Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Caligo Umbrator]

When it all boils down to it, here is my issue.

The shawl is wrong. It's just wrong. The date range given does not match the style and the design, and in no way shape or form the circumstances. And even that I could get around to accepting, if it weren't for the fact that given two weeks, I could come out with a rival shawl and rival DNA that would match the circumstances better, and would date accurately. And really the only reason I need two weeks instead of 48 hours is that I have to fly to London and get some DNA samples, which I can't afford right now so I'd need to wait until Wednesday to buy a ticket.

Hi, Errata.
Firstly let me make clear to everyone, I'm not here to defend the 'shawl' theory.
You state that the date range for the shawl is wrong. Certainly, if there was a claim that the shawl was manufactured in 1888, the style and design would be inconsistent with that date. However, I don't think anyone is claiming 1888 as a date of manufacture.
It is likely, given the visual evidence we have seen, that the shawl dates from sometime between the early 1820's to the late 1840's. By 1888 it would be as out of date, in terms of fashion and style, as flares are today.
The good condition it was apparently in at that time could indicate that the person it belonged to took some care over its appearance, so we might conjecture that it was perhaps handed down to her from her mother or from a lady whose house she once worked in. How ever it came into her possession, we have no reason to state that simply because she was poor she couldn't own it. (I know you didn't state that but many others have)

If you were to attempt what you are suggesting, you'd have to firstly discover a shawl that has got little or no provenance. You wouldn't want some antique dealer popping up in a months time proving he'd bought it at a jumble sale in Scotland and then sold it on to you.
You'd then have to arrange the depositation of mDNA samples onto the shawl in such a manner as to convince 2 somewhat distinguished scientists, one of whom has worked for the police from time to time on similar work, that the mDNA samples are not in any way suspicious or recently applied.
Furthermore, the presently understood timeline would suggest that the mDNA samples you place upon the shawl cannot be the ones you later collect from the living relatives of the supposed initial mDNA doners.
I'll be intrigued to learn how it is that you propose to do this in so short a time.
Thanks, Caligo

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Jeff.

"when the most simple solution is that Swanson made a simple mistake or was told Kosminski died"

Perhaps part of Jonathan's point is that IF Swanson were told, then he were relying on second hand information. And maybe Mac investigated for himself?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn
Time for some Sunday controversy !

I am sure MM did not go to those lengths to prepare the Memo just for the fun of it. In order to do so he would have needed help in obtaining the information about those he mentioned, having regard for the fact that he was not involved in the original investigation I would suggest that came from written documentation relative to the police investigation.

That investigation may have included Aaron Kosminskis spat with his sister involving the knife making him a "person of interest" at that time given that the murders still had not been detected, but nothing more !

Now MM was Swanson's superior by rank and so one would have also expected him to have perhaps been consulted when MM was preparing the Memo.

The main issue which Kosminski proponents seem to want to ignore is that another document was penned by MM thereafter,The Aberconway Version.

Now I stand to be corrected here but it appears the date of that is unknown, but it must have been after 1894 and no doubt before 1913 when he retired.

However in that he exonerates the man called Kosminski he previously named in 1894 in The Memo, what information he had which caused that exoneration is not known, but whatever it was it was sufficient for him to put that in writing.

In 1910 up pops Robert Anderson with is ambiguos polish Jew story in is book being careful not to mention a name. He retired in 1901, MM was still in office at Scotland Yard at that time.

Now having regard to the fact that MM penned the Memo in 1894 following the Sun article I would suggest that MM penned the Aberconway version soon after Anderson published his book. I doubt he wanted to go public and dismiss Andersons claims.

Sometime after 1910 Swanson is purported to have written the Marginalia.Now I don't propose to go into this other than to re iterate what I and others had said and that it is contentious.

So the provenance of the shawl is important. Rule that out and it destroys these new revelations. The DNA subject to this is never going to be conclusive in any event.

Aaron Kosminski can be ruled out in any event as being any kind of a suspect simply because there is nothing to link him to the crimes in the first place.

