Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Chris]

Hello Robert. That's true. Perhaps some day the rest will get it?

I think most of us "get it" perfectly well already, thanks.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Theagenes. Thanks.

And I was about to plow through your posts--but it's rhetorical?

If it's the "out of hand" dismissal that bothers you, yes, and I'm epistemically PROUD of that fact.

You see, if one tells me that evidence is found on a table, I'll have a look. But if I'm told it's on a ROUND-SQUARE table, forget it.

Cheers.
LC

Just eat humble pie Lynn ,, your to old for this fight..

[lynn cates]

Repetition is the mother of learning. (Russian proverb)

Hello Robert. That's true. Perhaps some day the rest will get it?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

award

Hello Jason. Wish all could remember that.

I'll nominate you for the Simon Wood award.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

dismissed

Hello Theagenes. Thanks.

And I was about to plow through your posts--but it's rhetorical?

If it's the "out of hand" dismissal that bothers you, yes, and I'm epistemically PROUD of that fact.

You see, if one tells me that evidence is found on a table, I'll have a look. But if I'm told it's on a ROUND-SQUARE table, forget it.

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

Pink, that's the third time at least that you've posted that message on this thread.

[pinkmoon]

None of this is true because the shawl couldn't have been at any of the murder sites.

[Theagenes]

Hello Theagenes. Thanks.

I thought our criterion was to be excited over the science?

Cheers.
LC

Here is your original post, Lynn:

Hello Theagenes. Thanks.

Perhaps not you, but MANY got agitated and thought science had solved the case. It hadn't.

And now we see that the claims about DNA were WILDLY exaggerated.

Cheers.
LC

I asked you to name one out the MANY that you cited who "got agitated and thought science had solved the case."

You named me, so again I will ask, please quote the post where I "got agitated and thought science had solved the case."

Really, it's a rhetorical request though. No one here fits that description, much less "many." But you and several others seem to equate not completely dismissing this out of hand as being the same as believing Edwards claims 100%. I don't why some people can only see things in such absolute terms.

[Jeff Leahy]

Let me offer a correlating story.

When I was a young woman, from the age of 15 to about 27, every time I walked into my local mall and entered a store I got followed by security. Why? Well the mohawk, the leather biker jacket, the jack boots, the piercings and tattoos might have had something to do with it. Not gonna lie, I clearly stood out, definitely looked like someone who had no interest in following societal rules. So the various stores were pretty sure I was shoplifting. That conclusion was of debatable worth. But on the other hand this is a high end mall and they may have assumed that the disenfranchised are poor, and therefor don't have the money to buy things. But for more than 10 years I had security following me everywhere I went, and I finally got to the point where I made them hold things I was intending to purchase, because if they were going to be there, they might as well be useful.

Truth is, my family was wealthy and I lived off that wealth well beyond an age at which most people would rather do things for themselves. I was disenfranchised, but not economically. And I shoplifted once... when I was seven. And I got out the door of Target with my Muscle Men figures, burst into tears, and went running back into the store to confess. Not to mention the fact that I worked at that particular mall, and had for about three years. So frankly if I was going to steal, it would have been a heist, not shoving a bra down my pants. The whole "you don't **** where you eat" thing, unless of course you make so much that you never have to eat there again.

Even if Kosminski was suspected, even if he was identified as being near the scene of the crime (no one could identify anyone as being the author of the crime), even if he was followed, even if Anderson truly believed in his heart of hearts that Kosminski was the Ripper...

Does that mean Kosminski was the Ripper? I never shoplifted. They may have had every reason to believe I would, but I never did. Not once. There is a world of difference between a man being connected to a crime, and being a man assumed to be connected to a crime. If Anderson thought that the Ripper had to be an insane impoverished Jew, then Kosminski is just that. Bravo on finding an insane, impoverished Jew. Anderson can rest secure in his certainty. But who says the Ripper had to be an insane impoverished Jew? I know why they thought he would be, just like I know why they thought I was shoplifting. But if the initial assumption is frankly kind of crap, then shouldn't the fruits of those assumptions be looked upon with suspicion?

The security guards thought I was going to steal because of the way I looked. But do you think that means I shoplifted? Does being followed make me a thief? Does Kosminski being a suspect make him guilty? This is the problem with any suspect oriented discussion. Even if the person is a good suspect (and I'm not saying Kosminski was), how do we ever know if he actually did it? Especially when the cops are trying to tick boxes based on what they think should be true, and not what is true.

I think Matilda approached Anderson site: The Crawford Letter

Thats why he thought Aaron Jack the Ripper…because he was grassed by his own family… It could be that the police used her premises…which was opposite the workshop…(Thats what we are told) to watch kosminski

But thats speculation

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi,

I've just been reading the fascinating Keppel et al. article provided by Mabuse. The authors' express the view that the killer planned his attacks and, moreover, was able to learn effectively from his mistakes and adapt his approach accordingly.

Thus, the authors' state that the killer brought and removed his weapon from the crime scene; selected murder sites which enabled him to operate largely undetected; overpowered his victims quickly to avoid a serious struggle; and didn't leave evidence at the murder scene. It is submitted that all of this provides evidence of pre-planning and organization.

Moreover, the authors explain how he was able to adapt his approach in order to learn from his mistakes: in the case of Tabram it is argued that the frenzied nature of the attack would have left the killer soaked in blood; he therefore radically and rapidly adapted his approach in relation to the C5 victims. For instance, he attacked these victims from behind in order to diminish the amount of blood on his clothing.

