Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Theagenes]

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.

An excellent summation -- this really hinges on the DNA. If it holds up and can reasonably establish your points 1-4 then the rest is really incidental.

[Patrick S]

Hello Thea,

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

Best wishes,
C 4

Wikipedia says this about 'Mantles':

"...in the early 19th century, it was an ornamental scarf that crossed over the chest and tied behind, usually made of fur or lace.[1] By the end of the 19th century, a mantelet was a woman's shoulder cape with elongated ends in front, sometimes held in position by a belt at the waist.[1]"

A little early to discount the connection, I think. It is at very least a point of interest. And, unless we find some ancient flyer that says, "Woolf's Mantles! We only make MANTLES! Not scarves! Not blouses! And definitely NOT shawls!", I'd suggest the possiblity that may have offered shawl. I mean. Levi's makes jeans...but I think I can dig a Levi's shirt out of my closet.

[Theagenes]

Hello Thea,

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

Best wishes,
C 4

I would say it's more like a cross between a shawl and a cloak, and worn like shawl, draped over the shoulders. It's certainly similar enough that it's worth considering if you're looking for how someone like AK might have had a piece of material like this. It could have a piece of material from the garment workshop that his brother owned.

If you assume for the sake of argument that the shawl is real and was connected with the murder, and have a little fun speculation, then one possibility is that the killer brought it to function as a drop cloth or cover or something along those lines to help keep himself from getting too blood splattered while performing his mutilations or to clean up with afterwards (I can't really think of any other reason).

We've seen that it can be folded up fairly small and there are witnesses who reported potential suspects holding what looked like either a folded newspaper or small parcel. Perhaps it was the folded up shawl?

[Prosector]

Sir Alec Jeffries? The pioneer of DNA profiling.

Monty

No, it was a Dr Wetton but I guess he probably works in the same lab .
Prosector

[robhouse]

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

Thank you Jeff for your post,

I agree with you about the response on these boards and elsewhere. I think it has been pretty juvenile, and it really does not show "us" in a good light. Personally, I am skeptical about this new discovery, but I don't see much point on declaring whether it is a valid finding or not until Dr. Louhelainen's findings can be either verified or proved wrong. I realize that science is often not able to say that something is 100% definite, so any conclusion will have to take that into account. Still, I am waiting in hope that this finding can be peer reviewed, or even better duplicated by other scientists.

From certain posts I have read (and I cannot confirm the numbers), the likelihood of a match to Kozminski's DNA was somewhere in the ballpark of 1 in 1000... and the likelihood of a match to Eddowes DNA was something like 1 in 3000. If those numbers (or something like that) prove to be verified by other scientists, then I will be happy to feel the case is solved.

As to your thoughts about mantles... Victorian mantles, from what I understand, were of a different design. They were more like capes, that wrapped around the upper part of the body and fastened at the neck. That said, Aaron's brothers (primarily Isaac) were in the trade as ladies tailors. Isaac was said to make ladies jackets, presumably in addition to mantles. They may well have made other garments. I am no expert in 19th century clothing, but from what little I have managed to discover, this particular item seems to be more in line with an earlier (circa 1830 or later) shawl or stole. I will leave the Victorian clothing experts to weigh in on that.

On a side note, Jacob Cohen was Aaron Kozminski's first cousin once removed His name at birth was Jacob Kozminski. Jacob's sister Brucha (later known as Betsy) would marry Aaron's brother, Woolf Abrahams—the same man with whom Cohen ran the tailor shop in the early 1890s.

RH

[Observer]

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

Again, as you seem not to have commented on my point in an earlier post, my apologies if you have.

Is it not possible that the "shawl" had already been removed before Foster made his sketch?

[Bridewell]

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.

That's a good point. I've been guilty myself of posting about the impossibility of Simpson's story. I do think it's impossible but that on its own doesn't disprove the shawl (although it obviously doesn't help it any).

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

Thank you. I knew that bottle marked "Drink Me" would help.

So what the ever-resourceful Russell Edwards is saying is that Eddowes' shawl was mistaken for a chintz dress?

Okay. But if the shawl was taken by Amos Simpson at some point prior to the inventory at the mortuary, how did the press learn about the "chintz dress"?

