Tuesday, 30 December 2014

Is it Worth Buying a Cheap Two Way Radio?

It depends on what you want to do with it. Two-way radio technology is actually fairly simple. The basic mechanics of a radio don’t really change much from unit to unit, or from manufacturer to manufacturer.


Some radios may have flashier features (which you can decide for yourself if you really need) and others might have extra functions, such as the ability to switch between analogue and digital, but, to a large extent, a two way radio is a two-way radio.


A few of the features advertised (and no doubt added to the overall price) will do you no good whatsoever. For example, a radio claiming to have a range of 25-30 miles is simply lying to you. The average radio has a range of between 1 and 2 miles. Some are a little stronger that this, most are not.


Some radios advertise being waterproof or water resistant (some even come with built-in weather warnings) and, if you’re planning on using the radio in more outdoor conditions, then this is definitely a plus and worth spending money on.


Now, as for the tech itself, your radio’s power output is an important factor, but if you are only having a bit of fun, you likely wouldn’t need to go over 0.5 watts (and thus end up applying to Ofcom for a radio license). Generally, FRS (Family Radio Service) radios are cheapest and they are fine for a bit of fun, but GMRS (General Mobile Radio Service) radios, although they cost a little extra, are worth it if you need to transmit a stronger signal over a longer distance.


Other features, such as a built-in LED torch, a stopwatch, built-in alarms and/or a fancy light-up screen are only worth spending out on if you have a use in mind for them. Otherwise, it might be cheaper to simply provide torches and stopwatches to your staff if they require them. That’s a judgment call.


An emergency button, however, is always a good idea. The same is true for a ‘privacy’ function, especially if you are using your radio in an area with lots of other radio signals bouncing about.


Finally, we come to the idea of brand name. Certain products (we could name a particular headphone brand endorsed by a certain rapper, but we won’t) are all about selling the ‘in thing’ with a flashy logo, a branded image, a HUGE markup and little else to offer the customer. Radios are not this way, if you buy a trusted brand (such as Motorola), you can be assured of getting a quality product. In this instance, spending a little more for an established name can definitely pay off.


Essentially, if you want a two-way radio for business use, then it is worth spending out that little extra. However, if you only want one for hobby use, then you can pick one from the lower end of the market and not worry too much about it. Extra features are what add to the price more than anything else and it is entirely up to you to decide if you need them or not.

Are your earbuds making you deaf? 1964Adel says yes, so it created a solution

I do not know how you came here as you read it on social media, twitter, facebook, google plus, reddit or anywhere else. But thank you for visiting and I trust you enjoy reading this as much as I did. source – %link%


Those tiny earbuds you bring along with you here, there, and everywhere are causing you to go deaf. At least that’s what audio specialist, and in-ear monitor pioneer Stephen D Ambrose would have you believe. To save you from the dangers of the common earbud, Ambrose and his team at 1964|Adel have created an entire new wave of %link% designed with patented technology to be safer for your eardrums, all of which are making the rounds in a new Kickstarter campaign.


The link between hearing loss and headphone use being drawn here is not a new one. For its part, 1964|Adel singles out a study from an L.A. Times report which cites an increase in hearing loss for U.S. teens in the last 15 years from 30 to 77 percent. The study in question ruled out ear infections and external environmental factors as causes, pointing instead to the higher prevalence of portable audio players, though it stopped short of specifically laying blame. That said, there are plenty of other studies blaming the blasting of headphones as a major contributor to hearing loss.


But Ambrose argues that hearing loss from in-ear headphones and %link%, specifically, is different due to the way they isolate the eardrum inside the ear canal. In the video below, Ambrose claims it’s not acoustic pressure (i.e. loud noises) that causes hearing loss, but the pounding of air pressure from the moving driver being sealed inside your ear canal, causing “pneumatic pressure” from the movement of the driver itself.