I would further submit that he adopted additional stratagems in relation to the C5. For instance, evidence suggests that he either strangled or suffocated these victims prior to cutting their throats: this would have had the effect of diminishing the risk of arterial spray. Furthermore, evidence suggests that he cut his victims throats whilst they were on or close to the ground; this would also have helped prevent arterial spray because of the effect of gravity.

Now, I believe that this has major implications for Kosminiski as a suspect. For instance, it was argued on an earlier post in this thread that kosminski was probably suffering from hebephrenic, or disorganized schizophrenia. The ICD10 categorizes the symptoms of this sub-type as including disorganized thoughts and speech, social isolationism and unpredictability; symptoms which tend to develop rapidly: http://apps.who.int/classifications/....htm?gf20.htm+

It is submitted that these characteristics are incompatible with the killers signature, which is more suggestive of an organized, adaptive and controlled personality. However, It should be noted that this is a complex area and the newly released DSM V has removed the various sub-types for schizophrenia on the grounds that they are of "limited diagnostic stability, low reliability and poor validity." http://pro.psychcentral.com/dsm-5-ch...rs/004336.html

Regards,

John

PS: Apologies if I've gone slightly off topic but issues concerning the implications of Kosminski's alleged mental state were discussed at length earlier in this thread!

It was argued that in the early stages of hebephrenic schizophrenia people can be very functional…Indeed if you watch the film 'Beaytiful Mind' which is loosely based on a true story, people can go on to win nobel prizes while suffering the condition.

What was argued, was as the condition worsened then the suffer would become increasing dysfunctional to a point where its unlikely they would be able to function..

But then the Jack the Ripper murders suddenly stopped didn't they

And of course I believe Jack learned on the job as he went along, and was clever enough to alter his MO considerably from one kill to the next.

I trust that helps clarify

Yours Jeff

[Errata]

But a good case has been made for connections to Kosminski.

What is incontrovertible is that the police followed a suspect for a considerable length of time.. and obviously thought that considerable time and man power not only worth it but the best chance they had in 1888 of getting the job done. I haven't heard anyone suggest that either Swanson or Anderson for that matter were fools.

Yours Jeff

Let me offer a correlating story.

When I was a young woman, from the age of 15 to about 27, every time I walked into my local mall and entered a store I got followed by security. Why? Well the mohawk, the leather biker jacket, the jack boots, the piercings and tattoos might have had something to do with it. Not gonna lie, I clearly stood out, definitely looked like someone who had no interest in following societal rules. So the various stores were pretty sure I was shoplifting. That conclusion was of debatable worth. But on the other hand this is a high end mall and they may have assumed that the disenfranchised are poor, and therefor don't have the money to buy things. But for more than 10 years I had security following me everywhere I went, and I finally got to the point where I made them hold things I was intending to purchase, because if they were going to be there, they might as well be useful.

Truth is, my family was wealthy and I lived off that wealth well beyond an age at which most people would rather do things for themselves. I was disenfranchised, but not economically. And I shoplifted once... when I was seven. And I got out the door of Target with my Muscle Men figures, burst into tears, and went running back into the store to confess. Not to mention the fact that I worked at that particular mall, and had for about three years. So frankly if I was going to steal, it would have been a heist, not shoving a bra down my pants. The whole "you don't **** where you eat" thing, unless of course you make so much that you never have to eat there again.

Even if Kosminski was suspected, even if he was identified as being near the scene of the crime (no one could identify anyone as being the author of the crime), even if he was followed, even if Anderson truly believed in his heart of hearts that Kosminski was the Ripper...

Does that mean Kosminski was the Ripper? I never shoplifted. They may have had every reason to believe I would, but I never did. Not once. There is a world of difference between a man being connected to a crime, and being a man assumed to be connected to a crime. If Anderson thought that the Ripper had to be an insane impoverished Jew, then Kosminski is just that. Bravo on finding an insane, impoverished Jew. Anderson can rest secure in his certainty. But who says the Ripper had to be an insane impoverished Jew? I know why they thought he would be, just like I know why they thought I was shoplifting. But if the initial assumption is frankly kind of crap, then shouldn't the fruits of those assumptions be looked upon with suspicion?

The security guards thought I was going to steal because of the way I looked. But do you think that means I shoplifted? Does being followed make me a thief? Does Kosminski being a suspect make him guilty? This is the problem with any suspect oriented discussion. Even if the person is a good suspect (and I'm not saying Kosminski was), how do we ever know if he actually did it? Especially when the cops are trying to tick boxes based on what they think should be true, and not what is true.

[lynn cates]

It's givin' me excitation.

Hello Theagenes. Thanks.

I thought our criterion was to be excited over the science?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

telos

Hello Robert. And he departed with:

"Make a haggis of me, eh? Hmmpphh."

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

worshipers

Hello MrB. Thanks.

"The recent research that appears to show a flaw in Jari's conclusions is fascinating. Fascinating, but presumably superfluous because people on here already knew the science was flawed."

Correct. Flawed, because of the empirical unlikelihood that the shawl:

1. was in Mitre sq

2. was in contact with Kate

3. was in contact with Kosminski

4. that Simpson was in Mitre sq that night

On the other hand, quite appropriate to soothe the cornball science worshipers amongst us.

Cheers.
LC

[Theagenes]

Hello Theagenes. Thanks.

How about YOU for one?

Cheers.
LC

Please, by all means, quote the post in which I "thought science had solved the case."