Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Trevor Marriott]

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 …?

You are right, and Anderson didn't write his fairy story until 1910.

If you go back to the beginning with the name Kosminski being mentioned there is nothing that corroborates the fact that Aaron Kosminski was the Kosminski mentioned in The MM and The SM and both of those documents are highly contentious in many ways.

[PaulB]

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

I am pleased but frankly surprised that you know what "peer review" means because the hope that Dr. L would publish in a journal so that his work could be subjected to peer review has been fully and widely discussed for the past week, as have Dr L's qualifications and publication list. I therefore wondered why you would write: "Another question which hasn't been addressed or perhaps even considered is the level of expertise of these experts."

Why write that when it has been considered and addressed?

"...their results and methods need to be scrutinized by leading experts in both fields who may confirm their results of negate them."

Well, yes, that's what peer review is. It's been much discussed. So why say it is needed when we all know it's needed?

Don't you even read the posts here and elsewhere?

"Total fantasy"...

[Trevor Marriott]

Interesting.

Lost for words, unlike you !

[christoper]

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 hereīs 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 Kosminskiīs 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 peopleīs dogs for them in 1889.

The best,
Fisherman

Only minimal work has been done on the DNA from the seminal fluid. It could very well be a match for Cohen not AK when it is all said and done.

that would be a kick in the crotch to Edwards--after all--his book is "Naming...." LOL if he got the name wrong

[mickreed]

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

Oh, for heaven's sake, Trevor!

[PaulB]

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.

I agree with you, but what would constitute "proof"? I mean, Aaron was male, Jewish, he lived in the heart of the district, and he was noted for masturbation, as was Anderson's suspect and as is stated in the Macnaghten memorandum. And he was in an asylum. On top of which, he was the only "Kosminski" that Martin could find in the asylum records. Identification of historical individuals has been accepted on far less.

I would have concerns that Martin Fido may have missed a "Kosminski" or that a "Kosminski" was missed by one of the people who checked the records for him. I am also not sure if anyone has duplicated the onerus work Martin undertook and confirmed his findings. [/QUOTE]

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 …?

And if you don't put Aaron Kosminski in the frame, which Kosminski do you put in the frame? Being put in the frame isn't saying that Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper. It's simply seeing if he fits the information we have and which emerges with further research.

[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

Itīs Christer, actually - not Jon.

The confusion I am experiencing is due to the fact that the man that Anderson claimed was a maniac, revelling in blood, was in fact nothing like that at all in 1888, if the ones who propose Kosminski as the killer are correct. He was instead a lucid man, walking peopleīs dogs for them, probably chatting away on the streetcorners, arguably eating his supper with Woolf or whomever of his relatives he lived with, and not eating out of the gutter, guesswise he would have kept himself reasonably clean and so on.

It was only when he could not keep up this kind of life, instead sinking down into a permanent lunacy, displayed in hearing voices, refusing to wash, eating out of the gutter, that his relatives gave up on him and handed him over to a life in the asylums.

Before that, he was normally coherent, clean and kosher.

But! He has these psychotic seizures that grab him every now and then, when he looses contact with reality and turns into the homicidal maniac described by MacNaghten.
And when this happens, he takes to the streets early in the mornings, seeks out women and kills them. However, in spite of him being in a parallel universe as this goes on, deeply descended into a psychosis, his wits when it comes to obscuring what he does never leaves him. He is stealthy, quiet, mindful not to leave any clues, he leaves the murder sites just in time to stay free, he avoids getting blood on himself by tilting the victims when cutting their necks. In short, he takes care of all the little details that psychotic killers couldnīt care less about.

The suggestion that Jack the Ripper killed under psychotic attacks is to me a very clear no-no. Therefore, Aaron Kosminski has never done the trick for me. Nor has the Fido understudy Cohen done it. So if Anderson was referring to either gentleman, he would - if you ask me - be totally wrong.

No matter which of the two we imagine by Catherine Eddowesīside in Mitre Square that morning, cutting away at her, I donīt see how they would have avoided having the jacket and the front of her clothes smeared, splashed and dotted with blood.

