Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Tom_Wescott]

In his Bank Holiday book Tom Wescott provides a brief précis of its known history, and offers a hypothetical explanation for its possible provenance and the location via which it came into Simpson's hands. He's happy to acknowledge that this is pure conjecture and that the shawl may have an origin in some other, now forgotten crime scene.

Thanks for bringing this up, Henry. As I mentioned elsewhere, in hindsight I wish I had written more on the shawl. At the time I wrote the appendix, the shawl had long since been dropped from Ripper literature (A-Z aside), and that is because it had been considered and discussed by all and to my knowledge, none of the usual chatterheads in Ripperology considered it to have been Eddowes' shawl. This is important to mention, because I'm seeing it constantly brought up that we're railing against the shawl because 'we don't want the case to be solved' or because someone else got to the 'solution' first. That's sheer an utter nonsense. In fact, when I wrote that appendix I thought I might catch flack for being so open minded as to entertain the possibility it had belonged to ANY Whitechapel murder victim! Truth is, I don't. But I was amused enough with my own ideas to think it warranted an appendix. You'll note I didn't think it important enough to include in the actual text. I had a lot of fun writing the appendices of that book because I could toss in whatever I wanted.

I said this in my book and I'll say it again..if Amos Simpson was in Mitre Square before the police and if he made away with a bloody item, then Amos Simpson should be looked at as a suspect in this murder. I also stand by my suggestion that the shawl is more likely to have been Emma Smith's than Eddowes. How likely is it to have been Smith's? Not very, but at least her case has a bloody shawl in it!

It's important to note, since Amos Simpson's name is getting bandied about, that there's not one iota of evidence to suggest he ever came into contact with the shawl during his lifetime. What bothers me is that his descendants don't mention him having his own private 'black museum'. So to my knowledge he's not known to have been a crime collector. Would someone without a history of collecting such items risk his career and reputation to rob from a freshly dead woman? And if so, why a giant bloody shawl? Put yourself in his shoes for a moment. And wouldn't the copper in him have instead tried to get his hands on Jack the Ripper who must have been only yards away at the time of Simpson's discovery of the body?

The idea that the Ripper himself left the scene with the shawl, abandoning it somewhere is likewise preposterous. If he took a shawl with him for some purpose, then why cut half an apron away? And if it was discarded and discovered by Simpson, then why would he keep it and not turn it over to his superiors to help catch the city's most notorious murderer? Because he wanted to cash in? That makes sense...so, why didn't he cash in? There's no evidence he mentioned the shawl to ANYONE during his lifetime.

My point is that we should all forget the DNA evidence and look very closely at the history of this shawl. When does it first enter the written record as even existing? The 1990s? 80s? 70s? Why did every Ripperologist on the planet decide it wasn't Catherine Eddowes' shawl years ago?

And why was the descendant of only ONE of a plethora of suspects tested against the shawl? There must have been the DNA of countless people on that shawl. How many different profiles were tested before one with mtDNA markers similar to Kozminski's descendant was found? And do we know for a fact these markers were identical to Aaron's himself and not females from other lines in the descendant's family?

But, for me, it has to come back to the shawl. It wasn't in Mitre Square, it wasn't in Goulston Street. It can't even be put in Amos Simpson's house any time after the murder. It just appeared one day in the late 20th century.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

How many different profiles were tested before one with mtDNA markers similar to Kozminski's descendant was found?

According to the book, just one epithelial cell from the area of the possible semen stains was analysed for mitochondrial DNA, and that gave a match to the mtDNA of Aaron Kozminski's relation.

[Paddy]

Picture from Book Anna

I knew I had this Psychic Investigation book somewhere. I have just pulled out freezer and washing machine an ended up tidying the whole room....
It was on the shelf after all.....

Here is the picture you mentioned Anna fron "Jack the Ripper a Psychic investigation by Pamela Ball"

Pat

[moonbegger]

And the Photograph was taken in the Ten Bells pub .. a very secure environment

moonbegger .

[Paddy]

Shawl / Skirt

One reason there could have been confusion between a shawl and a skirt?
It said it had three flouces. I have been finding hard to understand what a flounce is.......

Pat.................