In response, Ambrose and 1964|Adel have proposed a new way to solve the very hearing loss epidemic Ambrose claims to have helped create with his original in-ear monitor design; four ways to be exact, stemming from four different headphone series. The new headphones employ 1964|Adel’s patented RealLoud Technology, which incorporates a “second eardrum” inside the earpiece designed to take the brunt of the air pressure to protect your real eardrum. The company even claims the design makes audio “sound louder,” requiring a lower overall volume level.


Adel in-ear module diagram


The first, and most affordable solution in the arsenal is the new Adel Control, a modular earphone that allows users to adjust features like bass and external noise to taste, tailoring the sound signature. At time of publication, the Control was still available as an Early Bird special for $100, half off the suggested retail price.



Next in line is the Adel Ambient series, which offers 4 multi-driver models, from the entry-level dual-driver Ambient 2, to the Ambient 12 which (you guessed it) is jam-packed with a whopping 12 drivers per side, labeled the “jewel” of the Ambient line. Pricing for the Ambient series starts at $200 for the dual driver set, and goes up to an impressively (relatively) affordable $500 for the 12-driver version, again, priced at half the cost of suggested retail for each. For reference, the quad-driver Westone W40 will run you the same price as the Ambient 12.


Next up are the 1964|Adel U-series, which take the shape of more traditional in-ear monitors, covering the entire ear canal. The U-series starts with a quad-driver pair for $300 — down from a suggested $500 retail price — and the series goes all the way up to the 8-driver U-series 8, which will run you $720. The latter offers 4 drivers for the bass register alone, with two each for the midrange and treble, to create a massive sound.


Finally, the 1964|Adel A-Series includes both 10-driver, and 12-driver models, priced at $1,000 and $1,200 respectively — 40 percent off the claimed MSRP. Like most top-tier in-ear monitors, the A-series are custom tailored to the user’s ears for the ultimate fit and sound, while harboring a RealLoud secondary eardrum for safety.



Not only is 1964|Adel’s new project already funded, but it has already reached its stretch goal of $350,000, which provides an optional inline 3-button mic piece for all of its headphones. All of the new models are slated for release in May of 2015, with the exception of the A-series, which will be available earlier in February.


While we certainly can’t attest to the claim that RealLoud Technology actually makes these headphones safer, they are priced very competitively under the Kickstarter deal. And hey, if they offer competitive sound in their respective genres, what’s the harm in playing it safe, right? If you’re interested in finding out more, or ordering up one of 1964|Adel’s latest designs, you can do so today at its Kickstarter page.

Sunday, 21 December 2014

Are your earbuds making you deaf? 1964Adel says yes, so it created a solution

The world is filled with very cool, well written content. If you find one that catches your eye, you have to post it, well i do! so with authorization from %link% i have re-posted this to take pleasure in


Those tiny earbuds you bring along with you here, there, and everywhere are causing you to go deaf. At least that’s what audio specialist, and in-ear monitor pioneer Stephen D Ambrose would have you believe. To save you from the dangers of the common earbud, Ambrose and his team at 1964|Adel have created an entire new wave of %link% designed with patented technology to be safer for your eardrums, all of which are making the rounds in a new Kickstarter campaign.


The link between hearing loss and headphone use being drawn here is not a new one. For its part, 1964|Adel singles out a study from an L.A. Times report which cites an increase in hearing loss for U.S. teens in the last 15 years from 30 to 77 percent. The study in question ruled out ear infections and external environmental factors as causes, pointing instead to the higher prevalence of portable audio players, though it stopped short of specifically laying blame. That said, there are plenty of other studies blaming the blasting of headphones as a major contributor to hearing loss.


But Ambrose argues that hearing loss from in-ear headphones and %link%, specifically, is different due to the way they isolate the eardrum inside the ear canal. In the video below, Ambrose claims it’s not acoustic pressure (i.e. loud noises) that causes hearing loss, but the pounding of air pressure from the moving driver being sealed inside your ear canal, causing “pneumatic pressure” from the movement of the driver itself.


