Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Dave O]

Hi Mick and Phil,

In fairness to Mr. Edwards, I went back and looked at the book again; maybe I'm guilty of reading between the lines regarding the Michaelmas connection/deliberate clue. He doesn't come right out and write that Kosminski left this as a deliberate clue (at least not that I can find in the book) but I do think this is what he's suggesting. Does anybody who's read the book agree or disagree? I sure don't want to misrepresent what he's saying.

He does, however, connect the Michaelmas Daisy pattern on the shawl with the Michaelmas Feast days. He also writes that his wife didn't find the theory convincing.

Dave

[dropzone]

I very much agree. I have to say though that's hard to shake the notion that the book was rushed to press before the nDNA from the semen could be tested further by Jari in order to avoid taking a chance on Kos being eliminated.

The notion is harder to shake if you listen to the interview and hear the good doctor talking about the deadline pressure he got from Edwards and the publisher. I feel sorry for the guy because he didn't know what he was getting into.

[RockySullivan]

Hi Mick and Phil,

In fairness to Mr. Edwards, I went back and looked at the book again; maybe I'm guilty of reading between the lines regarding the Michaelmas connection/deliberate clue. He doesn't come right out and write that Kosminski left this as a deliberate clue (at least not that I can find in the book) but I do think this is what he's suggesting. Does anybody who's read the book agree or disagree? I sure don't want to misrepresent what he's saying.

He does, however, connect the Michaelmas Daisy pattern on the shawl with the Michaelmas Feast days. He also writes that his wife didn't find the theory convincing.

Dave

i'm quite sure the daily mail article stated that Edwards theory is Koz left the michaelmas as a clue about the holiday because I've only read that article and thats what I remember. I still can't believe you fools have all bought the book! Clearly Edwards whole racket is to make a claim that can't be verified or disproven until you poor sops all shelled out the 20 bones...and i'm pretty sure Edwards was banking on making a buck of the curious casebookers. Either way I'm not saying Eddowes DNa aint on the shawl, but I'm certainly wouldnt be willing to financially support anyone who claims they solved the ripper murders without any real solid proof. And the whole point is that he's selling as many books as he can before all the data is in.

[mickreed]

Why was Simpson in the Square

According to Edwards (apparently):

In his book Edwards addresses this as being either Simpson being stationed in Whitechapel and we just have no surviving record of the secondment and he (along with other officers) answered the whistle calls and crossed over into City territory on the discovery of the body or, as he was told by Simpson’s descendants, he was on special duties in the City related to tracking down Fenians (Irish Republicans).

According to the Inquest:

Watkins: I did not sound an alarm. We do not carry whistles.

Admittedly, the night watchman blew his whistle.

[mickreed]

Anatomical Knowledge

While no-one can say for sure, does the following sound like a poor hairdresser?

From the inquest:

[Coroner] Have you any opinion as to what position the woman was in when the wounds were inflicted? - In my opinion the woman must have been lying down. The way in which the kidney was cut out showed that it was done by somebody who knew what he was about.

…


[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.

…


[Coroner] Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge? - It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane.

[RockySullivan]

While no-one can say for sure, does the following sound like a poor hairdresser?

From the inquest:

[Coroner] Have you any opinion as to what position the woman was in when the wounds were inflicted? - In my opinion the woman must have been lying down. The way in which the kidney was cut out showed that it was done by somebody who knew what he was about.

…


[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.

…


[Coroner] Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge? - It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane.

great post. Would a DR remove the organs the way the ripper did? Would a butcher slice up from bottom to breast and cut out the kidney? In my personal opinion, and it's just a theory...I think the ripper may have practiced dissecting the sex organs/kidneys on the torso victims. Just a theory. Whoever posted about the Kosher butchering laws...that was a great post and really makes one think.

[Tom_Wescott]

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

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

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

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

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

RH

So this is the great Rob House theory? Yeeks. So, while Koz is running away with the shawl, who's cutting off Kate's apron and running away with that? The real Jack the Ripper, perhaps?

It's not impossible. Kozminski has never been a strong suspect, albeit stronger than most. However, he doesn't really fit in unless he has a dominant accomplice. It could (and perhaps should) be argued this was the case. But that still doesn't put the shawl in Kate's possession. She didn't have it before the murder and it wasn't at the crime scene after the murder. James Kelly didn't ask about it, and he was scrounging her possession for change. I can't buy that she went hopping with a big shawl! That's something you pawn before leaving and buy back upon return with your hopping money.