[SJ76]

kosher butchering

The Hebrew term shechita (anglicized: /ʃəxiːˈtɑː/; Hebrew: שחיטה, [ʃχiˈta]), also transliterated shehitah, shechitah, shehita, means the slaughtering of mammals and birds for food. In Hebrew the word is generic and does not imply any religious or cultural practice but in English the term has come to be used particularly for "kosher slaughter", that is the slaughter of animals for food according to Jewish dietary laws (Deut. 12:21, Deut. 14:21, Num. 11:22) . The animal must be killed "with respect and compassion"[1][2] by a religious Jew who is duly licensed and trained, often called in English a shochet (Hebrew: שוחט) although in Hebrew this word refers to a butcher regardless of any particular religion or culture. The act is performed by severing the trachea, esophagus, carotid arteries, jugular veins and vagus nerve in a swift action using an extremely sharp blade ("chalef") only by a qualified shochet. According to Jewish religious sources, this results in a rapid drop in blood pressure in the brain and loss of consciousness rendering the animal insensible to pain and to exsanguinate in a prompt and precise action.[3] The animal can be in a number of positions; when the animal is lying on its back, this is referred to as shechita munachat; in a standing position it is known as shechita me'umedet. Before slaughtering, the animal must be healthy, uninjured, and viable.


Duties of the shochet[edit]

To fulfill the basic law of shechita, the majority of both the trachea and esophagus (windpipe and food pipe) of a mammal, or the majority of either one of these in the case of birds, must be incised with a back and forth motion without violating one of the five major prohibited techniques, or various more detailed rules. The five major forbidden techniques include: pressing, pausing, tearing, piercing, or covering. A shochet must have studied these laws and demonstrate a thorough understanding of them, as well as have been carefully trained, before he is allowed to 'shekht' meat unaided.

The five forbidden techniques when using a halaf (sakin) to slaughter animals[edit]
שהייה Shehiyah (delay or pausing) - A pause of hesitation during the incision of even a moment makes the animal's flesh unkosher. The knife must move in an uninterrupted sweep. Shehiyah occurs if the shochet accidentally stops the slaughtering process after either the trachea or esophagus has been cut, but before they have been cut the majority of the way through. Pausing can happen accidentally if muscle contractions in the animal's neck pull one of these organs out of contact with the blade. The latter case is especially common in turkeys.
דרסה Derasah (pressing) - The knife must be drawn across the throat by forward/backward movements, not by hacking or pressing. Any undue pressure renders the animal unkosher. Derasah is the forbidden action that occurs when the shochet pushes the knife into the animal's throat, chops rather than slices, or positions the animal improperly so that either its head presses down on the blade as it expires or the shochet must push the knife into the throat against the force of gravity. There are those[11] who feel that it is forbidden to have the animal in an upright position during shechita due to the prohibition of derasah (pressing). They feel that the animal must be on its back, lying on its side, suspended upside down by a rope or chain, or – as is done in most commercial slaughter houses – placed in a barrel-like pen that restrains the animal's limbs while it is turned on its back for slaughter. However, an expert shochet can slaughter the animal while it is upright without pressing the knife. This method is employed in most smaller operations in America.
חלדה Haladah (digging or burying) - The knife must be drawn over the throat so that it is visible while shechita is being performed. It must not be stabbed into the neck or buried by fur, hide, or feathers in the case of a bird. Haladah occurs if the shochet either accidentally cuts into the animal's throat so deeply that the entire width of the knife disappears in the wound, uses a knife that is too short so that the end disappears in the wound, or if a foreign object falls over the knife so the shochet loses sight of the incision.
הגרמה Hagramah (slipping) - The limits within which the knife may be applied are from the large ring in the windpipe to the top of the upper lobe of the lung when it is inflated, and corresponding to the length of the pharynx. Slaughtering above or below these limits renders the meat unkosher.
עיקור Iqqur (tearing) - If either the esophagus or the trachea is torn during the shechita incision the carcass is rendered unkosher and cannot be eaten by Jews. Iqqur occurs if the shochet accidentally uses a chalaf with an imperfection on the blade, such as a scratch or nick, that causes a section of blade to be lower than the surface of the blade.[12][13][14]

Breaching any of these five rules renders the animal nevelah; the animal is regarded in Jewish law as if it were carrion.

Giving of the Gifts[edit]

Main article: foreleg, cheeks and abomasum

Once the animal has been checked and found to be kosher, it is a Mitzvah for the shochet to give the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum to a Kohen. Beit Din -in terms of the root of the obligation, has the Halachic authority to excommunicate a shochet who refuses to perform this Mitzvah. In any case, it is desired that the shochet himself refuse to perform the shechita unless the animal's owner expresses his agreement to give the gifts.