What have we been seeing here yet again. Kosminksi proponents who on one hand say MM was right, but got his dates mixed up, or was fed incorrect information, and simply ignore the Aberconway version, and the rest of the proponents who simply ignore the Aberconway version and use both the MM and SM to corroborate each other as being correct - unbelievable !

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer.

"And the more slayings, the lesser that chance of a psychotic, I'd say."

Right. No more than about two.

Cheers.
LC

Two would be more credible than five. Or seven. Or eleven, or whatever.

The crucial point here, though, is that the lowered credibility attaching to a raised number of victims when it comes to a psychotic killer, attaches mostly to killing number two.

The much more credible thing is that a psychotic is caught in combination with his first killing.
The overwhelming probability is that he will leave clues a plenty at the first murder scene (and all others, subsequentially).
He will - if he committs a murder with eviscerations involved, reasonably not feel inclined to wash up and hide what he has done as long as he is afflicted by the psychosis.

That is why I´m perfectly fine with having had it suggested to me that an evisceration murder where there are bloody palmprints and footprints around the whole scene, and where the murder weapon may have been left, and where neighbours have heard loud screams, may well have been carried out by a psychotic killer.

It is also why I am much less inclined to accept such a killer if the murder was silent and if the murder spot offered no clues, and if the killer had taken off silently, bringing his murder weapon with him, and if nobody reported about a man arriving back home with blood all over his arms and a kidney in his pocket.

It is also why I would never accept a psychotic killer if more than one murder was perpetrated by the same hand, and with the same total lack of clues and weaponry at the murder spot, combined with the knowledge that the deeds had been silent and that the killer had been able to approach the victims, kill them, and then sneak away undetected.

The second you can provide me with one single example where a psychotic killer have committed serial killings, leaving absolutely no clues, staying totally silent throughout the deeds, being able to quickly silence and subdue his victims, moving in and out of the kill zone undetected, the way the Ripper did, I may - just may - be willing to concede that Issenschmid could - just could - have been the killer of Polly and Annie. He will NOT be a credible bid nevertheless, but it would open some sort of small possibility, at least.
Until that happens, I´m gonna go with a verdict of impossible, though. Sorry, Lynn, but that is the only reasonable way to look upon it.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Just to clarify, what exactly are you saying?

That if you were in London, within 48 hours you could obtain DNA samples from both a relation of a victim in the direct female line and a relation of a suspect in the direct female line, somehow induce them to keep quiet about the fact they had provided you with those samples throughout the ensuing whirlwind of global publicity, and then treat their samples in some undisclosed way so as to fool an experienced scientist into thinking they were 126 years old (including making samples from a female appear to be cells from a male where necessary)?

I think if people are going to suggest the "shawl" could have been faked, they are under an obligation to give details of how that could plausibly have been done. It's not enough just to say "I could do it in 48 hours".

Did Edwards obtain the control samples from the relatives before taking the shawl to Jari. What was the chain of events and timeline involved ?

[lynn cates]

short

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

Well, I can go part way. Mac DID give a resemblance of Kosminski to a suspect as ONE reason for suspicion. Another is the vague "circs."

I cannot help but think that BOTH Druitt and Kosminski were the result of veteran coppers trying--as we are--to solve a mystery.

In my estimate, BOTH came up short.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

not silent

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"He will - if he committs a murder with eviscerations involved, reasonably not feel inclined to wash up and hide what he has done as long as he is afflicted by the psychosis."

Unless, of course, he were aware at some level of consciousness.

"It is also why I am much less inclined to accept such a killer if the murder was silent. . .'

of course, Polly's murder was not silent.

". . . and if the murder spot offered no clues. . ."

Plenty of clues in BOTH the first two murders.

". . . and if the killer had taken off silently, bringing his murder weapon with him. . ."

Tucked conveniently into his butcher's apron.

". . . and if nobody reported about a man arriving back home with blood all over his arms and a kidney in his pocket."