In response, Ambrose and 1964|Adel have proposed a new way to solve the very hearing loss epidemic Ambrose claims to have helped create with his original in-ear monitor design; four ways to be exact, stemming from four different headphone series. The new headphones employ 1964|Adel’s patented RealLoud Technology, which incorporates a “second eardrum” inside the earpiece designed to take the brunt of the air pressure to protect your real eardrum. The company even claims the design makes audio “sound louder,” requiring a lower overall volume level.


Adel in-ear module diagram


The first, and most affordable solution in the arsenal is the new Adel Control, a modular earphone that allows users to adjust features like bass and external noise to taste, tailoring the sound signature. At time of publication, the Control was still available as an Early Bird special for $100, half off the suggested retail price.


Next in line is the Adel Ambient series, which offers 4 multi-driver models, from the entry-level dual-driver Ambient 2, to the Ambient 12 which (you guessed it) is jam-packed with a whopping 12 drivers per side, labeled the “jewel” of the Ambient line. Pricing for the Ambient series starts at $200 for the dual driver set, and goes up to an impressively (relatively) affordable $500 for the 12-driver version, again, priced at half the cost of suggested retail for each. For reference, the quad-driver Westone W40 will run you the same price as the Ambient 12.


Next up are the 1964|Adel U-series, which take the shape of more traditional in-ear monitors, covering the entire ear canal. The U-series starts with a quad-driver pair for $300 — down from a suggested $500 retail price — and the series goes all the way up to the 8-driver U-series 8, which will run you $720. The latter offers 4 drivers for the bass register alone, with two each for the midrange and treble, to create a massive sound.


Finally, the 1964|Adel A-Series includes both 10-driver, and 12-driver models, priced at $1,000 and $1,200 respectively — 40 percent off the claimed MSRP. Like most top-tier in-ear monitors, the A-series are custom tailored to the user’s ears for the ultimate fit and sound, while harboring a RealLoud secondary eardrum for safety.



Not only is 1964|Adel’s new project already funded, but it has already reached its stretch goal of $350,000, which provides an optional inline 3-button mic piece for all of its headphones. All of the new models are slated for release in May of 2015, with the exception of the A-series, which will be available earlier in February.


While we certainly can’t attest to the claim that RealLoud Technology actually makes these headphones safer, they are priced very competitively under the Kickstarter deal. And hey, if they offer competitive sound in their respective genres, what’s the harm in playing it safe, right? If you’re interested in finding out more, or ordering up one of 1964|Adel’s latest designs, you can do so today at its Kickstarter page.

Thursday, 18 December 2014

What Is a Covert Earpiece?

From wisegeek.com “What Is a Covert Earpiece?” (16 January 2011)


A covert earpiece is a miniature earpiece worn by an individual while being effectively hidden from plain view. It operates as a radio accessory in times when a user does not want other people to know she or he is communicating with others using radio earbuds. Also known as an invisible earpiece or a surveillance earpiece, a covert earpiece is often worn by government agents, corporate security personnel, undercover law enforcement officers and corporate as well as government spies.


covert earpiece


While many occupations require the use of a radio headset for communication, a covert earpiece is primarily used in instances where communication is of an extremely private and sensitive nature. This is common in cases of private security details and surveillance projects. Sometimes people also use a covert earpiece to defraud businesses and others. Examples of such instances would include someone using an invisible earpiece to cheat on an exam or to defraud a casino by receiving remote information while playing a game.


On-air television personalities may also use a covert earpiece, which is not distracting to viewers, but allows the person to hear relevant feedback from producers and engineers in order to make sure a taping or live appearance flows smoothly. Individuals may also wear a covert earpiece when making a public speech. By doing so, the speaker can receive important cues or changes in a speech without the audience even being aware that communication is taking place between someone located behind the scenes and the individual delivering the speech.