Regards,

Simon

[curious4]

Hello Thea and Patrick

Take a look at the picture.

Best wishes
C4

[Patrick S]

Hello Thea and Patrick

Take a look at the picture.

Best wishes
C4

So that's a 'mantle' and nothing else can be called a 'mantle? Further, anyone selling a 'mantle' cannot sell anything but 'mantles'? How about this: Woolf sold women's garments. The 'shawl' is a women's garment. Or is it a table runner?

Again, my only point is this: It's a little early to torpedo the idea. It is, at the very least, an interesting point.

[Monty]

No, it was a Dr Wetton but I guess he probably works in the same lab .
Prosector

Apologies.

Monty

[Bridewell]

If you assume for the sake of argument that the shawl is real and was connected with the murder, and have a little fun speculation, then one possibility is that the killer brought it to function as a drop cloth or cover or something along those lines to help keep himself from getting too blood splattered while performing his mutilations or to clean up with afterwards (I can't really think of any other reason).

We've seen that it can be folded up fairly small and there are witnesses who reported potential suspects holding what looked like either a folded newspaper or small parcel. Perhaps it was the folded up shawl?

You'd also have yet another possible explanation for the Goulston Street conundrum, viz the apron was divided during the evisceration process, the killer was disturbed and left in a hurry, picking up the wrong piece of material as he did so.

I'm not proposing this a serious contention but such a hypothesis would explain
(a) why he took a large piece of filthy apron in the first place and
(b) why he threw it away when he got closer to home.

[Theagenes]

Thank you Jeff for your post,

I agree with you about the response on these boards and elsewhere. I think it has been pretty juvenile, and it really does not show "us" in a good light. Personally, I am skeptical about this new discovery, but I don't see much point on declaring whether it is a valid finding or not until Dr. Louhelainen's findings can be either verified or proved wrong. I realize that science is often not able to say that something is 100% definite, so any conclusion will have to take that into account. Still, I am waiting in hope that this finding can be peer reviewed, or even better duplicated by other scientists.

From certain posts I have read (and I cannot confirm the numbers), the likelihood of a match to Kozminski's DNA was somewhere in the ballpark of 1 in 1000... and the likelihood of a match to Eddowes DNA was something like 1 in 3000. If those numbers (or something like that) prove to be verified by other scientists, then I will be happy to feel the case is solved.

As to your thoughts about mantles... Victorian mantles, from what I understand, were of a different design. They were more like capes, that wrapped around the upper part of the body and fastened at the neck. That said, Aaron's brothers (primarily Isaac) were in the trade as ladies tailors. Isaac was said to make ladies jackets, presumably in addition to mantles. They may well have made other garments. I am no expert in 19th century clothing, but from what little I have managed to discover, this particular item seems to be more in line with an earlier (circa 1830 or later) shawl or stole. I will leave the Victorian clothing experts to weigh in on that.

On a side note, Jacob Cohen was Aaron Kozminski's first cousin once removed His name at birth was Jacob Kozminski. Jacob's sister Brucha (later known as Betsy) would marry Aaron's brother, Woolf Abrahams—the same man with whom Cohen ran the tailor shop in the early 1890s.

RH

Rob, thank you for your response. That's one reason I would like to know if the shawl had already been cut up partially prior to it's appearing in the public record (late 1980s?). If it is real (i.e. connected with AK and Eddowes) and was already missing a piece at the time of the murder, then there is the possibility that it was a piece of scrap material that he could have easily acquired given his his brother's trade.

[Observer]

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?

Hear Hear. Some of the logic employed in this thread is a joke! I laugh at it. Ha Ha. You'll not get an answer.

[Chris]

So what the ever-resourceful Russell Edwards is saying is that Eddowes' shawl was mistaken for a chintz dress?

Okay. But if the shawl was taken by Amos Simpson at some point prior to the inventory at the mortuary, how did the press learn about the "chintz dress"?

He suggests that a reporter either saw it at the crime scene or was told about it by a policeman.

But if the "chintz dress" was the same as the "chintz skirt", which I think it clearly was, all that is academic.