The Rishonim point out the Shochet cannot claim that since the animal does not belong to him, he cannot give the gifts without the owner's consent. On the contrary, since the average shochet is reputed to be well versed and knowledgeable in the laws of Shechitah ("Dinnei Shechita"), Beith Din relies on him to withhold his shechita so long as the owner refuses to give the gifts;


The obligation of giving the gifts lay upon the Shochet to separate the parts due to the Kohanim. Apparently, the reasoning is that since the average Shochet is a "Friend", since he completed the prerequisite of understanding the (complex) laws of Shechita and Bedikah. It is assumed that he -as well- is knowledgeable in the details of the laws of giving the gifts, and will not put the Mitzvah aside. This, however, is not the case with the animal's owner, since the average owner is an Am ha-aretz not wholly knowledgeable in the laws of the gifts -and procrastinates in completing the Mitzvah

—Shulchan Gavoah to Yoreh Deah 61:61

Minor rules[edit]

The animal's blood may not be collected in a bowl, a pit, or a body of water, as these resemble ancient forms of idol worship. If the shochet accidentally slaughters with a knife dedicated to idol worship, he must remove an amount of meat equivalent to the value of the knife and destroy it. If he slaughtered with such a knife on purpose, the animal is forbidden as not kosher. It is forbidden to slaughter an animal in front of other animals, or to slaughter an animal and its young on the same day, even separately. This is forbidden no matter how far away the animals are from each other. An animal's "young" is defined as either its own offspring, or another animal that follows it around, even if of another species.[citation needed]

The knife[edit]

The knife used for shechita is called a hallaf by Ashkenazim or a sakin (Hebrew: סכין) by all Jews. By biblical law the knife may be made from anything not attached directly or indirectly to the ground and capable of being sharpened and polished to the necessary level of sharpness and smoothness required for shechita. The Minhag now is to use a metal knife.

The knife must be minimally 1.5 or 2 times as long as the animal's neck is wide, depending on the species of animal and the number of strokes needed to slaughter the animal, but not so long that the weight of the knife exceeds the weight of the animal's head. If the knife is too large, it is assumed to cause pressing. The knife must not have a point. It is feared a point may slip into the wound during slaughter and cause piercing. The blade may also not be serrated, as serrations cause tearing.

The blade may not have imperfections in it. All blades are assumed by Jewish law to be imperfect, so the knife must be checked before each session. The shochet must run his fingernail and flesh up and down both sides of the blade and on the cutting edge to determine if he can feel any imperfections. He then uses a number of increasingly fine abrasive stones to sharpen and polish the blade until it is perfectly sharp and smooth. After the slaughter, the shochet must check the knife again in the same way to be certain the first inspection was properly done, and to ensure the blade was not damaged during shechita. If the blade is found to be damaged, the meat may not be eaten by Jews. If the blade falls or is lost before the second check is done, the first inspection is relied on and the meat is permitted.

[Poch]

My point is that we should all forget the DNA evidence and look very closely at the history of this shawl.

This is a really great post Tom and actually I largely agree, except for this one point. I suppose it depends on how much faith you put into science, but IF and I do mean IF, this DNA evidence can be corroborated, peer reviewed etc. then my viewpoint would be the exact opposite of what you say here. In the case that this stuff did happen, my viewpoint would be "forget the fact that some reoprts say it wasn't there, because it clearly was as the science shows.". At this point the debate for me should focus on ironing out the details of how it got where it has over the years.

I mean, until any review is done, we're obviously talking hypotheticals here, but would your stance change on this if the forementioned peer reviews and etc. were done on the shawl?

[Fisherman]

But, for me, it has to come back to the shawl. It wasn't in Mitre Square, it wasn't in Goulston Street. It can't even be put in Amos Simpson's house any time after the murder. It just appeared one day in the late 20th century.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Haven´t you heard, Tom? As long as there is closely related DNA to both Eddowes and Kosminski on it, the provenance of the shawl is uninteresting. It need not have been in place at all, since the DNA trumps such worldly demands.
Grow up.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

This is a really great post Tom and actually I largely agree, except for this one point. I suppose it depends on how much faith you put into science, but IF and I do mean IF, this DNA evidence can be corroborated, peer reviewed etc. then my viewpoint would be the exact opposite of what you say here. In the case that this stuff did happen, my viewpoint would be "forget the fact that some reoprts say it wasn't there, because it clearly was as the science shows.". At this point the debate for me should focus on ironing out the details of how it got where it has over the years.