Some covert earpieces are accompanied by a discreet microphone, which enables two-way communication. These are commonly used by security forces with a need for such communication, particularly during surveillance operations. These types of accessories are not only convenient because they feature hands-free operation, but also because they allow undercover security forces to blend in with crowds without having to use a visible walkie-talkie system of communication.


A covert earpiece does not contain any visible wires and is designed to fit inside the ear without being noticeable to the general public. Some devices are even designed to fit on a pair of eyeglasses while amplifying sound inside a person’s ear. An inductive wire is sometimes worn around the person’s neck, but is covered by clothing so as not to be discovered by onlookers. This wire is not connected to the covert earpiece, but connects to a separate radio device that helps modulate sound.

Wednesday, 17 December 2014

Jack The Ripper: Case Closed (Again)?

A new book published this month promises to provide a long-awaited conclusion to the age old riddle of ‘The Whitechapel Murders’, a series of gruesome slayings that took place between September and October of 1888. The killer, famously known as ‘Jack The Ripper’ was never apprehended and his (or her!) true identity was never uncovered…


However, according to amateur detective Russell Edwards, the most famous murder case of all time has now been conclusively solved.


Mr. Edwards has spent 14 years establishing his theory and is convinced that it is watertight. “We have definitively solved the mystery of who Jack The Ripper was,” he told the press.


However, his claims are very far from being either accepted by historians or agreed upon by science…


Since ‘The Ripper’ murdered at least five prostitutes (some experts argue that there were more victims and that the slayings continued unabated until 1891), a large number of historians, amateur detectives and interested parties have indulged in this so-called ‘Ripperology’ – and a number of theories as to the identity of the killer have been put forward as a result.


The list of suspects named over the years is a long one. It includes celebrities like ‘Alice in Wonderland’ author Lewis Carroll, Queen Victoria’s physician William Gull, the painter Walter Sickert and even Queen Victoria’s son, Prince Albert Victor. More serious scholars tend to look towards less prominent and sensationalistic theories, however.


Regular Ripper suspects include Scottish abortion doctor and convicted murderer Thomas Neill Cream, who allegedly confessed to the killings as he was about to be hanged (although he was in prison at the time of the murders), Irish-American conman Francis Tumblety, who was arrested on charges connected to the killings, Polish born Seweryn Klosowski, who murdered three of his wives by poisoning and James Kelly, who murdered his own wife in a manner similar to a Ripper killing, escaped Broadmoor asylum early in 1888 (and who may even have committed similar murders in the United States) amongst many others.


Because so many competing theories abound, something special is required to truly make an impact on the subject, or add anything new to the long running discussion. Concordantly, Edwards’ theory involves an element that is guaranteed to add an air of legitimacy to any investigation, DNA.


According to Russell Edwards, the true identity of Jack The Ripper was Aaron Kosminski, a Polish Jew who lived in the area at the time of the murders and died in an asylum in 1919.


Kosminski immigrated to the UK in the 1880’s and worked as a hairdresser before being committed.


In 1891, (the time when some theorists suggest that the killings ceased) Kosminski was admitted to an insane asylum, probably suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. Kosminski was extremely mentally ill, having been incarcerated twice for insane behaviour. He refused to bathe, would only eat discarded food and suffered from auditory hallucinations; he was also probably a compulsive masturbator.


Russell Edward’s book, ‘Naming Jack The Ripper’ focuses on DNA evidence taken from a shawl that supposedly belonged to victim Catherine Eddowes, who was murdered by Jack The Ripper in September of 1888. He claims to have isolated traces of Kosminski’s DNA from the grisly garment.


The shawl, which was apparently stained with Eddowes’ blood, was allegedly taken from the crime scene by acting sergeant Amos Simpson, who intended it to be a gift for his wife. When his wife (understandably) refused the ghastly, unwashed present, it was stored away and became something of a ghoulish family heirloom.


