Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Moriarty]

Absolutely correct.

And don't be put off by the bully boy tactics of failed police officers such as...cough...some of us who served our 30 years in positions outwith the control room...this development is extremely significant.

[Prosector]

The BBC has just had a lengthy item about the case on the Science programme on Radio 4. Dr Louhelainen was interviewed as well a DNA expert from Leicester University whose name I didn't catch. Dr Louhelainen distanced himself from the conclusions of the book (while at the same time saying that he personally thought that they were plausible). He said that the mtDNA evidence would not be admissable in a court of law and that is what both the Eddowes and Kosminski identifications werre made on. The other expert said (and I quote) 'Potentially thousands of individuals share identical mtDNA.' He agreed that the evidence as far as it has been given would not stand up in a court of law. The whole item is available as a podcast from the BBC website.
Prosector

[Chris]

It could be done as simply as bashing the unknowing relative over the back of the head while he or she is out one evening quickly swabbing the inside of their cheek while he or she is unconsious pocketing their valuables for later disposal and walking away.

In Ripperland, all things are possible.

[Theagenes]

Hi all,
I'm a long time reader and lurker on this site and in light of this latest theory I thought it might be time to finally join in the conversation. My own background is in archaeology and anthropology and while I'm certainly no expert on DNA fingerprinting, I do have something of a passing familiarity with its use in some of the recent discoveries that have been made in paleoanthropolgical and in archaeological contexts. As such, this particular Ripper "breaking story" piqued my interest a bit more than the usual Suspect de Jour story that pops up every couple of years.

When the story first broke (in a tabloid -- cringe!) I immediately came here, for what I hoped would be a rational discussion of Edwards's claims from what I know is the most knowledgeable community on the Whitechapel murders. Sadly, what I have seen for the last couple of days (for the most part) was a knee-jerk emotional reaction to not even consider the claims in any sort of meaningful way -- even if just to debunk them. Instead the predominent response has been to declare the claims false without considering them at all.

To some degree this is understandable given the history of hoaxes and crackpot theories in recent years, and I suppose that's to be expected from random internet posters. But quite frankly I expected better from some of the established and published Ripperologists here, many of whose works I have read over the years and whose scholarship I respected. But unfortunately, with a couple of exceptions, those are those ones whose responses have been the most disappointing, ranging from clinging to strawmen arguments, to openly accusing Edwards and/or Louhelainen of fraud without even reading the book, to ad hominem attacks against new posters for daring to have a dissenting opinion. Let me just say, that to people who are not a part of your tight-knit discourse community, this looks really, really bad -- particularly as many of those established scholars have a vested interest in promoting their own pet suspects.

There are obviously a lot of problems with Edwards's claims, not least of which is the initial publication in a tabloid and the lack of independent verification of the DNA results. But it's far from helpful to address these issues by covering one's ears and singing "La-la-la-la. I'm not listening to you" like a petulant child or chanting "Edwardian table runner! Edwardian table runner!" like some magical mantra. It does seem that in the last few dozen pages there is actually starting to be a bit more rational discussion, thanks mainly to a few new posters without a dog in the fight and a couple of people who have actually (gasp!) read the book, and for those whom that descrition fits I thank you.

Like several of you I am still waiting for the book to arrive, but in the meantime I've taken the liberty of downloading and reading most of Rob House's excellent book, which I had not previously read (though I had read many of his dissertations here). One item that struck me as interesting is that Kosminski was connected to Jacob Cohen who testified about AK's insanity and work history in February 1891 and who may have been the owner of the dog AK was walking in 1889. Cohen was a partner with AK's brother Woolf in a shop that made women's mantles -- i.e. shawls! If in fact AK was the killer and brought the shawl with him, as Edwards seems to be suggesting, perhaps this explains where he would have gotten it especially if lived in or worked in the shop. Perhaps Rob could comment on this possibility?

Also, for those who are more familiar with the history of the shawl -- is it ever known to have been completely intact? In other words, it appears that pieces have been cut out and framed over the years. Are all of those pieces accounted for and if reunited would the shawl be whole? Or could it have already been partially cut up when the Simpson family acquired it?
Thanks,
Jeff

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I seem to have fallen down a rabbit hole.

Please help me find my way out.