I mean, until any review is done, we're obviously talking hypotheticals here, but would your stance change on this if the forementioned peer reviews and etc. were done on the shawl?

There are no doubt countless strains of DNA on the shawl from the hundreds of people who've touched it over the years. I wonder if any of those strains have a similar mtDNA to Druitt? Le Grand? Tumblety? Hell, even Peter Sutcliffe? But we'll never know because only one suspect was compared against the various strains. It would take a LOT of science and a LOT of money to fully and accurately test this shawl to the satisfaction of all. But the guy who owns it has numerous businesses built around it - a shop, tour, best-selling book, no doubt lectures, etc. He'd be a fool to put it up to that kind of scrutiny. And who would pay for all those tests?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I mean, until any review is done, we're obviously talking hypotheticals here, but would your stance change on this if the forementioned peer reviews and etc. were done on the shawl?

If they dig up Eddowes and Aaron and get 100% matches to the absolute exclusion of all others, and tampering is ruled out, then I'll go sign up at zodiackillerdotcom and start solving that one.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[SJ76]

Can't help but notice some similarities between the kosher rules and jtr's m.o.

I'm not implying he was following all these rules but if you were a mentally ill jewish man who had family members who were butchers and witnessed these things regularly you may find a reflection of these rules in his m.o.

The elements that stand out to me are
1. the knife used (a hallaf)
2.the quick cutting of the throat after "gently" laying the victim down on
there side or back
3.treatment of the organs and anatomical knowledge
_The Torah prohibits the eating of certain fats and organs, such as the kidneys and intestines, so they must be removed from the animal.
-Once the animal has been checked and found to be kosher, it is a Mitzvah for the shochet to give the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum to a Kohen

[Poch]

There are no doubt countless strains of DNA on the shawl from the hundreds of people who've touched it over the years. I wonder if any of those strains have a similar mtDNA to Druitt? Le Grand? Tumblety? Hell, even Peter Sutcliffe? But we'll never know because only one suspect was compared against the various strains. It would take a LOT of science and a LOT of money to fully and accurately test this shawl to the satisfaction of all. But the guy who owns it has numerous businesses built around it - a shop, tour, best-selling book, no doubt lectures, etc. He'd be a fool to put it up to that kind of scrutiny. And who would pay for all those tests?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

That's a depressing and good point, at this juncture he has an awful lot to lose and not much to gain in terms of his buisness. I wondered when I was reading it if only chosing one suspect to compare the DNA to was due to budgetary concerns, but it definitely made me feel uncomfortable that it opens the possibility of influencing any (costly) research to fit the conclusion.

If they dig up Eddowes and Aaron and get 100% matches to the absolute exclusion of all others, and tampering is ruled out, then I'll go sign up at zodiackillerdotcom and start solving that one.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Thanks for replying, I was just curious. I know that different people put different weight on science claims, for me this book isn't enough, for others it might be and for some, nothing would do it for them. I just wondered where that would lay for you, as someone who has put so much into this.

[Rob Clack]

Can't help but notice some similarities between the kosher rules and jtr's m.o.

I'm not implying he was following all these rules but if you were a mentally ill jewish man who had family members who were butchers and witnessed these things regularly you may find a reflection of these rules in his m.o.

The elements that stand out to me are
1. the knife used (a hallaf)
2.the quick cutting of the throat after "gently" laying the victim down on
there side or back
3.treatment of the organs and anatomical knowledge
_The Torah prohibits the eating of certain fats and organs, such as the kidneys and intestines, so they must be removed from the animal.
-Once the animal has been checked and found to be kosher, it is a Mitzvah for the shochet to give the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum to a Kohen

Robin Odell put forward a theory in 1965 that Jack the Ripper could have been a Shochet Butcher.

Rob

[Amanda]

Maybe a coincidence but....

Hi All,

This is a very big coincidence but I've just been going through my photo files and found one of another JtR suspect in a portrait shot.

Guess what? There is a similar patterned silk shawl (daisies) draped across the chair behind him.
I don't for one minute think it's connected to the Edwards shawl but perhaps we should consider that these were mass produced items (I.e. Factory) and were used by photographers as portrait props.

Amanda

[anna]

Thanks very much for posting the picture,Pat.