Unfortunately for Edwards, Mr. Simpson was never documented as being anywhere near the crime scene, which does damage his account somewhat. Furthermore, Scotland Yard’s Crime Museum refused to display the Eddowes shawl in their Jack The Ripper exhibit because they do not consider it to be an authentic piece of evidence.



When the Eddowes shawl came up for auction in 2007, Edwards (who was inspired to become an investigator by the 2001 movie ‘From Hell’ starring Johnny Depp), pounced on the opportunity and purchased it, apparently undeterred by the fact that it does not appear on the inventory of the crime scene and equally undeterred by the proliferation of Ripper forgeries (including a diary) that have supposedly been ‘unearthed’ (and subsequently sold) over the years.


“Here I am with the shawl and possibly the evidence to solve the most unsolvable murder in English criminal history. But where do I start? That was the big question”. Said Edwards, who fortuitously opened The ‘Official’, Jack The Ripper Store (and associated walking tours) in London’s East End this July…


The author enlisted the aid of Jari Louhelainen, a molecular biologist at Liverpool John Moores University, who began testing the blood stained shawl for traces of Jack The Ripper’s DNA…


For his part, Edwards was able to track down living descendents of both Eddowes and Kosminski (but, crucially, no other suspects/victims) and found traces of semen that were a 100% match for Kosminski.


Sadly, Louhelainen’s methodology has not been published in any kind of peer-reviewed scientific journal, which means that the pair’s claims, whilst certainly attention grabbing, are far from scientific certainty. Even if they are accurate, they only demonstrate that somebody of Kosminski’s family line (he had three brothers) had secreted onto the shawl.


Skeptics include Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, the man who invented the DNA fingerprint technique, who told The Independent that Edward’s theory was “an interesting but remarkable claim that needs to be subjected to peer review, with detailed analysis of the provenance of the shawl and the nature of the claimed DNA match with the perpetrator’s descendants and its power of discrimination; no actual evidence has yet been provided”.


In addition, even if the DNA has not been contaminated, either in the laboratory or at some other time (which seems unlikely given how many people have handled the shawl over its 120-year history), it is hardly conclusive proof of Kosminski’s guilt. The evidence would merely suggest a sexual liaison between Eddowes, a known prostitute, and Kosminski, a sexual compulsive, on or around the night that Eddowes was murdered…


On top of all that, the evidence linking an expensive shawl to a prostitute (who was so poor at the time of her death that records show her pawning her shoes) is circumstantial at best.


Mr. Edwards has posed for photographs with the shawl, each time handling it without gloves or any kind of specialist clothing. He is not the only person to have done so in the garment’s long history. Others include the descendents of Catherine Eddowes…


It is also worth noting that, in 2002, author Patricia Cornwell published a book called ‘Portrait of a Killer: Jack The Ripper – Case Closed’, in which she claimed to have analyzed DNA evidence taken from one of the killer’s famous notes and ‘matched it’ to that of the painter Walter Sickert. Once again, the evidence on display was dubious and far from compelling or definitive.


It seems, then, that Mr. Edwards confident boast, “only non-believers that want to perpetuate the myth will doubt. This is it now – we have unmasked him.” is premature to say the least.

Tuesday, 16 December 2014

Star Trek Star ‘Outed’ by Guardian Blunder

Guardian columnist Jane Czyzselska, writing for the newspaper's companion website, mistakenly 'outed' Shakespearean actor and 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' star Patrick Stewart as being gay.

In a column celebrating 'Inception' actress Ellen Page actually coming out as gay, Czyzselska wrote "some gay people, such as Sir Patrick Stewart, think Page's coming out speech is newsworthy because a high-profile and surprisingly politically aware young actress has decided not to play by the rules that so many closeted Hollywood actors are advised to follow if they are to enjoy mainstream success,"

It just so happens that the 73-year-old Shakespearean actor, best known for his roles as Professor Charles Xavier in the 'X-Men' movies and as Captain Jean-Luc Picard in the TV series 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' and its companion films - isn't gay.

