Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Fisherman]

That was the picture I always had as well, but it's a little more complicated than that isn't it? Do we know he masturbated in public? Or did he just get busted by his sister or brother-in-law a couple of times? And even the eating from the gutter -- did he do this all the time? It makes it sound like he was drooling idiot crawling around in the gutter all time, but we don't know do we? Was it an isolated thing during one of his spells? Apparently he believed he was being poisoned so this is more like a tin foil hat paranoia thing that made him go dumpster-diving it sounds like. Like drinking out of the bird bath because you think the tap water is poisoned with fluoride.

I'm not saying I'm convinced that Kos is the man, because I'm certainly not. But I do think that many people, myself included, have often overlooked him due to this exaggerated picture of his mental problems and I think Rob has done a great job of demonstrating that. He deserves more consideration than he often gets.

At any rate, he deteriorated over time. We have the court excerpt where he has been charged with walking an unmuzzled dog, and so we know that he was quite coherent at that stage. And that was after the killings, a year or so.

The imbecile that was taken to Colney Hatch in 1891 differs a lot from that man.

Those who say that Aaron would not have been the killer very often seem to arrive at that conclusion looking at a man that had deteriorated very badly, and not at the man he was when the murders occurred.

But here´s where I am having a bit of trouble:

Robert Anderson said that it was obvious that the killer was not a normal man - he was a maniac, revelling in blood.

So clearly, what he wanted to nail "Kosminski" as, was a raving lunatic, a "homicidal maniac" as MacNaghten put things.

It apparently was not until Kosminski´s mind gave way that he came up for grabs as the killer. During the murders and some years afterwards, Anderson is adamant that the police had no clue.

So very apparently, Anderson makes his move on grounds that have many of us totally dismissing Kosminski as the killer - OR he got information after Kosminski had been incarcerated that pointed Kos out as having been a terribly dangerous man in 1888.
If so, how on earth could he miss out on the Ripper being alive and "caged" in Leavesden asylum?
Anderson really does not come across as a very well-informed man to me.

Maybe Martin Fido was right - Anderson mistook Cohen for Kosminski, and there WAS a dangerous, crafty maniac put away in an asylum, who subsequently died short afterwards.

After all, that was the type of man they thought they needed to look for.

What they were not looking for, would have been a man who walked other people´s dogs for them in 1889.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

study

Hello GUT. Thanks.

Well he certainly hasn't, yet. Of course, first he'd need to study the case a bit.

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

No but I might skate around the yard with the "How Aaron Kosminski was dangerous as JTR then doped down chemically in an asylum and other fables" double dvd I just stepped on.

I use the "Martin Fido says Anderson is Innocent" T-shirt I was sent to wipe away grime from the guttering too.

Bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwiches on Sundays btw.

We don't know if Aarom was medicated the records only refer to his physical health. I accept its quite possible substances might have been used.

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

add up

Hello Theagenes. Thanks.

"Maybe it was used as a makeshift rag at the mortuary and got her blood on it and was never even at the crime scene."

Fair enough. So perhaps it belonged to someone else? But then it was not Aaron's? For if it were, it would be close to the body and thus evidence.

"Maybe it was at the crime scene and someone snagged it before it was recorded."

Why? This sounds like Aachan and the Babylonish garment. Quite a risk for so little return.

"Maybe a City cop lifted it and lost it to Amos in poker game. Who knows?"

Well, most of us are trying to follow his story. Surely these are no more amenable to implementation than his?

"You could speculate endlessly. One thing that I do feel pretty sure about though is that the story family has told is almost certainly not true. However Amos got it, it wasn't legit."

IF Amos got it. This whole story just does NOT add up.

Cheers.
LC

[mickreed]

Hello Mick.

All is well here thanks and I hope the same for you?

What worries me is the lack of checking and double checking throughout. Mr Edwards seems imo to have just jumped in feet first all theory-blazing.