My lad was wandering about the streets. What kidney?

"It is also why I would never accept a psychotic killer if more than one murder was perpetrated by the same hand, and with the same total lack of clues and weaponry at the murder spot, combined with the knowledge that the deeds had been silent and that the killer had been able to approach the victims, kill them, and then sneak away undetected."

Of course, this does NOT describe Polly and Annie.

"The second you can provide me with one single example where a psychotic killer have committed serial killings, leaving absolutely no clues, staying totally silent throughout the deeds, being able to quickly silence and subdue his victims, moving in and out of the kill zone undetected, the way the Ripper did, I may - just may - be willing to concede that Isenschmid could - just could - have been the killer of Polly and Annie."

If I could provide you with THAT, it would be irrelevant--Polly and Annie's cases both had clues and were NOT silent.

But perhaps not relevant to this thread?

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

Well, I can go part way. Mac DID give a resemblance of Kosminski to a suspect as ONE reason for suspicion. Another is the vague "circs."

I cannot help but think that BOTH Druitt and Kosminski were the result of veteran coppers trying--as we are--to solve a mystery.

In my estimate, BOTH came up short.

Cheers.
LC

yes but a person of interest is a long way short of someome being classed as a suspect is it not ?

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff.

"when the most simple solution is that Swanson made a simple mistake or was told Kosminski died"

Perhaps part of Jonathan's point is that IF Swanson were told, then he were relying on second hand information. And maybe Mac investigated for himself?

Cheers.
LC

I'm aware of Jonathons McNaughten theories. I've read the Marginalia enough time to form the opinion Swanson was jogging his own memories. They were written for himself.

As I've said before I believe Swanson was asked by Anderson to sort out Kosminski after he was approached by a family member.

Mac Nuaghten in my view had formed his Druit theory, private info, before being asked to write the report about Cutbush. He thus had access to the files but stuck to his original preferred story..

But thats my opinion

Yours Jeff

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"He will - if he committs a murder with eviscerations involved, reasonably not feel inclined to wash up and hide what he has done as long as he is afflicted by the psychosis."

Unless, of course, he were aware at some level of consciousness.

"It is also why I am much less inclined to accept such a killer if the murder was silent. . .'

of course, Polly's murder was not silent.

". . . and if the murder spot offered no clues. . ."

Plenty of clues in BOTH the first two murders.

". . . and if the killer had taken off silently, bringing his murder weapon with him. . ."

Tucked conveniently into his butcher's apron.

". . . and if nobody reported about a man arriving back home with blood all over his arms and a kidney in his pocket."

My lad was wandering about the streets. What kidney?

"It is also why I would never accept a psychotic killer if more than one murder was perpetrated by the same hand, and with the same total lack of clues and weaponry at the murder spot, combined with the knowledge that the deeds had been silent and that the killer had been able to approach the victims, kill them, and then sneak away undetected."

Of course, this does NOT describe Polly and Annie.

"The second you can provide me with one single example where a psychotic killer have committed serial killings, leaving absolutely no clues, staying totally silent throughout the deeds, being able to quickly silence and subdue his victims, moving in and out of the kill zone undetected, the way the Ripper did, I may - just may - be willing to concede that Isenschmid could - just could - have been the killer of Polly and Annie."

If I could provide you with THAT, it would be irrelevant--Polly and Annie's cases both had clues and were NOT silent.

But perhaps not relevant to this thread?

Cheers.
LC

You provide the exact answer I imagined you would, Lynn, and you are welcome to your thoughts and ideas. To me, no shoehorning in the world with "some level of consciousness" and so on will make Issenschmid - or any other psychotic killer - anything but a bid that needs to be firmly put at the bottom of any conscientiously formed list. No claiming that the Nichols murder was not a silent one will do the trick, as will no musings about many clues left on the scenes do.

I prefer the real world, and I happily abanod the other ones to you and your butcher. Sorry.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jeff Leahy]

At first you were against the 'shawl' then changed your mind. You have every right to, of course.

