Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Peter Griffith aka gryff View Post
    @mickread: Obviously it did get done - inside a very tight timeline. As I explained in my previous post above, I'm a rookie at this and I'm trying to understand the whole timing issue.

    The precise kidney removal, claimed by Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown, is a big issue.

    Did PC James Harvey actually walk down Church Passage and look into Mitre Square, or did he just give a perfunctory glance down Church Passage and continue on his beat. That could free up the timeline a little - but would of course be pure speculation on my part.

    Enjoy reading your posts.

    cheers, gryff
    Yes, PC James Harvey did walk down Church Passage 'as far as Mitre Square' according to the statements.

    The timeline document on this site states:

    SUN, SEP 30, 1888 c.1:40am -- PC Harvey went down Duke St and into Church Passage as far as Mitre Sq. He did not look into the square and neither saw nor heard anything.

    It's frustrating that he didn't look into the square, obviously, because it's highly likely he might have seen something in that dark south-west corner, where the Ripper had probably already murdered Catherine Eddowes and was in the process of mutilating her.

    I'm not great at calculating distances, but is it about 30 feet?

    The view from the top of the passage to the murder spot can be seen here in this photograph



    which is from this page: http://www.casebook.org/victorian_lo...s.w-mitre.html

    Eddowes and the Ripper would have been just in front of the man on the bench.

    My guess is Jack would have heard PC Harvey coming and made his escape at this point, or stopped and waited till Harvey turned back and then scarpered, avoiding PC Watkins by 3-4 minutes.
    Last edited by Andy Conway; 09-19-2014, 10:26 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
      Hi Moon,

      When was this ?

      MrB
      Hello Mr B , well we know Joseph Lawende was there in 1888 , and a few doors down I have located Simpsons daughter Ellen in 1945 , making her 52 , and tying in the old Ex Policeman ..
      Coincidence ?? maybe , but worth a closer look .

      cheers

      moonbegger
      Last edited by moonbegger; 09-19-2014, 10:57 AM.

      Comment


      • Moon, please go to Amos Simpson thread.

        Comment


        • Cheers Robert .. on my way .

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
            True enough. You say yourself, 'very rarely' homicidal. Thus, this certainly doesn't exclude anyone. Certainly not Kozminski. Rarely indeed. Yet, this did not stop the NYPD of compiling the following profile for the 'Son of Sam' killer: "......neurotic and probably suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and believed himself to be a victim of demonic possession."

            After his arrest, David Berkowitz was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic who believed that his neigbor's howling dog was possessed by the devil and demanded that he go forth he kill.
            Hi. Patrick,
            Just to pick up on what you said Re. Son of Sams profile.
            The N.Y. Police compiled that profile based largely on the contents of a lengthy letter that was left at one of the crime scenes by the killer a month or so before - rather than based purely upon the circumstances of the murders themselves.
            So the fact that they were mostly correct is less surprising.
            No criticism of you is implied here, I'm just clarifying the matter.
            Caligo.
            https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/flag_uk.gif "I know why the sun never sets on the British Empire: God wouldn't trust an Englishman in the dark."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
              So, you think Kozminski was just some guy who liked to masterbate, huh?
              There is no evidence to support Aaron Kosminsksi as a wanker at all! Likely, perhaps, but where is the evidence?

              He probably had one off the wrist now and again. It is irrelevant to the Ripper mystery.

              Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
              But we don't known why MacNaughton or Anderson believed him to be a compulsive masturbator...
              Yes we do, my man, we've already explained why!

              Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
              "Reduced to the level of a beast" and I don't think just saying it was prejudice is at all fair.
              I feel like I am part of a Monty Python sketch, talking to this guy!

              If Aaron Kosminski was reduced to the level of a beast by tossing himself off, then, frankly, I am Wolfman Jack.

              Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
              What we know is what the sources tell us. That Aaron masturbated.
              The sources contradict each other. They are Victorians who clearly believe mental health is associated with masturbation. This is not evidence. It is prudish hearsay.

