Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[SJ76]

kosminski family addresses/ murder sites

Hello,
This may be a bit off topic, but I was looking at the locations of Kosminski family addresses from census reports and notice they are all near the crime scenes.
Mrs. Kosminski (mentioned as AK's mother in one forum) 63 new street
Isaac Kosminski (brother) 76 goulston
Betsy and Wolf Abrahams (sister and brother in law) sion square
Matilda and Morris lubnowski (sister and brother in law) 16 greenfield street
martin kosminski (possible relative) 48 berners st.

viewing a map of the crimes it is quite clear that JTR could commit murder and be off the streets in a matter of minutes by simply walking to a relatives house. Looking at the distribution and reading how he was a shared family responsibility it appears that he could either come and go as he pleased from each residence or hunted from different locations depending on who he was staying with, as there are murders committed literally down the street from each of these addresses.

Also wandered about the possibility that he was leaving these victims at his relatives proverbially front door and am curious of the psychological implications of this

[Rob Clack]

martin kosminski (possible relative) 48 berners st.

This is Berners Street off Oxford Street in the West End of London and not the Berner Street off Commercial Road where Elizabeth Stride was murdered.

Rob

[robhouse]

Mrs. Kosminski (mentioned as AK's mother in one forum) 63 new street
Isaac Kosminski (brother) 76 goulston
Betsy and Wolf Abrahams (sister and brother in law) sion square
Matilda and Morris lubnowski (sister and brother in law) 16 greenfield street
martin kosminski (possible relative) 48 berners st.

You got quite a bit wrong here, but there is so much confused information out there, so it is not your fault obviously.

At the time of the murders the addresses were:

Matilda and Morris Lubnowski (sister and brother in law) 16 greenfield street
Isaac Abrahams (brother) 74 Greenfield St
Woolf Abrahams and Betsy (brother and cousin) 25 Providence Street

Aaron Kozminski presumably lived at one of the above addresses... in my best guess, the most likely is 25 Providence Street.

After the murders:

Woolf moved to 3 Sion Square.
Matilda and Morris Moved to 63 New Street (Aaron's mother later joined them there)

Isaac Kosminski and Martin Kosminski are not apparently related to Aaron.

RH

[Patrick S]

Quite an interesting interview with Louhelainen. It's clear that the book's author does no services to the theory through his presentation and rush to publish the book. The science and the scientist are another matter entirely. I found his explaination(s) accessible and plausible. I thought the interviewer (a felow geneticist) was appropriately tough but, ultimately, fair in his questioning and I felt as if Louhelainen did an excellent with his responses. He did address the one question I've had on my mind since this whole business came to light: Can the DNA he recovered be the result of contamination occuring over the past 125 years, since the murder of Eddowes. He states that he's confident that both Eddowes' and Kosminski's DNA are not the result of contamination, unless some other similarly related individuals bled and ejaculated, respectively, on the shawl.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

Interesting that the Kosminski family lived out of the Metropolitan Police house-to-house search area in which Sir Robert Anderson found such rich pickings.

Regards,

Simon

[pl4tinum]

So not only do we not know if the shawl was at the crime scene, this insinuates that Kosminski was there, ejaculated on the shawl, killed Eddowes and then left the shawl behind. That's a bit of a jump. Did Louhelainen specifically say semen was what they tested to get Kosminski's DNA?

[Poch]

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

This is exactly my thoughts too.

As for the shawl, there is apparently pieces that are lost and were cut out by an earlier owner of the shawl, one of the original family members.

[Jeff Leahy]

Eat cake an accept it?

Contrary to the myth, the majority of researchers I know are happy to accept the naming of the killer, as they truly do not care.

All they seek is the truth.

Monty

Thank fully Monty there are a few of us left, who however much believe Kosminski was Jack the Ripper…are actually more concerned about the detail, the problems and getting to the real core of the Truth…than naming the suspect

Lets just get it right and except the problem and final solution will NEVER BE made..