In fact, Stewart has been married - to Women - three times, most recently in September of last year, when he married American jazz singer Sunny Ozell. He also has two children from a previous marriage.

The Guardian rushed to correct its mistake, adding an addendum at the bottom of the page, but Stewart didn't seem to mind a bit.

"It makes a nice change" tweeted Stewart in response to the 'outing'. "At least I didn't wake up to the Internet telling me I was dead again". At the time of writing, that post has been 'retweeted' 1,181 times.

For those who don't know, Sir Patrick Stewart is a huge supporter of LGBT rights. He vocally supports gay marriage and was even given the 2013 'Straight Ally of The Year Award' from PFLAG.

Fellow 'Star Trek' star William Shatner joined in the fun, Tweeting, "I never get that kind of coverage! I'm jealous!"

The confusion may have arisen because Sir Patrick's best friend is openly gay actor Sir Ian McKellen. If that was the case, Stewart tweeted this response: "I have, like, five or even SEVEN hetero friends and we totally drink beer and eat lots of chicken wings!" Is it just me, or is it impossible to read the above quote without hearing Captain Picard's voice in your head?

On a more serious note, Stewart has often spoken about civil rights, he once said, "From my earliest years as an actor I have always been proud of the support the creative community gives to all forms of human and civil rights,"

In fact, Patrick Stewart is no stranger to fighting the good fight, the actor has been a vocal opponent of domestic violence (working with Amnesty International) and he is also a patron for Refuge, a UK-based charity for abused Women.

... And no, he isn't dead.

the origin of this article is here

Jack The Ripper: Case Closed (Again)?

A new book published this month promises to provide a long-awaited conclusion to the age old riddle of ‘The Whitechapel Murders’, a series of gruesome slayings that took place between September and October of 1888. The killer, famously known as ‘Jack The Ripper’ was never apprehended and his (or her!) true identity was never uncovered...

However, according to amateur detective Russell Edwards, the most famous murder case of all time has now been conclusively solved.

Mr. Edwards has spent 14 years establishing his theory and is convinced that it is watertight. “We have definitively solved the mystery of who Jack The Ripper was,” he told the press.

However, his claims are very far from being either accepted by historians or agreed upon by science...

Since ‘The Ripper’ murdered at least five prostitutes (some experts argue that there were more victims and that the slayings continued unabated until 1891), a large number of historians, amateur detectives and interested parties have indulged in this so-called ‘Ripperology’ â€" and a number of theories as to the identity of the killer have been put forward as a result.

The list of suspects named over the years is a long one. It includes celebrities like ‘Alice in Wonderland’ author Lewis Carroll, Queen Victoria’s physician William Gull, the painter Walter Sickert and even Queen Victoria’s son, Prince Albert Victor. More serious scholars tend to look towards less prominent and sensationalistic theories, however.

Regular Ripper suspects include Scottish abortion doctor and convicted murderer Thomas Neill Cream, who allegedly confessed to the killings as he was about to be hanged (although he was in prison at the time of the murders), Irish-American conman Francis Tumblety, who was arrested on charges connected to the killings, Polish born Seweryn Klosowski, who murdered three of his wives by poisoning and James Kelly, who murdered his own wife in a manner similar to a Ripper killing, escaped Broadmoor asylum early in 1888 (and who may even have committed similar murders in the United States) amongst many others.

Because so many competing theories abound, something special is required to truly make an impact on the subject, or add anything new to the long running discussion. Concordantly, Edwards’ theory involves an element that is guaranteed to add an air of legitimacy to any investigation, DNA.

According to Russell Edwards, the true identity of Jack The Ripper was Aaron Kosminski, a Polish Jew who lived in the area at the time of the murders and died in an asylum in 1919.

Kosminski immigrated to the UK in the 1880’s and worked as a hairdresser before being committed.

