Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[lynn cates]

change

Hello Jeff.

"But why the accepted explanation of the shawl seems to have changed so radically in such a small space of time does appear to require addressing."

Yes. That troubles me. First it was Kate's; then Aaron's. And the Simpson story--in spite of embellishment and analysis--does not suffice.

Cheers.
LC

[AdamNeilWood]

Thanks for that, Adam. I'm glad to know I didn't imagine your post and I hope I haven't inadvertently pissed you off. Tensions seem to be running high with a number of folks, particularly on this thread. I was simply surprised that you find it plausible that Simpson was in Mitre Square. I believe this theory of Edwards was postulated quite some time ago, was it not, and by someone other than Edwards? It was also postulated that Simpson was part of some covert Fenian group?

The thing is, we could plausibly put almost anyone in Mitre Square. But then how is it plausible he'd remove a large, blood shawl and prize it for the rest of his life and not say a word to the City Police or turn over the shawl, which according to Edwards belonged not to Eddowes but the murderer himself?

How is that plausible?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Until I see evidence that he was or wasn't there it's all opinion Tom, despite what common sense tells me.

What I meant is that before the book was released, people were saying it was lunacy to suggest that Simpson made his way to Mitre Square from N Division. Edwards has suggested a scenario which has him much closer to City territory, one which is certainly possible but of course requires looking into before it can be accepted - or dismissed.

Edwards says that he initially thought Simpson was posted to H Division, but was told by the shawl's previous owner, David Melville-Hayes, that the family story had it that Simpson was there on Fenian surveillance.

Have you seen Rob House's possible scenario of how Simpson may have come by the shawl?

Adam

[lynn cates]

moi

Hello Tom.

"To anyone not of that mindset, my post makes absolute sense."

Ah! That would be me.

Cheers.
LC

[Theagenes]

You can say that again!

Not only did the DNA team find mtDNA along the Eddowes bllodline - it was a also a mutated mtDNA meaning that we may exclude any other people than those very closely related to Catherine.

And not only did the team find mtDNA for the Kosmisnki bloodline - they also managed to extract genomic DNA here, so that we may move very close to Aaron Kosminski, and close unwanted side alleys.

Not only did the team find blood on the shawl - it was also distributed in a pattern that spoke clearly about blood spatter having come about as a result of a knife attack.

Not only did they find semen on the shawl - when they gave it a go and tested one randomly chosen suspect, they hit gold immediately and got a match.

Not only did the shawl hold all these treasures, it also provided a single cell that seemed to have come from a kidney - the precise organ that Eddowes had cut out of her body along with the uterus.

That´s one lucky crew, wouldn´t you say? They couldn´t have asked for more. The only thing they didn´t find was a shoeprint of George Morris, running over the shawl, whistle in mouth. But maybe that comes along when they test for mud, who knows?
Otherwise, the shawl tells the whole story, missing out on absolutely nothing.

For a shawl that cannot be proven to have been anywhere near Mitre Square on the murder night, that´s not half bad.

All the best,
Fisherman

Well yes and no. It seems remarkable sure, because it's the only object we have that is purported to be from one of the murder scenes. If we had other items to test they would probably be covered in victim and killer DNA too.

I find it hard to believe that there aren't other other blood-splattered objects from the murders out there in private collections waiting to be tested. Maybe the publicity from this will bring them out in the open.

[mickreed]

I'm shocked that Paul Begg feels that the horrid provenance of the shawl doesn't matter. And it seems he's not the only respectable researcher accepting the science over the history here.

Am I the only one surprised by this?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Paul's an authority, but he's long thought Kosminski was guilty. See Lekh, S. K.; Langa, A.; Begg, P.; Puri, B. K., The case of Aaron Kosminski: was he Jack the Ripper?, Psychiatric Bulletin Vol. 16(12), 1992 pp 786-788

I must say I found that article singularly unconvincing as well. There's a tendency amongst everyone to believe what we want to believe, and to reject everything else. Perhaps Paul is slipping into this trap.

126 years on, and based on what we know to date, there can only be inconclusive, even if suggestive, forensic evidence. It can only suggest that Kosminski and Eddowes (or their relatives ?) came into contact with the shawl at some time or other.

I disagree with Tom that we mustn't blame Edwards for wanting to make a quid if the way he tries to make it is unjustified. Sure, try and sell your book, but don't make claims like 'I can prove' or 'I know for sure'. Of course anything less won't get the same publicity but that's where integrity comes in.

I daresay the publishers are encouraging him, and I expect he believes it, but that's not the same thing as having real proof.

[Tom_Wescott]

In the event, it seems it was a mixture of misremembering and misinterpreting, but in any case, how does any of this stuff amount to "accepting the science"?

What you claimed about Adam has absolutely nothing to do with the science, and what Paul Begg said was prefaced by the word "if". Saying that "if we accept the science, then X follows" is obviously completely different from saying "I accept the science".

Hi Chris. Go stir elsewhere, please. I can twist my own words if I choose, thank you very much.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Until I see evidence that he was or wasn't there it's all opinion Tom, despite what common sense tells me.