I think we both know proof is a tall order and probably will never happen in the Ripper case

I;'ll give a damn good go of coming up with the best that remains

Many thanks for your input as always

Yours Jeff

[SJ76]

Census Data


Sched Inhab First Name Surname Rel to Head Marital Status Age Sex Occupation Empl Status Where Born Affli- ctions



Microfiche number RG12/280, Page 64, 79, Brunswick Buildings, Goulston St, Whitechapel,

75 I Isaacs Kosminski H M 43 M Boot & Shoe Maker Ed Russia Poland


Microfiche number RG12/280, Page 64, 79, Brunswick Buildings, Goulston St, Whitechapel,

75 Elizabeth Kosminski W M 45 F Russia Poland


Microfiche number RG12/280, Page 64, 79, Brunswick Buildings, Goulston St, Whitechapel,

75 Michel Kosminski So S 21 M Boot & Shoe Maker Ed Russia Poland


Microfiche number RG12/280, Page 64, 79, Brunswick Buildings, Goulston St, Whitechapel,

75 Betsy Kosminski Da S 17 F Tailoress Ed London, Whitechapel


This is the 1891 census. Although this is a few years after the murders it seems more then coincidental that his brother lives were the piece of apron were found.

[SJ76]

I apologize if the previous information was incorrect, but am I wrong to assume that this is not his brother as I have seen mentioned in other forums.

My overall theory being that AK was surrounded and assisted by an extended family Kosmimski,abraham,lubnowski/a, cohen. All living in the general vicinity of the murders, and possibly due to his strange behavior withen his family did not raise concern initially coming and going at night from his family residences.

One more thought is that he could quickly get off the street as well as watch the chaos he had caused the next day

[robhouse]

I apologize if the previous information was incorrect, but am I wrong to assume that this is not his brother as I have seen mentioned in other forums.

My overall theory being that AK was surrounded and assisted by an extended family Kosmimski,abraham,lubnowski/a, cohen. All living in the general vicinity of the murders, and possibly due to his strange behavior withen his family did not raise concern initially coming and going at night from his family residences.

One more thought is that he could quickly get off the street as well as watch the chaos he had caused the next day

Hi, yes this genealogy has been researched extensively, and Aaron's family tree is pretty well established. There were several other "Kosminskis" in the area, but they were not related... at least not closely.

The one at Goulston Street was not related. Do not believe what you read online. If you are interested, buy my book.

RH

[Patrick S]

So not only do we not know if the shawl was at the crime scene, this insinuates that Kosminski was there, ejaculated on the shawl, killed Eddowes and then left the shawl behind. That's a bit of a jump. Did Louhelainen specifically say semen was what they tested to get Kosminski's DNA?

No. Epethelial cells.

There is also some rubbish about the Ripper having been known to have masterbated in the presence of the bodies after the murders. Louhelainen - who seems to be no JtR scholar - states that Edward's eyes lit up and he commented "THAT'S WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE DONE!" That was news to me.

I'm no proponent of the book and theory - but I don't think one needs to prove the shawl was or was not at the crime scene or that Simpson stole it or anything else....IF the DNA evidence shows that DNA (semen or otherwise) from Aaron Kosminski and DNA (blood or otherwise) from Katherine Eddowes) is on that fabric (victim and suspect), then the documentented physical history of the shawl become fairly close to irrelevant. Now, you may have to exhume a couple of bodies in order to be conclusive........

[spyglass]

Hello,
Think I have cracked it !
Amos was seconded to the city police to help out with admin duties, It was he who listed all of Eddowes items.
Seeing the Shawl / table cloth he thinks .."that would make a nice gift for the trouble and strife " ( assuming he was a cockney ) he fails to list it, and had it away at the end of his shift.

Case closed.

[Rob Clack]

There is only one book on Kosminski that people need to buy.

[robhouse]

There is only one book on Kosminski that people need to buy.

[ATTACH]16222[/ATTACH]

Cheers!