In 1891, (the time when some theorists suggest that the killings ceased) Kosminski was admitted to an insane asylum, probably suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. Kosminski was extremely mentally ill, having been incarcerated twice for insane behaviour. He refused to bathe, would only eat discarded food and suffered from auditory hallucinations; he was also probably a compulsive masturbator.

Russell Edward’s book, ‘Naming Jack The Ripper’ focuses on DNA evidence taken from a shawl that supposedly belonged to victim Catherine Eddowes, who was murdered by Jack The Ripper in September of 1888. He claims to have isolated traces of Kosminski’s DNA from the grisly garment.

The shawl, which was apparently stained with Eddowes’ blood, was allegedly taken from the crime scene by acting sergeant Amos Simpson, who intended it to be a gift for his wife. When his wife (understandably) refused the ghastly, unwashed present, it was stored away and became something of a ghoulish family heirloom.

Unfortunately for Edwards, Mr. Simpson was never documented as being anywhere near the crime scene, which does damage his account somewhat. Furthermore, Scotland Yard’s Crime Museum refused to display the Eddowes shawl in their Jack The Ripper exhibit because they do not consider it to be an authentic piece of evidence.

When the Eddowes shawl came up for auction in 2007, Edwards (who was inspired to become an investigator by the 2001 movie ‘From Hell’ starring Johnny Depp), pounced on the opportunity and purchased it, apparently undeterred by the fact that it does not appear on the inventory of the crime scene and equally undeterred by the proliferation of Ripper forgeries (including a diary) that have supposedly been ‘unearthed’ (and subsequently sold) over the years.

“Here I am with the shawl and possibly the evidence to solve the most unsolvable murder in English criminal history. But where do I start? That was the big question”. Said Edwards, who fortuitously opened The ‘Official’, Jack The Ripper Store (and associated walking tours) in London’s East End this July...

The author enlisted the aid of Jari Louhelainen, a molecular biologist at Liverpool John Moores University, who began testing the blood stained shawl for traces of Jack The Ripper’s DNA...



For his part, Edwards was able to track down living descendents of both Eddowes and Kosminski (but, crucially, no other suspects/victims) and found traces of semen that were a 100% match for Kosminski.

Sadly, Louhelainen’s methodology has not been published in any kind of peer-reviewed scientific journal, which means that the pair’s claims, whilst certainly attention grabbing, are far from scientific certainty. Even if they are accurate, they only demonstrate that somebody of Kosminski’s family line (he had three brothers) had secreted onto the shawl.

Skeptics include Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, the man who invented the DNA fingerprint technique, who told The Independent that Edward’s theory was “an interesting but remarkable claim that needs to be subjected to peer review, with detailed analysis of the provenance of the shawl and the nature of the claimed DNA match with the perpetrator’s descendants and its power of discrimination; no actual evidence has yet been provided”.

In addition, even if the DNA has not been contaminated, either in the laboratory or at some other time (which seems unlikely given how many people have handled the shawl over its 120-year history), it is hardly conclusive proof of Kosminski’s guilt. The evidence would merely suggest a sexual liaison between Eddowes, a known prostitute, and Kosminski, a sexual compulsive, on or around the night that Eddowes was murdered...

On top of all that, the evidence linking an expensive shawl to a prostitute (who was so poor at the time of her death that records show her pawning her shoes) is circumstantial at best.

Mr. Edwards has posed for photographs with the shawl, each time handling it without gloves or any kind of specialist clothing. He is not the only person to have done so in the garment’s long history. Others include the descendents of Catherine Eddowes...

It is also worth noting that, in 2002, author Patricia Cornwell published a book called ‘Portrait of a Killer: Jack The Ripper â€" Case Closed’, in which she claimed to have analyzed DNA evidence taken from one of the killer’s famous notes and ‘matched it’ to that of the painter Walter Sickert. Once again, the evidence on display was dubious and far from compelling or definitive.

It seems, then, that Mr. Edwards confident boast, “only non-believers that want to perpetuate the myth will doubt. This is it now - we have unmasked him." is premature to say the least.