Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[anna]

Everyone in the UK.....Edwards coming up on Alan Titchmarsh show on ITV now...talking about JTR/ "shawl"

[Bridewell]

Hello,

This is my first post ever in the forums, and I apologise for my poor English, I have some trouble expressing myself in other languages other than Portuguese.

But anyway, although I haven’t yet read the book, I would like to give my opinion about what has been said until now:

- There is no record of the shawl belonging to Catherine Eddowes. Is it impossible? No.
- There is no record of the shawl belonging to Aaron Kosminski. Is it impossible? No.
- There is no record of the shawl being found at the murder site. Is it impossibile? No.
- There is no record of Amos Simpson being anywhere near the crime scene, at the mortuary or en-route to the mortuary. Is it impossible? No.
- There is no record of Simpson taking the shawl home. Is it impossible? No.
- mtDNA test was unable to provide a 100% match to Kosminski. Can he be excluded? No.

Is the sequence of events described in the book possible? Yes. Is it likely? No!

In fact, it's very unlikely and lacks very crucial evidence.

The only way I see of proving this theory to be correct, would be to obtain a 100% match for Eddowes and Kosminki with blood or semen samples taken from the shawl.

In that case, one would have to wonder if it's possible that the DNA could have got to the shawl by any other way other than Kosminki murdering Eddowes (excluding deliberate tampering).

Possible? Yes, but highly unlikely.

If Kosminski was a client of Eddowes and the shawl belonged to either of them then it's theoretically possible that DNA from both could be found in the shawl, but what are the odds of a shawl with DNA obtained in that manner surviving until today and being specifically tested for DNA from both subjects? Extremely low.

A question has been raised about why would Kosminski take the shawl to a murder site if he was indeed, has it's claimed in the book, the owner of the shawl.

I have a “pseudo-theory” about that:

I always had doubts about the victims having been murdered in the places they were found, assuming Kosminki committed the murder anywhere else and moved the body to the location where it was later found, then maybe the shawl could have been used during the transportation of the body either to cover it or for any other reason.

Another possibility, as someone said before, would be to clean the blood from the knife or to cover blood stains on his clothes.
Again, I'm sorry for my English, and I apologise if my analysis contains basic mistakes, my knowledge of the case is not even comparable to the knowledge of the other posters on this topic and I hope I haven’t wasted your time.

You haven't wasted anybody's time and your English is first-rate. Welcome!

[Phil Carter]

It would be worn the way shawls were worn then, around the neck hanging down. How long do you supposed this shawl/stole is? 8 feet?

RH

Hello Rob,

Thanks for the pic...
I am fully aware how a shawl is worn :-)

but we are talking about a SKIRT (see Colin's post #1506)

Now tell me how an 8ft by 2ft wide SKIRT is worn?



Phil

[Chris]

This was something I was going to post myself... I think we all agree that these types of family stories, passed down over the years, tend to mutate, usually becoming more dramatic.

Indeed, the following information - posted by Stewart Evans earlier in this thread - suggested that the family "tradition" was considerably vaguer even one generation before David Melville-Hayes:

David's mother was interviewed by Keith and the writer, but at 95 she was very frail and 'struggled to make herself understood.'

The old lady recalled that her mother had said that Amos had told her to look after the shawl as it might be valuable one day. She kept it in a chest and never bothered with it again. She was told very little about it but it was something to do with the Ripper, and Eddowes. When asked if she knew how he got it she replied, "No one knows. He was on duty then. He must have taken it off her. It got into his hands anyway!"

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=307111&postcount=911

[Henry Flower]

If a man of Titchmarsh's calibre endorses the findings I think all debate will be over.

[MrBarnett]

Everyone in the UK.....Edwards coming up on Alan Titchmarsh show on ITV now...talking about JTR/ "shawl"

This should be amusing. World sharpest chat show host he may not be, but Mr T knows a Michaelmas daisy when he sees one. Our Russell may get a rather embarrassing lecture on botany.:-)

MrB

[Bridewell]

Not quite. He's suggesting the "shawl" is the "chintz dress" mentioned in the press reports. It's not very clear where exactly it's supposed to have been in relation to the body.

But I'm suggesting - on the contrary - that the "chintz dress" of the press reports is identical with the "chintz skirt" of the police list of Eddowes's clothes.

Thanks, Chris, for clarifying.

[eddie1]

It would be worn the way shawls were worn then, around the neck hanging down. How long do you supposed this shawl/stole is? 8 feet?

RH

So basicly this too large item of cloth that is a table runner could in fact be a large shawl after all

[Henry Flower]

Sorry to be dense, but surely the testing would've revealed whether the item had shawl DNA or table runner DNA? Or can you only do that with hypochondrial DNA once in 400,000 times?