But why did you?

Oh thats fairly straight forward. I looked at the shawl back in 2003 for a program I was woking on. At that time I was informed 'perceived wisdom' was that the Shawl was Edwardian.. I now gather that this dating was given due to the shawl being screen printed… At that time I decided not to use the shawl as at did not seem likely to be genuine given what was then known.

My understanding is that the Shawl was re-examined and found to be hand painted, making the earlier dating un-safe.

So if the shawl could be older it simply changes ones perspective given the DNA evidence that is being presented, as I understand, there is at least a good percentage chance it was connected to Eddows and thus requires further consideration.

Yours Jeff

[John G]

Oh thats fairly straight forward. I looked at the shawl back in 2003 for a program I was woking on. At that time I was informed 'perceived wisdom' was that the Shawl was Edwardian.. I now gather that this dating was given due to the shawl being screen printed… At that time I decided not to use the shawl as at did not seem likely to be genuine given what was then known.

My understanding is that the Shawl was re-examined and found to be hand painted, making the earlier dating un-safe.

So if the shawl could be older it simply changes ones perspective given the DNA evidence that is being presented, as I understand, there is at least a good percentage chance it was connected to Eddows and thus requires further consideration.

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Yes, I myself am not totally dismissive of the DNA evidence. As regards the shawl, I believe it has been suggested that it might date from the 1850s? Of course, that in itself presents problems because it leaves a period of around 30 to 40 years, prior to 1888, when the genetic material could have been deposited by individuals sharing the respective family lines of Kosminski and Eddowes. And, of course, the DNA needn't have been deposited simultaneously, nor the shawl located in Whitechapel in when it was deposited.

However, it does seem interesting that the we appear to have a DNA fragment from an unusual haplogroup sub type, relating to Kosminski's family line, and a fragment with a rare mtdna mutation, relating to Eddowes' family line, on the same shawl.

For me, what is crucial is how easy it would have been to deposit this genetic material on the shawl. Some experts seem to suggest touch, or breathing would have been enough, others appear to disagree. That is why I believe that the shawl should be tested for other mtdna fragments. I mean, if we subsequently discover genetic material relating to Inspector Abberline, Macnaughton, George Hutchinson, Mrs Fiddymont, and just about anyone else living in Whitechapel at the time, I think we can safely conclude that genetic material could quite easily have been deposited on the garment and it ceases to have relevance. If not...well I think that's a whole new ballgame.

Best wishes,

John

[RavenDarkendale]

yes but a person of interest is a long way short of someome being classed as a suspect is it not ?

No. Person of interest is a a term used when police suspect someone of wrong doing. It sounds better than "suspect" but it means the same thing. A person of interest will be taken to HQ and questioned just the same as any suspect.

[Jonathan H]

Thanks Jeff

For clarifying that point.

You ignored the rest of what I wrote, but that's your right too.

To Trevor

I agree with much of what you wrote.

The shawl is the equivalent of 'Dr.' Robert Rines' Nessie Flipper shots, though at least they were filmed in Loch Ness (or were they?)

Re: the Aberconway Version

I agree that it was probably written second, and is not a 'draft'.

This was, I might point out, also the opinion of Don Rumbelow in 1975 and 2013 (though not in his 2006 book with Evans) and that of Martin Fido in his 1987 book.

But I think it was written no later than 1898, as that is when Major Griffiths uses the suspect section almost word-for-word in 'Mysteries of Police and Crime'.

I disagree with you that Macnaghten relied on files about Druitt, or relied on anybody's else about this person at Scotland Yard.

He only emerged posthumously out of Dorset in 1891, when Mac was on the Force.

I think he investigated that lead himself as there was nobody to arrest (there are numerous examples of his going off by himself in his memoirs to do exactly this with other notorious crimes--or so he claims--for example, being in Whitechapel, night after night, trying to catch the Ripper in 1889, not realizing he was chasing a ghost).

