Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[wolfie1]

Great post and from one newbie to another welcome

Ditto ...

[Observer]

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.

Hi Jeff

I'd agree. The multiple killer brigade are a tad upset methinks. That's why we are seeing words like rot, nonsense, rubbish, and debacle, being bandied about. You mentioned "crackpot theories", it's ironic that one of the worst offenders, in condemning Mr Edwards findings, is responsible for some of the most improbable tales you'll ever hear in Ripperdom.

Regards

Observer

[pinkmoon]

Not a very convincing interview on The Alan Titchmarsh Show ITV @ 3pm for those who want to catch it on catch up.. with Mr Edwards on his table runner/shawl just now..

I was annoyed that there was no established Ripperologist there to answer his claims..everything he said was taken as fact.

And not a table runner/shawl in sight...just some film of them testing it.

I would think those that cannot get this show,might find the interview on You Tube later on.

Any tips on tulips or daffodils ?

[GUT]

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

[ATTACH]16222[/ATTACH]

But that's full of F A C T S and confusing stuff like that.

[spyglass]

Hi Jeff

I'd agree. The multiple killer brigade are a tad upset methinks. That's why we are seeing words like rot, nonsense, rubbish, and debacle, being bandied about. You mentioned "crackpot theories", it's ironic that one of the worst offenders, in condemning Mr Edwards findings, is responsible for some of the most improbable tales you'll ever hear in Ripperdom.

Regards

Observer

Multi killer brigade?

Even if this did all prove to be true, we only have one murderer connectrd to one victim only.
And at least the "crackpot" Diary has more legs than this one.

Regards

[Hunter]

I would propose the following as a possibility in this case:

Kozminski kills Eddowes and takes the shawl with him when he leaves the square.

At some other location, away from the crime scene, perhaps in MET territory, he masturbates, with the shawl as a sort of souvenir/ stimulant. He then wipes up and discards the shawl.

It is later picked up and kept as a souvenir by a MET PC.

Somehow Simpson ends up owning it, and the story evolves over time.

As you are one who is very familiar with this case and the apron episode in particular, I hope this was meant tongue-in-cheek.

[Bridewell]

G'day Patrick

How about prostitute and client, [gee that wouldn't lead to the same result would it.]

It would lead to the same result but with the prostitute having ended up dead and the client having been contemporaneously suspected of her murder it would be a coincidence which might be remarked upon.

[Jeff Leahy]

I agree the shawl could have been a gift to entice or brought to kneel down upon, and then left as it had blood on it. Or in a morbid sense of irony it had been offered as payment for services, and he left it -paying the bill. It makes me think of two things..one that there were quite a few tailors in the extended kosminski family and the reoccurunt red scarf. seen on a suspect, mary Kelly, and eddowes I believe. Wandered if these were gifts, the method of strangulation, or some ritual object signifigant to jtr

Yes this is interesting…

I've spent most of my time recently looking at the man I now believe committed the Hammersmith Nude murders…known serial killer Harrold Jones..

One of the best psychological claims for Harrold Jones as a serial killer is made by Neil Milkin and Stewart Evans.

Harold Jones had various fetishes but was obsessed with his victims mouths. He not only knew his victims but enjoyed their company and if he was the killer…appears to have stayed close to them all their lives..and there after.

The mind of a schizophrenic psychopath is difficult for any normal person to comprehend…

But if Aaron was the killer I believe he new and spoke to them before their murders much as 'Jones' had done so

Yours Jeff

[GUT]

It would lead to the same result but with the prostitute having ended up dead and the client having been contemporaneously suspected of her murder it would be a coincidence which might be remarked upon.

Why would the prossie have to end up dead if the transaction had occurred, say months, before the killing?

[Stewart P Evans]

Nonsense

Some serial killers do masturbate after committing murder, so this is entirely possible. Many take "trophies" from their victims, to remind them of the crime as a sexual stimulant later. For the Ripper to have masturbated at the crime scene would have been too risky.
I would propose the following as a possibility in this case:
Kozminski kills Eddowes and takes the shawl with him when he leaves the square.
At some other location, away from the crime scene, perhaps in MET territory, he masturbates, with the shawl as a sort of souvenir/ stimulant. He then wipes up and discards the shawl.
It is later picked up and kept as a souvenir by a MET PC.
Somehow Simpson ends up owning it, and the story evolves over time.
RH

I do not believe that you are subscribing to this nonsense. Must be something to do with the fact that the selected suspect is Kosminski.