Dr Jari has shown a card from his own hand too in saying that -basically- he didnt expect all this publicity and reaction.

That surprises me. The CLAIMED discovery of Jack the Ripper WITH CERTAINTY thanks to his DNA tests is akin to discovering that Finlands greatest cross-country skiers during the last 20years have been using illegal performance enhancing methods for many years! (true) and nobody would react!


best wishes

Phil

Yes Phil,

As many have said, there seems to be little evidence for anything except speculation based on a story told by David Melville-Hayes, who clearly has an axe to grind, but who isn't necessarily making it up. He may believe it to be absolutely true, but it's Edwards's job to substantiate the story. So far as I can tell, without the book, this hasn't been done. Only two weeks before I can get my hands on it. If I am wrong, I shall publicly grovel.

The exception to the above comments is the DNA. I am sure that Jari is impartial, competent, and not trying to fool anybody. I can quite see how he might not really be aware of the interest the Ripper case still generates. I know academics who would have little idea that it's 2014 now, so immersed are they in their subjects.

From what I can see, Edwards is probably not presenting Jari's arguments with the caveats that the latter would present. Indeed Jari said as much in his radio interview. He also talked about the genomic DNA that he's got but which isn't mentioned in the book. That will be interesting, but is still unlikely to be conclusive in proving Kosminski's contact with the shawl, although it might be conclusive in the other direction.

If Jari as got a Y-chromosme, then he will have to try and match it with a relative in the purely paternal line. Having the same haplotype won't do it on its own. It will depend on the genetic distance, and even that doesn't prove anything for sure.

I have a Reed rellie in New Zealand that I know shares a common ancestor with me who died in Clerkenwell in 1856. Our genetic distance is greater than a Reed I also know of where our common ancestor is probably 400 years ago. In addition I know of 15 people who have different surnames to me yet have close matches on our Y-chromosomes.

This is due to all sorts of things. My favourite is what I call the 'milkman effect'. When the cat's away the mice will play.

If Jari has got autosomnal DNA then, other things can be inferred, but other problems arise.

I also want to see the genealogical information that places the descendants in the relevant family trees. apparently we have to take Edward's word for it as regards the Kosminski descendant.

Sorry, if that's right, then it's worthless.

[lynn cates]

yup

Hello Rocky.

"If the shawl was from the crime scene wouldn't it have run in the papers with every Londoner seeing it in an attempt to connect it to the ripper. The detectives would have realized it wasn't Eddowes and deduced the ripper left it behind."

Precisely.

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

At any rate, he deteriorated over time. We have the court excerpt where he has been charged with walking an unmuzzled dog, and so we know that he was quite coherent at that stage. And that was after the killings, a year or so.

The imbecile that was taken to Colney Hatch in 1891 differs a lot from that man.

Those who say that Aaron would not have been the killer very often seem to arrive at that conclusion looking at a man that had deteriorated very badly, and not at the man he was when the murders occurred.

But here´s where I am having a bit of trouble:

Robert Anderson said that it was obvious that the killer was not a normal man - he was a maniac, revelling in blood.

So clearly, what he wanted to nail "Kosminski" as, was a raving lunatic, a "homicidal maniac" as MacNaghten put things.

It apparently was not until Kosminski´s mind gave way that he came up for grabs as the killer. During the murders and some years afterwards, Anderson is adamant that the police had no clue.

So very apparently, Anderson makes his move on grounds that have many of us totally dismissing Kosminski as the killer - OR he got information after Kosminski had been incarcerated that pointed Kos out as having been a terribly dangerous man in 1888.
If so, how on earth could he miss out on the Ripper being alive and "caged" in Leavesden asylum?
Anderson really does not come across as a very well-informed man to me.

Maybe Martin Fido was right - Anderson mistook Cohen for Kosminski, and there WAS a dangerous, crafty maniac put away in an asylum, who subsequently died short afterwards.

After all, that was the type of man they thought they needed to look for.