Also, According to the Simpson family, Amos himself picked it up in Mitre Square, right? So how do we get it to another location, who picked it up, and why wasn't it turned over to the police? And why would Simpson accept it second hand when apparently he was NOT a crime artifact collector? And then why didn't he turn it over to police at that time?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Boris Godunov]

To Tom Wescott,

Yes Tom I can well see your point...

just WHEN exactly did the well known 'Eddowes shawl' become, from the originally told story, 'Kosminski's shawl'? It hasnt as far as I am aware, EVER been Korminski's shawl.
So- to all Kosminski suspect backers... WHERE is the all important evidence that it was Kosminski's that has been discovered?
(pssst-a hint- calling it of Eastern European Origin wont help)

Also- dear Kosminski suspect followers- WHEN exactly did 'Eddowes' shawl' turn into a skirt? (Pssst-a hint-having michelmas daisys on it wont help- its 8ft long- 2ft wide- not green and not chintz either)- so WHERE is the evidence to change the garment into something PREVIOUSLY , for 20 odd years, was a shawl?

Those two points are embarrassingly awkward.

You see Tom- IMHO this malarky has given Kosminski suspect followers one heck of a problem. The spokerman and author has changed known lore TO SUIT the story.

That means 2 things. IMHO If all this goes up in smoke the Kosminski candidate as a serious suspect goes with it. People wont BELIEVE anything to do with him anymore. So the best they can hope for is the DNA part- which- is under intense scrutiny already.

And the other thing?

IMHO- Like the Diary, a stalemate is the best that can be hoped for now - and this will become-like the Diary- a thorn in the side of the field for years to come.

Not an ideal scenario for most of us- but imho a dream ticket for a publishers and tv producers to milk with follow up books and documentaries etc etc- JUST like the Diary.

IMHO The bandwagon HAS to keep rolling Tom. It doesnt matter if your book is good or even great- THIS stuff puts worldwide Ripper interest back into the control of its creators and helpers and backers and those with enough savvy to jump onto the rolling bandwagon. However-some are hanging on for dear life because Mr Edwards has already shot himself in the already worked out storyline foot. IMHO

Just wait. IMHO A mentor will emerge.
Just like the Diary.

best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil,

Your post is a bit hard to follow, but it seems you're saying that if the shawl is shown to be a fraud, Kosminski is eliminated as a viable suspect. I strongly disagree, I don't see how anyone can make such a claim.

Kosminski is high on my list of suspects. In fact, I'd say that I think he's no. 1 on my list. But I don't think it's by any means conclusive, nor that other suspects aren't also very viable. Does that make me a "Kosminski backer?" I don't ascribe to that. But I am also quite very much inclined to disbelieve the shawl as being genuine. I doubt the shawl's provenance and until Dr. L. produces his methods and results for peer review, I find the supposed ability to extract uncontaminated samples from the shawl too much for my credulity. And Edwards' theories on how it came to be at the crime scene border on laughable

But even if the shawl is proved a hoax, it doesn't change Kosminski's viability as a suspect one jot. The shawl and its alleged link to Eddowes has existed for years, never being tied to Kosminski. His status as a suspect doesn't depend on the shawl at all at this point. And nobody who thinks Kosminski the most likely suspect is going to change his mind if it's proven a fraud. I mean, look at how many suspects that have already been actually proven non-viable are STILL championed by lots of enthusiasts!

Cheers.

[mickreed]

The Whistles

According to Edwards (apparently):

In his book Edwards addresses this as being either Simpson being stationed in Whitechapel and we just have no surviving record of the secondment and he (along with other officers) answered the whistle calls and crossed over into City territory on the discovery of the body or, as he was told by Simpson’s descendants, he was on special duties in the City related to tracking down Fenians (Irish Republicans).

According to the Inquest:

Watkins: I did not sound an alarm. We do not carry whistles.

Admittedly, the night watchman blew his whistle.

Based on the inquest transcripts:

Watkins didn't have a whistle, and therefore didn't blow it. The caretaker did have a whistle but not a soul in Mitre Square heard anything at all. So presumably he didn't start blowing it until he got a little away from the square, or else it wasn't very loud.

He ran south-east from the square before turning left into Mitre Street and then into Aldgate where he met the two constables who had heard the whistle once he got close to them. They returned to the square together, and the caretaker goes back to work

So it's reasonable to assume that anyone who might have approached Mitre Square from a different direction would not have heard a whistle. Therefore these two coppers would have been first there after Watkins.

When Inspector Collard gets there at 2 or 3 minutes after 2, he sees the deceased, Doctor Sequiera, and two or three police officers Check!, Watkins and the two who have just arrived with the caretaker..

He gets Sgt Jones (where did he come from? Presumably he came with Collard) to pick up various artifacts, which he spells out in detail and which were given to Collard. Why doesn't he pick up a shawl, if it's lying around?

And so on. There's not really any room for Amos Simpson to show up and pinch a shawl.

