that you personally don't think fit the profile. Apart from this – as far as I am aware, we know very little about Kosminsky. For example, no matter what Gian writes, we don't know what kind of accent Kosminsky had.
6. Gian then brings up the case of the faux drawing of Kosminsky. I give him credit here – he's right. However, this does not in any way add or remove anything when it comes to the DNA claims. Once again (oh no, not again!) IF the claims are true, then we actually seem to have DNA samples connected to the Ripper killings. That's a pretty big deal.
7. Finally, he brings up the problems with mitochondrial DNA. Fair enough – but reading Gian's answer he simply brushes this kind of DNA aside – as if it has no value at all.
But the thing is – it actually has value. Mitochondrial DNA is used daily in criminal investigations. It is used daily as evidence in court cases. It is used daily for identifying victims from accidents and terrorism events. This is because mitochondrial DNA, though somewhat limited, contains genetic info about a person's family genes. Gian actually alludes to this when he quotes the FBI website which cautions trying to pinpoint specific individuals using only mitochondrial DNA. The quote then continues:
"all maternal relatives inherit the same mtDNA".
So, if I'm understanding mr. Quasar correctly, with this quote he actually says that there is a possibility (should the DNA claims be true and verified, of course) that we have found maternal DNA connected to the Ripper case? If this is the case – why is he so quick to dismiss the claims altogether? Doesn't he find this discovery the least bit interesting? Especially considering the lack of "hard" evidence in the case.
Don't get me wrong: I really don't think that we should say "case closed" only based on this single revelation in the Daily Mail (written by two people who are releasing a book on their findings, and surely want to make money) – on the contrary: these claims should be revisited by independent experts.
But I still can't wrap my head around why some people are so quick to dismiss the entire claim – and only brush over the parts about DNA as if they don't mean anything. I presume that if the mitochondrial DNA had pointed to one of the Ripper suspects that Gian finds more plausible, he would be all over this – wanting to know more.
In a way, it's pretty similar to the people who read the Daily Mail article and claims it as the literal truth – without any questioning.
Once again: I am really looking forward to see what comes of this. Maybe it will all be shown to be a hoax or simply inconclusive. But – and this is what I'm driving at – IF the DNA claims can be verified, then this IS a big deal in Ripper research.
Edit: changed some (mis-)spellings and unclear sentences.