[Pontius2000]

Some serial killers do masturbate after committing murder, so this is entirely possible. Many take "trophies" from their victims, to remind them of the crime as a sexual stimulant later. For the Ripper to have masturbated at the crime scene would have been too risky.

I would propose the following as a possibility in this case:

Kozminski kills Eddowes and takes the shawl with him when he leaves the square.

At some other location, away from the crime scene, perhaps in MET territory, he masturbates, with the shawl as a sort of souvenir/ stimulant. He then wipes up and discards the shawl.

It is later picked up and kept as a souvenir by a MET PC.

Somehow Simpson ends up owning it, and the story evolves over time.

RH

Rob, I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this. Kosminski has always been my choice of all "known" suspects and I greatly enjoyed your book as it laid out the case for Kosminski perfectly.

Another question, since most seem to assume that Simpson was lying.....wouldn't Simpson's wife be the ONLY PERSON that he would have been defrauding. After all, he didn't get out and advertise to the world that he had this JtR souvenir. And so, WHY would he have defrauded his own wife? In fact, if he wanted to lie to his wife, wouldn't he have been more likely to lie and say the fabric DID NOT come from a crime scene? I mean, what woman is going to want to sow something that has blood on it from a ghastly crime?

If he had such a fabric, and wanted something sown from it, wouldn't his chance at achieving that be more likely to come from telling his telling his wife that he found it on the street rather than that it was bled on by a Ripper victim?

Also, another possibility is that both Simpson and wife were in on the false story together. If so, what would be their purpose? They really kept that fabric in the family all those years so they could have an interesting story for cocktail parties? They never attempted any financial gain from it, did they?

Still another possibility is that Simpson and wife were NEVER in on the hoax and that some family member was the hoaxer who attached Simpson to the fabric for financial gain, because Simpson was a cop at the time. But why someone as obscure as Simpson?

If they (whoever had the fabric after Simpson and wife passed on) really wanted a more believable story for a hoax....they'd have said the fabric came from 13 Miller Court, not from Eddowes and that it came mot from Simpson, but from ABBERLINE. Abberline was much closer to the investigation than Simpson and Abberline had NO CHILDREN. There literally is no direct descendants who would/could deny that Abberline took the shawl from Miller Court.

So if it really is all a hoax, it's not a very elaborate one.

[mickreed]

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

Blimey, a lot happens while I'm asleep in Australia.

The BBC Inside Science podcast discussion with Jari is fascinating. I read it that, as I would expect, he is much more cautious than Edwards. He accepts that there are other possibilities for the matches, than the shawl being at the crime scene. He distances himself, politely but assertively, from the 'definitely' and 'absolutely' claims made by Edwards. He is asked explicitly whether the suspect's DNA could have got there in other ways - such as a sexual encounter on another occasion - and says - 'absolutely'. He confirms that the press reports are at best, simplified.

He does have genomic DNA from Kosminski but the book deadline precluded it being included. He knows that mtDNA evidence would not be acceptable in law.

Based on this, I am confident that he will show a link between an Eddowes relative and Kosminski (or perhaps a close Kosminski relative?) through the shawl. It may be that the T1a1 haplotype emerged from the genomic DNA rather than the mtDNA and thus may well be all right.


If you haven't, have a listen here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04gc2y0

[Bridewell]

Why would the prossie have to end up dead if the transaction had occurred, say months, before the killing?

I think you're addressing a point I wasn't making. If a valid DNA match was proved the two most likely scenarios would be:

prostitute and client in a normal (for them) transaction

or

prostitute and bogus client/killer.

Either is possible but this particular prostitute ended up with her throat cut, a crime of which this particular client was suspected at the time. I'm not beating the drum for authenticity of the shawl here, nor am I dismissing out of hand the claimed DNA match. I merely point out that middle-aged prostitutes tend not to bleed onto clothing during a routine transaction with a client. Is it no longer possible to post on this thread without being in either the "It's A Fake Club" or the "Kosminski's Bang To Rights" one?

[Stewart P Evans]

Ironic

...
Ironically, Patricia Cornwell summed it up best—
"Ripper students would sooner have the mystery than the solution."
How right she was.
Regards,
Simon

Ironic indeed, as she provided the solution. So I guess she would say that.

[spyglass]

Hi all,
Am I correct in thinking that there is no evidence to suggest Eddowes wss a prostitute, It is just assumed ?

Regards