If, as Mr Edwards avers, the shawl was the "chintz dress" mentioned in press reports, and the "chintz dress" was actually the "dark green chintz skirt, 3 flounces, brown button on waistband . . . patterned with Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies" reported in the official inventory of Eddowes' clothing and belongings, it [a] had to have been on Eddowes' body in Mitre Square and [b] gifted/stolen/lifted/appropriated from the mortuary after the inventory had been completed.

This scenario would appear to put Amos Simpson at Golden Lane mortuary.

And what happened to the 3 flounces and the brown button on the waistband?

Oh look, here's a bottle marked "Drink Me." Maybe this will help.

Regards,

Simon

[Theagenes]

If the science checks out then there are only two options, as far as I see it:

1. The shawl was at the crime scene in Mitre Square, and Kozminski was the Ripper.
2. Willful and deliberate fraud by both the author and Dr. Louhelainen.

So at this point, I don't really see any sense in continuing to debate until the scientific results are reviewed and either verified or shown to be in error.

RH

This really is what it all boils to, though I would add the possibility of accidental contamination.

And your caveat of if "the science checks out" can mean a couple of different things. Even if everything is on the up and up, the results can only ever give a degree of likelihood that AK and Eddows DNA is present -- never actual 100% certainty. It will be a matter of whether that likelihood is enough to feel confident in that those results are true given the other circumstantial evidence.

[eddie1]

Hi all,
I'm a long time reader and lurker on this site and in light of this latest theory I thought it might be time to finally join in the conversation. My own background is in archaeology and anthropology and while I'm certainly no expert on DNA fingerprinting, I do have something of a passing familiarity with its use in some of the recent discoveries that have been made in paleoanthropolgical and in archaeological contexts. As such, this particular Ripper "breaking story" piqued my interest a bit more than the usual Suspect de Jour story that pops up every couple of years.

When the story first broke (in a tabloid -- cringe!) I immediately came here, for what I hoped would be a rational discussion of Edwards's claims from what I know is the most knowledgeable community on the Whitechapel murders. Sadly, what I have seen for the last couple of days (for the most part) was a knee-jerk emotional reaction to not even consider the claims in any sort of meaningful way -- even if just to debunk them. Instead the predominent response has been to declare the claims false without considering them at all.

To some degree this is understandable given the history of hoaxes and crackpot theories in recent years, and I suppose that's to be expected from random internet posters. But quite frankly I expected better from some of the established and published Ripperologists here, many of whose works I have read over the years and whose scholarship I respected. But unfortunately, with a couple of exceptions, those are those ones whose responses have been the most disappointing, ranging from clinging to strawmen arguments, to openly accusing Edwards and/or Louhelainen of fraud without even reading the book, to ad hominem attacks against new posters for daring to have a dissenting opinion. Let me just say, that to people who are not a part of your tight-knit discourse community, this looks really, really bad -- particularly as many of those established scholars have a vested interest in promoting their own pet suspects.

There are obviously a lot of problems with Edwards's claims, not least of which is the initial publication in a tabloid and the lack of independent verification of the DNA results. But it's far from helpful to address these issues by covering one's ears and singing "La-la-la-la. I'm not listening to you" like a petulant child or chanting "Edwardian table runner! Edwardian table runner!" like some magical mantra. It does seem that in the last few dozen pages there is actually starting to be a bit more rational discussion, thanks mainly to a few new posters without a dog in the fight and a couple of people who have actually (gasp!) read the book, and for those whom that descrition fits I thank you.

Like several of you I am still waiting for the book to arrive, but in the meantime I've taken the liberty of downloading and reading most of Rob House's excellent book, which I had not previously read (though I had read many of his dissertations here). One item that struck me as interesting is that Kosminski was connected to Jacob Cohen who testified about AK's insanity and work history in February 1891 and who may have been the owner of the dog AK was walking in 1889. Cohen was a partner with AK's brother Woolf in a shop that made women's mantles -- i.e. shawls! If in fact AK was the killer and brought the shawl with him, as Edwards seems to be suggesting, perhaps this explains where he would have gotten it especially if lived in or worked in the shop. Perhaps Rob could comment on this possibility?