              Be more convincing!
              ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ__̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.___ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)

              Dr Mabuse

              "On a planet that increasingly resembles one huge Maximum Security prison, the only intelligent choice is to plan a jail break."

              Comment


              • Nothing much has been said but what about the age of the cells/specimens.If those did not come from 1888 the whole argument stops.
                What if the cells/specimens came from the 1900's?.
                Those tests has to be published.The further away from 1888 the age of cells/specimens is the more the Edward's argument is dependent on the shawl story.
                Hard but the people who owned and handled the shawl should also be known.
                Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                M. Pacana

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                  Nothing much has been said but what about the age of the cells/specimens.If those did not come from 1888 the whole argument stops.
                  What if the cells/specimens came from the 1900's?.
                  Those tests has to be published.The further away from 1888 the age of cells/specimens is the more the Edward's argument is dependent on the shawl story.
                  Hard but the people who owned and handled the shawl should also be known.
                  I don't believe you can date cells that way.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Andy Conway View Post
                    Yes, PC James Harvey did walk down Church Passage 'as far as Mitre Square' according to the statements.

                    The timeline document on this site states:

                    SUN, SEP 30, 1888 c.1:40am -- PC Harvey went down Duke St and into Church Passage as far as Mitre Sq. He did not look into the square and neither saw nor heard anything.

                    It's frustrating that he didn't look into the square, obviously, because it's highly likely he might have seen something in that dark south-west corner, where the Ripper had probably already murdered Catherine Eddowes and was in the process of mutilating her.

                    I'm not great at calculating distances, but is it about 30 feet?

                    The view from the top of the passage to the murder spot can be seen here in this photograph



                    which is from this page: http://www.casebook.org/victorian_lo...s.w-mitre.html

                    Eddowes and the Ripper would have been just in front of the man on the bench.

                    My guess is Jack would have heard PC Harvey coming and made his escape at this point, or stopped and waited till Harvey turned back and then scarpered, avoiding PC Watkins by 3-4 minutes.

                    If we can just locate the man on the bench then we probably have the best witness ever.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by paul g View Post
                      If we can just locate the man on the bench then we probably have the best witness ever.
                      Well that would take alot of work, seeing as it is a woman

                      Well I think it is

                      Comment


                      • I'm absolutely agree with Trevor Marriott. I spoke, here in Italy, in the last days, with an important genetist and the best scene crime expert of our police.
                        The genetist said: ok, there's a link between Kosminski and Eddowes, but the only thing that genetic can't say is when this happened. The expert said: mitochondrial dna is not a definitive answer, but only a way to take in the number of suspects.
                        So, I think that now we know there was a contact between K. and E. ...but when? The day before? Half an hour before the murder? No more than this.
                        The Edward's book is not decisive.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Natasha View Post
                          Well that would take alot of work, seeing as it is a woman

                          Well I think it is
                          Accually on closer inspection I agree , or a cross dresser.

                          Can't make out if he/she is wearing a Michaelmas daisy shawl or not.

                          Comment


                          • Just suppose

                            Don`t believe this for a moment but there is a small possibility that Amos turned up right after the body was discovered, picked up the shawl in shock, perhaps intending to cover the body, and then still in shock stuffed it in his pocket (silk being very lightweight) and forgot about it until he got home. He preferred to keep quiet about what he had done, for obvious reasons, and made up the story that he had been allowed to take it for the family, telling them to keep quiet about it.

                            Best wishes
                            C4

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
                              A few things mentioned here I think are worthy of response. See above, bold.
                              G'day Patrick re post #3322 most people to have studied Berowitz appear to reach the conclusion that he was Faking it.
                              G U T

                              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by paul g View Post
                                Accually on closer inspection I agree , or a cross dresser.

                                Can't make out if he/she is wearing a Michaelmas daisy shawl or not.
                                I think the shawls probably tucked away in that white carrier bag next to her, along with a couple of recently purchased JTR branded memento yoyos. So at least someones buying it . . . .
                                https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/flag_uk.gif "I know why the sun never sets on the British Empire: God wouldn't trust an Englishman in the dark."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X