What I meant is that before the book was released, people were saying it was lunacy to suggest that Simpson made his way to Mitre Square from N Division. Edwards has suggested a scenario which has him much closer to City territory, one which is certainly possible but of course requires looking into before it can be accepted - or dismissed.

Edwards says that he initially thought Simpson was posted to H Division, but was told by the shawl's previous owner, David Melville-Hayes, that the family story had it that Simpson was there on Fenian surveillance.

Have you seen Rob House's possible scenario of how Simpson may have come by the shawl?

Adam

Hi Adam. Thing is, I don't see how we could prove that Simpson was somewhere else. So you're not going to see proof that he was somewhere else. Can't prove a negative, and all that. I've seen a few scenarios of how Simpson might have gotten the shawl, but I'm not sure which is Rob's. And with Twisty Magee around trying to turn everyone against me, I'm not about to speculate. LOL.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

thoughts

Hello Christer. Special thanks for #2187. Many have THOUGHT; only you have dared to ARTICULATE.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

For a shawl that cannot be proven to have been anywhere near Mitre Square on the murder night, that´s not half bad.

Hi Christer.

Have you ever heard of a punter giving a gift to his favorite hooker?

Did our simple-minded Kozminski ever associate with prostitutes, and did he have a favorite, and did he give her a shawl?

So if Kozminski's favorite hooker gets murdered, why should this shawl(?) implicate Kozminski?

DNA from both of them could be on this shawl and that fact does not prove Kozminski killed her. It is merely an indication they knew each other.

(Playing Devils Advocate here)

Personally, I favour waiting for Dr Louhelainen's academic report, should it ever see the light of day. Picking up on snippets of information here and there only serves to fuel speculation.

[mickreed]

Personally, I want to hear this from Louhelainen himself and preferably in a peer-reviewed paper.

Got it in one.

[Tom_Wescott]

I disagree with Tom that we mustn't blame Edwards for wanting to make a quid if the way he tries to make it is unjustified. Sure, try and sell your book, but don't make claims like 'I can prove' or 'I know for sure'. Of course anything less won't get the same publicity but that's where integrity comes in.

I daresay the publishers are encouraging him, and I expect he believes it, but that's not the same thing as having real proof.

Yes, i suppose we could. But Ripperology is jaded. We're used to 'final solutions' because we get them like a stray dog gets fleas. So, Edwards isn't too special in that regard. Many of us are putting out Ripper books that are not heavy-handed and in your face, so there's a positive trend. But there will always be the carnival barkers. Some will actually believe in their own hype, others won't and say they will. Which one is Edwards? I don't know, but he has no problem making money selling all his competing theories at his store, for whatever that's worth.

And you can't blame the publishers. He doesn't have to abide by them at all. He doesn't have to change his title (which he did, from 'Hunting' to 'Naming') or pretend to believe in his evidence more than he does. That's 100% on him. Authors these days have options.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[fraxinus]

Shawl?

Just a point. A shawl is a square piece of material that is turned into a triangle and placed over the shoulders and folded over the chest area. An 8ft x 2ft material would be called I believe a Stoal and be draped over the shoulders and folded over the arms.

[Trevor Marriott]

Paul's an authority, but he's long thought Kosminski was guilty. See Lekh, S. K.; Langa, A.; Begg, P.; Puri, B. K., The case of Aaron Kosminski: was he Jack the Ripper?, Psychiatric Bulletin Vol. 16(12), 1992 pp 786-788

I must say I found that article singularly unconvincing as well. There's a tendency amongst everyone to believe what we want to believe, and to reject everything else. Perhaps Paul is slipping into this trap.

126 years on, and based on what we know to date, there can only be inconclusive, even if suggestive, forensic evidence. It can only suggest that Kosminski and Eddowes (or their relatives ?) came into contact with the shawl at some time or other.

I disagree with Tom that we mustn't blame Edwards for wanting to make a quid if the way he tries to make it is unjustified. Sure, try and sell your book, but don't make claims like 'I can prove' or 'I know for sure'. Of course anything less won't get the same publicity but that's where integrity comes in.

I daresay the publishers are encouraging him, and I expect he believes it, but that's not the same thing as having real proof.

Paul Begg now denies he has written a book claiming Kosminski is the ripper

When this was put to him earlier today this was his reply

"And I haven't written a book in which I say that Kosminski is the Ripper"

Oh Paul your nose is growing it will soon be as big as your ego !

[NRTomasheski]

If all of those conditions you listed were satisfied, you still wouldn't be convinced? Really?

If all that were the case you'd probably be the last Ripperologist left. Be sure to turn out the lights and lock up when you leave.

Ha ha! Yep.
However, I'd then revisit the other research and arguments.

[mickreed]

The history of the shawl is that it was not in Mitre Square and has no connection to Catherine Eddowes. That's the history of the shawl. So there's no science to understand. Get it?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I'm on your side Tom, but this is a bit strong. We have as much evidence that the shawl was not in Mitre Square as Edwards has that it was - in a phrase, bugger all. It's not the defence's job the prove it wasn't there. It's the prosecution's job to prove it was. And they surely cannot. Half-baked speculation as to how it could have been, just doesn't cut the mustard.