Also, for those who are more familiar with the history of the shawl -- is it ever known to have been completely intact? In other words, it appears that pieces have been cut out and framed over the years. Are all of those pieces accounted for and if reunited would the shawl be whole? Or could it have already been partially cut up when the Simpson family acquired it?
Thanks,
Jeff

Great post and from one newbie to another welcome

[DUNCAN39]

Family Traditions

First time in this particular forum thread.
My wife's Grandfather was a City of London Policeman, Sergeant Robert McVitty based at Cloak Lane Police station at the time of the murders. There was a tradition in the family that he was in the mounted division of the City of London Police and caught pneumonia and died at Queen Victoria's Funeral. Doing our family history we have discovered by reading the actual documents that he retired from the police in 1895 through ill-health and died the following year...so much for family traditions...especially after nearly 120 years.....facts, records is a must in research...word of mouth....be very careful!!

David

[Monty]

The BBC has just had a lengthy item about the case on the Science programme on Radio 4. Dr Louhelainen was interviewed as well a DNA expert from Leicester University whose name I didn't catch. Dr Louhelainen distanced himself from the conclusions of the book (while at the same time saying that he personally thought that they were plausible). He said that the mtDNA evidence would not be admissable in a court of law and that is what both the Eddowes and Kosminski identifications werre made on. The other expert said (and I quote) 'Potentially thousands of individuals share identical mtDNA.' He agreed that the evidence as far as it has been given would not stand up in a court of law. The whole item is available as a podcast from the BBC website.
Prosector

Sir Alec Jeffries? The pioneer of DNA profiling.

Monty

[Chris]

If, as Mr Edwards avers, the shawl was the "chintz dress" mentioned in press reports, and the "chintz dress" was actually the "dark green chintz skirt, 3 flounces, brown button on waistband . . . patterned with Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies" reported in the official inventory of Eddowes' clothing and belongings, it [a] had to have been on Eddowes' body in Mitre Square and [b] gifted/stolen/lifted/appropriated from the mortuary after the inventory had been completed.

Russell Edwards is suggesting the "chintz dress" of the press reports is the "shawl", and it's not listed in the inventory because Simpson took it away before the inventory was compiled.

I'm suggesting the "chintz dress" is identifical with the "chintz skirt" in the inventory. In other words, I'm suggesting he's wrong. Not only that, but from the detailed description of the "chintz skirt" in the inventory, it's clear that it's nothing like the "shawl". So the story can't be rescued by saying Simpson took the "chintz skirt" after the inventory was compiled.

[Patrick S]

If the science all checks out OK the only thing that really is knocking this theory is putting the shawl at the crime scene.

I don't think anyone will ever, with any degree of certainty, but the shawl in Mitre Square. But, how important is that to establishing this thing as 'genuine', and proof of Kosminsk's guilt. Granted, many dominoes must fall in order for anyone in their right mind to get to a place where the shawl is evidence of Kosminski as the killer of Eddowes and, by extension, Jack the Ripper.

But, if this shawl is independently tested and shown to contain:

1. DNA from Katherine Eddowes (and not DNA from Eddowes' descendents who may have handled the shawl)
2. DNA from blood belonging to Katherine Eddowes
3. DNA from Aaron Kosminski (and not DNA from the as of now unnamed Kosminski relative who may have handled the shawl)
4. DNA from semen belonging to Aaron Kosminski

This would put a contemporary Ripper suspect with a Ripper victim (with bodily fluids flying about). There's no reason to believe that Kosminski and Eddowes knew one another. Their only link - so far as we know - is this: Suspect. Victim.

It would be nice to have a some reasonably reliable and independently verfied history of the garment. A substantiated age, region of origin, etc., that aligns with what's presented by the author. This - at least to my thinking - is not imperative so long as you have all the above (numbered 1-4) and you don't have tests showing definatively that the thing was made sometime after 1888.

Now. Before I take the requisite lambasting...do I think that the shawl is genuine? I don't know. But, based on what we've seen over the years, probably not. I doubt it. I'm sure we'll have a reasonably good idea is the coming months/years.

[Bridewell]

Cohen was a partner with AK's brother Woolf in a shop that made women's mantles

Now that is interesting! Thanks, Jeff and welcome!