What they were not looking for, would have been a man who walked other people´s dogs for them in 1889.

The best,
Fisherman

Yes spot on Jon. Also remember the journey the family would have gone through. In the early stages of Schizophrenia people can be very lucid for periods of time. It strikes in waves as the suffer comes in and out of their dream state in 'Psychotic Episodes' One day he seems perfectly normal then another slide into madness.

Its my personal belief that it was eventually the family that went to Anderson and asked for help

Yours Jeff

[Monty]

BBC Radio 4 IPM programme

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04gcph3

Skip to 15 mins in, and you get the views of Catherine Eddowes great great granddaughter*.

Monty


*Not Karen Miller.

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes Phil,
I also want to see the genealogical information that places the descendants in the relevant family trees. apparently we have to take Edward's word for it as regards the Kosminski descendant.

Sorry, if that's right, then it's worthless.

That should be fairly easy to determine if you read Neil Sheldons book.

I detected a little friction between Edwards and Sheldon but I'm not that sure why?

Perhaps he or Jenny might like to comment?

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

monopolising the board

Hello Tom.

"If the DNA checks out then we need to question who put the DNA on that shawl, because the shawl didn't come from Mitre Square."

Pass go: collect $200.

Cheers.
LC

[mickreed]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04gcph3

Skip to 15 mins in, and you get the views of Catherine Eddowes great great granddaughter*.

Monty


*Not Karen Miller.

Sounds a pretty sensible woman, Monty. Thanks for this.

[PaulB]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04gcph3

Skip to 15 mins in, and you get the views of Catherine Eddowes great great granddaughter*.

Monty


*Not Karen Miller.

Interesting.

[mickreed]

Maybe Martin Fido was right - Anderson mistook Cohen for Kosminski, and there WAS a dangerous, crafty maniac put away in an asylum, who subsequently died short afterwards.

After all, that was the type of man they thought they needed to look for.

What they were not looking for, would have been a man who walked other people´s dogs for them in 1889.

The best,
Fisherman

This has long been my concern. I said somewhere a few days back, that the idea that Aaron Kosminski is the same as Anderson's 'Kosminski', is not really proven. It's even further away if Anderson's 'Kosminski' was actually Cohen, or someone else.

Martin Fido did great work finding Aaron, but it's a big call from that to putting him in the frame as has been done for 20-odd years.

It may be right, but …?

[Trevor Marriott]

It's called 'peer review' and is what some people have been referring to since day one. It is hoped that Dr. L. will write a paper for one of the academic journals.

Yes i know what its called but others may not be so familiar with that term

[Jonathan H]

I see that a section of the Jewish press, as in a blog/newspaper reporting the Jewish Faith, and current events relevant to people of that Faith, is very unimpressed with the latest 'scoop' to say the least.

My God, it's 1910 in 2014!

The sad thing, for me is that a modern over-reach obscures a genuine primary source breakthrough: Jan Bondeson's marvelous discovery of Guy Logan's forgotten Ripper novel from 1905.

This is the Druitt solution openly disguised for the Edwardian public.

It is one of the most important confirmatory sources ever found that Macnaghten knew the basic biographical details about his chosen suspect, passed them onto George Sims, who passed them onto Logan

The real 'Jack' is, for those readers of that bygone era, impenetrably intertwined with deflective camouflage: eg. he's middle-aged, a nobleman from Yorkshire, and a doctor--though yet to practice--who is also an Oxonian, an athlete, does not kill himself immediately after the Kelly atrocity, says he will kill himself rather than end up in a madhouse, has a family strain of suicide, and leaves word with his landlady that he has business abroad.

He is also a heterosexual, and even has an ex-girlfriend.

Interestingly Logan, a Sims crony, has the suspect seen with Eddowes and Montague Druitt, eh, Mortemer Slade, wearing a fair moustache.

And Kosminski?

He's not in it, not at all. He did not make the cut.