Plus it would hardly have been a conventional--or taxing--CID investigation of the drowned barrister. Pulling up a chair in a London Gentleman's club to listen to fellow Old Etonian Henry Farquharson's "strange story", over Brandy and cigars.

I do not think that Aaron Kosminski was even a person of interest after 1891. He was nothing, but had to sexed up for Anderson--but only in 1895.

Macnaghten knew that 'Kosminski' was alive and out for a long time before he was sectioned, he arguably thought little of the 'solitary vices' driving him mad (as he had Sims give another reason in 1907), and in his memoirs he rejected the notion that there had ever been a slam dunk witness--and did not mention this 'suspect' at all.

[mickreed]

I'm aware of Jonathons McNaughten theories. I've read the Marginalia enough time to form the opinion Swanson was jogging his own memories. They were written for himself.

As I've said before I believe Swanson was asked by Anderson to sort out Kosminski after he was approached by a family member.

Mac Nuaghten in my view had formed his Druit theory, private info, before being asked to write the report about Cutbush. He thus had access to the files but stuck to his original preferred story..

But thats my opinion

Yours Jeff

We'll probably never know the truth, but there are several things we should recall:

1. Macnaghten wasn't in the job at the time of the murders. In early-1894 when he wrote the surviving memo, he was either:

a) relying on memory of what he'd been previously told by those who had first-hand knowledge, but who may also have been relying on memory.

b) drawing directly from the file

c) talking directly to staff who had been involved

d) a combination of some/all of the above

2. He also may have written a version held by Gerald Donner, and seen by Phillip Loftus, in the 1950s which has since disappeared. Loftus took no copy apparently and from his memory I understand, he thought that Macnaghten had named Leather Apron and therefore not Kosminski.

3. The Aberconway version is a typed transcript of a handwritten version subsequently lost, taken by Lady Aberconway. This is often considered to be a draft for the actual memorandum.

So what do I make of it?

1. The original memo, regardless of the process used to create it, is the closest we can get to Macnaghten's original intent. It seems to be what he wanted to convey, although whether it's what he actually thought in its entirety, we cannot know. Political considerations might have played a role.

2. Well the Donner version would have been terrific to have, and if it had really named 'Leather Apron' then a lot of later theorizing would be in trouble. But we don't, and I'm not at all sure that Loftus's recollections are of any use. If anyone can add anything concrete, I, for one, would be very pleased.

3. The notion that the Aberconway version is a draft is a reasonable assumption, but that's all it is. It may have been later, as Trevor has just postulated. I don't know. The key point is though, that it's a transcript. I've seen enough transcripts in my time to know how fraught they can be. They can range from the careful (with zero or minimal errors of no significance), through the careless but honest transcription, to the deliberately stuffed around with so as to change the meaning for any number of reasons. In short, transcripts cannot be taken as gospel. Anybody who puts undue credence in them needs to slow down.

However, overall, I think it's pretty clear that Macnaghten's favoured candidate was Druitt. Nothing in any version contradicts that and he, more or less, repeated it in his autobiography (p. 62).

[Trevor Marriott]

No. Person of interest is a a term used when police suspect someone of wrong doing. It sounds better than "suspect" but it means the same thing. A person of interest will be taken to HQ and questioned just the same as any suspect.

I am sorry you are wrong there. Taken as you suggest would mean an arrest and for that there would have to be reasonable suspicion for that arrest.

In modern policing there are voluntary interviews where a person attends a police station of his own free will and agrees to be interviewed under caution. He is free to terminate that interview at any time and leave. However if he does just that and then if there are reasonable grounds he would then likely to be arrested.

Using Kosminski`s spat with his sister as a an example. He would become a person of interest because of the knife incident. But that would not be good enough grounds for making him a suspect and having reasonable grounds to arrest him in connection with the murders.

Although in modern day policing the reasonable grounds criteria seems to be lacking where many arrests are concerned,and only becomes an issue at a later stage in the proceedings.