[Theagenes]

First time in this particular forum thread.
My wife's Grandfather was a City of London Policeman, Sergeant Robert McVitty based at Cloak Lane Police station at the time of the murders. There was a tradition in the family that he was in the mounted division of the City of London Police and caught pneumonia and died at Queen Victoria's Funeral. Doing our family history we have discovered by reading the actual documents that he retired from the police in 1895 through ill-health and died the following year...so much for family traditions...especially after nearly 120 years.....facts, records is a must in research...word of mouth....be very careful!!

David

And this why I think that people trying to pick this family legend apart are just tearing apart a strawman. Why in the world should we expect a story like this to be accurate? If we assume the shawl is real, then Simpson surely would not have acquired it legitimately and would have had to make up some story to tell his family to begin with. Then this cover story would have changed over the years as it was passed down anyway. There is little point in over analyzing this story.

[curious4]

Hi all,
I'm a long time reader and lurker on this site and in light of this latest theory I thought it might be time to finally join in the conversation. My own background is in archaeology and anthropology and while I'm certainly no expert on DNA fingerprinting, I do have something of a passing familiarity with its use in some of the recent discoveries that have been made in paleoanthropolgical and in archaeological contexts. As such, this particular Ripper "breaking story" piqued my interest a bit more than the usual Suspect de Jour story that pops up every couple of years.

When the story first broke (in a tabloid -- cringe!) I immediately came here, for what I hoped would be a rational discussion of Edwards's claims from what I know is the most knowledgeable community on the Whitechapel murders. Sadly, what I have seen for the last couple of days (for the most part) was a knee-jerk emotional reaction to not even consider the claims in any sort of meaningful way -- even if just to debunk them. Instead the predominent response has been to declare the claims false without considering them at all.

To some degree this is understandable given the history of hoaxes and crackpot theories in recent years, and I suppose that's to be expected from random internet posters. But quite frankly I expected better from some of the established and published Ripperologists here, many of whose works I have read over the years and whose scholarship I respected. But unfortunately, with a couple of exceptions, those are those ones whose responses have been the most disappointing, ranging from clinging to strawmen arguments, to openly accusing Edwards and/or Louhelainen of fraud without even reading the book, to ad hominem attacks against new posters for daring to have a dissenting opinion. Let me just say, that to people who are not a part of your tight-knit discourse community, this looks really, really bad -- particularly as many of those established scholars have a vested interest in promoting their own pet suspects.

There are obviously a lot of problems with Edwards's claims, not least of which is the initial publication in a tabloid and the lack of independent verification of the DNA results. But it's far from helpful to address these issues by covering one's ears and singing "La-la-la-la. I'm not listening to you" like a petulant child or chanting "Edwardian table runner! Edwardian table runner!" like some magical mantra. It does seem that in the last few dozen pages there is actually starting to be a bit more rational discussion, thanks mainly to a few new posters without a dog in the fight and a couple of people who have actually (gasp!) read the book, and for those whom that descrition fits I thank you.

Like several of you I am still waiting for the book to arrive, but in the meantime I've taken the liberty of downloading and reading most of Rob House's excellent book, which I had not previously read (though I had read many of his dissertations here). One item that struck me as interesting is that Kosminski was connected to Jacob Cohen who testified about AK's insanity and work history in February 1891 and who may have been the owner of the dog AK was walking in 1889. Cohen was a partner with AK's brother Woolf in a shop that made women's mantles -- i.e. shawls! If in fact AK was the killer and brought the shawl with him, as Edwards seems to be suggesting, perhaps this explains where he would have gotten it especially if lived in or worked in the shop. Perhaps Rob could comment on this possibility?

Also, for those who are more familiar with the history of the shawl -- is it ever known to have been completely intact? In other words, it appears that pieces have been cut out and framed over the years. Are all of those pieces accounted for and if reunited would the shawl be whole? Or could it have already been partially cut up when the Simpson family acquired it?
Thanks,
Jeff

Hello Thea,

Sorry, but a mantle is not a shawl. It was more like a cloak.

Best wishes,
C 4

This should take you to a picture of a Victorian silk mantle
https://www.oldsacramentolivinghisto...museum/Virtual Museum/Clothing, Victorian and Civil War/slides/Silk Mantle 1860.html

(I hope)

[Monty]

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

Police Code 1889 re murder.

Monty