[mickreed]

Hi Phil,

And Edwards' theories on how it came to be at the crime scene border on laughable

But even if the shawl is proved a hoax, it doesn't change Kosminski's viability as a suspect one jot. The shawl and its alleged link to Eddowes has existed for years, never being tied to Kosminski. His status as a suspect doesn't depend on the shawl at all at this point. And nobody who thinks Kosminski the most likely suspect is going to change his mind if it's proven a fraud. I mean, look at how many suspects that have already been actually proven non-viable are STILL championed by lots of enthusiasts!

Cheers.

Hello Boris,

Agreed. If the shawl can't be placed at the crime scene, then it can't incriminate anyone on its own whatever the peer-reviewed article eventually suggests about the DNA. But neither can it absolve anyone.

[The Good Michael]

if you don't disagree, quit trying to pick at words and start an argument.

Coming into this discussion I had 6-8 suspects that I considered viable based on the circumstantial evidence. AK was not NO. 1 on that list, but was a contender, probably 3rd or 4th. However, based on the DNA as presented so far, AK has leapfrogged to the top of my list--with some space between him and NO 2.

We all have our own opinions on which circumstantial evidence we consider strong and which we feel is rubbish. My opinions on that are as valid as anyone's. However there is no need to thread jack. This thread is about the science.

An argument? I was only trying to get you to rein yourself in a bit. I agree that this is about mtDNA, so you should watch your statements in the future if you don't wish to be challenged.

Later,

Mike

[mickreed]

Hi Mick and Phil,

He also writes that his wife didn't find the theory convincing.

Dave

Well, that's honest of him, and sane of her.

[Fisherman]

The post that upset you was a few pages back--so I am cut and pasting it here. Looking it over, I stand by what I wrote and don't feel any of it was out of line:

This is arguably the biggest, best piece of evidence we have ever had. We have never had ANY physical evidence that linked a victim to a suspect before. And this is one of the few suspects that arguably has a good circumstantial case against him--even without the physical evidence.

Plus--going back over old threads--it seemed that the case against AK was typically ridiculed not based on any evidence but simply because people felt that in their judgment AK was so obviously crazy that a prostitute would never do business with him.

This proves that theory wrong--and shows that there is no reason to automatically exclude him from consideration--and that indeed taking everything into consideration, he is by far the most likely prospect--although of course it is not and probably never will be 100% proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

How does semen on a shawl from a person whose identity has not been established prove that Aaron Kosminski was not too crazy for a prostitute to accept him as a client in 1888?

Even if we establish that Aaron Kosminski was the semen-donor - how do the semen stains guarantee us that they were set of during a paid-for sex affair?

The simple answer is that there is no way that the semen stains can be proven to be part of any prostitution business.

However, the court proceedings from December 1889 about Aarons walking an unmuzzled dog should be enough for us to conclude that he could - and perhaps even would - have come across as perfectly coherent and normal a year before that too.

So there are indications that Aaron Kosminski may well have been able to strike a deal with a prostitute in the autumn of 1888 - but these indications are not on a shawl.

The best,
Fisherman

[mickreed]

How does semen on a shawl from a person whose identity has not been established prove that Aaron Kosminski was not too crazy for a prostitute to accept him as a client?

Even if we establish that Aaron Kosminski was the semen-donor - how do the semen stains guarantee us that they were set of during a paid-for sex affair?

The simple answer is that there is no way that the semen stains can be proven to be part of any prostitution business.

However, the court proceedings from December 1889 about Aarons walking an unmuzzled dog should be enough for us to conclude thyat he could - and perhaps even would - have come across as perfectly coherent and normal a year before that too.

So there are indications that Aaron Kosminski may well have been able to strike a deal with a prostitute in the autumn of 1888 - but these indications are not on a shawl.

The best,
Fisherman

Hey Christer

There are so many vested interests in this debate. Loads of people with positions to uphold following previously-published works or livelihoods to maintain, even more with a private theory that is dear to them. Some of the belligerents (I use the term deliberately) don't seem to like one another and are contemptuous of each other. It does get a bit tiresome.

It seems to me, that there are a handful of real authorities on the Ripper case. People like Paul Begg, Martin Fido, Keith Skinner, Stewart Evans, and a few others. Then there are people who have done a lot of work on a particular aspect of the case, like Tom Westcott (whose book I have, and have got much from), and Rob House (whose book on Kosminski I await).

Then there are stalwarts like Howard Brown and the people who run CaseBook; Adam and the good people at The Ripperologist who all make it possible for stuff of value to see the light of day.

You can usually (not quite always) tell the ones who know what they are talking about - a deal of caution, and not much bombast.

I'm not religious, but so much of what is being being presented reminds me of the worst kinds of religious dogmatism.

After all that, I agree fully. No-one's character or ongoing behaviour will ever be inferred from the shawl.

[GUT]

G'day Fisherman

So there are indications that Aaron Kosminski may well have been able to strike a deal with a prostitute in the autumn of 1888 - but these indications are not on a shawl.

So true.