[Amanda Sumner]

Yes i know but I thought pics might be easier for some to understand than the written word which some seem to having problems with understanding

I'm afraid not Trevor, I put a picture up of the sketch, drawn by Frederick Foster as she lay in Mitre Sq, to show quite clearly that no shawl, table runner or a 8 foot wrap around skirt was at the scene.
It could not have been clearer, but it seems people want to have a long hypothetical debate about an item that was not there.

Amanda

[Phil Carter]

I'm afraid not Trevor, I put a picture up of the sketch, drawn by Frederick Foster as she lay in Mitre Sq, to show quite clearly that no shawl, table runner or a 8 foot wrap around skirt was at the scene.
It could not have been clearer, but it seems people want to have a long hypothetical debate about an item that was not there.

Amanda

Hello Amanda,

I am still waiting with baited breath for someone to show us all how Kate Eddowes wore this "skirt" that is supposed to be this "shawl" and might be a "table runner"...

8ft x 2 ft... that is going to take SOME explanation if it is a skirt!!!!


I can hardly wait, especially when thinking that all the skirts/petticoats etc wore drawn UP at the murder.... It can't even be wrapped around!

8ft x 2ft skirt... Ive heard it all now.. talk about trying to fit the square peg into a round hole. Good grief.


What a load of cobblers this is. IMHO of course.



Phil

[Henry Flower]

I'm afraid not Trevor, I put a picture up of the sketch, drawn by Frederick Foster as she lay in Mitre Sq, to show quite clearly that no shawl, table runner or a 8 foot wrap around skirt was at the scene.
It could not have been clearer, but it seems people want to have a long hypothetical debate about an item that was not there.

Amanda

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And regarding Foster's drawing - in terms of clothing, it could very much have been clearer, in my opinion. Very vague, very wishy-washy. And if I'm reading correctly, it is labelled 'painting of the body when found from a sketch made on the spot' - so this is a painting of a sketch, it's at one remove from the scene already. It seems more concerned with injuries and fluids - not one item of clothing is labelled or rendered in any detail comparable to the injuries.

Regarding using this sketch as evidence of the absence of a shawl that folded up easily into a bundle no larger than a piece of A4 paper, please go through the police inventory of her belongings and point out where each of the items can be found on this painting of a sketch. That sure would be helpful. Should be quite easy - it could not have been clearer. And if they're not in the sketch, should we assume they never existed?

[robhouse]

Hello Amanda,

I am still waiting with baited breath for someone to show us all how Kate Eddowes wore this "skirt" that is supposed to be this "shawl" and might be a "table runner"...

8ft x 2 ft... that is going to take SOME explanation if it is a skirt!!!!


I can hardly wait, especially when thinking that all the skirts/petticoats etc wore drawn UP at the murder.... It can't even be wrapped around!

8ft x 2ft skirt... Ive heard it all now.. talk about trying to fit the square peg into a round hole. Good grief.


What a load of cobblers this is. IMHO of course.



Phil

Don't get too excited Phil... For one thing, I think Chris has effectively shown that Edwards was wrong in his assertion. The theory, if I understand it is that the press mistakenly called the shawl a skirt, and that this item somehow disappeared before the inventory. I do not believe this... but that, I think, was Edward's theory. So it is not a question of "How does one wear an 8 foot dress", it is the idea that the press misidentified the shawl as a dress.

Got it now?

RH

[robhouse]

This was something I was going to post myself... I think we all agree that these types of family stories, passed down over the years, tend to mutate, usually becoming more dramatic. Given that that is the case, why are we so hung up on whether or not Simpson was actually in Mitre Square himself? Somehow the article ended up in his possession. Is it not possible simply, that someone took the shawl from the crime scene, and ended up giving it to Simpson?

RH

Anyone else, besides Phil, care to weigh in on why this is not a possibility?

RH

[Hunter]

This was something I was going to post myself... I think we all agree that these types of family stories, passed down over the years, tend to mutate, usually becoming more dramatic. Given that that is the case, why are we so hung up on whether or not Simpson was actually in Mitre Square himself? Somehow the article ended up in his possession. Is it not possible simply, that someone took the shawl from the crime scene, and ended up giving it to Simpson?

It would have been much more believable if one of the items inventoried had been found in some policeman's family possessions, when someone might have decided to keep a souvenir of something about to be discarded. But the sequence suggested here presumes a neglect or carelessness on the part of the City police and the medicos involved of which there isn't the slightest indication of.

The crime scene seems to have been secured quickly and every detail carefully noted. With all of the fuss that ensued over the piece of apron found in Goulston Street its hard to imagine that an item such as this, with purported arterial spray on it - and thus vital forensic information for Dr. Brown to determine how the victim was killed (even by 1888 standards) would have been allowed to be taken by anyone (as is apparently suggested.)

The items we know were inventoried were meticulously detailed as to their condition. It would have had to have been taken without permission and still under the very noses of others who kept quiet and therefor jeopardized their very jobs in a high profile case for a piece of cloth.