The man who killed Eddowes managed to do it in complete silence. He did not produce a jet of blood that shot out over the ground. He furthermore apparently did NOT chop away in a frenzy at her, since that WOULD have been set of in blood spatter on the jacket and the front of the clothes. Instead, he apparently cut her open in a practical and gore-saving manner if you like, and then he excised the kidney and the uterus without one single drop of blood ending up on her jacket or the front of her clothes.

That has me thinking that the killer was meticulous, careful and conscientious about what he did.

Psychotic killers are not meticulous, careful and conscientious about what they do.

The only piece of clothing evidence that speaks of a stabbing and slashing mode when using the knife is actually the shawl, for on that one, there is the kind of blood spatter that we would have expected to see, when we look at how Catherine Eddowes ended up.

The rest of her clothing tells another story altogether. On those, there is no blood spatter. Not even on the front of the "white calico chemise" she wore - the garment we are probably looking at in Fosters drawing, being situated over the horrific gash in the abdomen.

We also have the fact that he cut away part of Eddowes apron, and the better guess is that he did so after the cutting session. If this was so, then it means that he would have felt at ease to do that rag-cutting after having finished with Eddowes, something that in itīs turn implies that he did not feel stressed for time.

Taken together with the clean clothes, the silence and the appearing and disappearing acts, this speaks to me of a practically oriented man, and not at all of a psychotic person.

The best,
Fisherman

[PaulB]

Oh, for heaven's sake, Trevor!

Very succinctly put.

[PaulB]

Lost for words, unlike you !

At least my words are my words.

And at least I don't condemn books I haven't read.

To the national press.

[curious4]

Arterial spray

Just wondering how much (if any) arterial spray there was in the murders. Reading the inquest on Annie Chapman (the place where it would be easiest to see this, small enclosed space) I can't see that there is evidence that there is any. Six spots of blood varying in size, the largest the size of a sixpence on the wall and some smears. Death due to severing of the carotid artery (not the jugular, which would spurt).

How much would the scarf round the neck prevent any spurting? Or would it? I am not sure there would be any (victim lying down unconscious). Asked (somewhere) whether the murderer would be splattered with blood, the doctor said no, so if there was arterial spray, surely it would have been on the wall?

Some of the thoughts which occur to C4 on this bright, sunny morning.

[mickreed]

Some of the thoughts which occur to C4 on this bright, sunny morning.

I had similar thoughts a couple of days back. It's one way to make sure you don't sleep at night.

[Trevor Marriott]

At least my words are my words.

And at least I don't condemn books I haven't read.

To the national press.

As is the norm. You open your mouth before engaging your brain in yet another desperate attempt to hurl personal insults in my direction.

read the article again know where have I condemned the book if that's your interpretation of the article then its as much use as your interpretation of much of the evidence in this ripper case which you seem to have trouble also assessing and evaluating.

You are not worth the trouble of even replying to

[christoper]

Just wondering how much (if any) arterial spray there was in the murders. Reading the inquest on Annie Chapman (the place where it would be easiest to see this, small enclosed space) I can't see that there is evidence that there is any. Six spots of blood varying in size, the largest the size of a sixpence on the wall and some smears. Death due to severing of the carotid artery (not the jugular, which would spurt).

How much would the scarf round the neck prevent any spurting? Or would it? I am not sure there would be any (victim lying down unconscious). Asked (somewhere) whether the murderer would be splattered with blood, the doctor said no, so if there was arterial spray, surely it would have been on the wall?

Some of the thoughts which occur to C4 on this bright, sunny morning.

I'm not an expert--but I don't think you need a great deal of blood for the kind of analysis that has been mentioned.

In the OJ trial--they looked at some droplets that were barely visible to the naked eye and could infer what direction OJ was moving in--how fast he was moving etc.

Each drop that hit that cloth will have a particular shape--and an amount of tailing to the spot--experts can look at this and determine quite a lot. The only thing specifically said that I remember is that the drops indicate at least medium velocity impact- as expected if they came from a stabbing.

If I cut my finger and wrapped it up in a cloth--a blood expert would be able to tell that the blood dripped at slow velocity onto the cloth and was likely from a cut.

Forensics is amazing nowadays.

[curious4]

I had similar thoughts a couple of days back. It's one way to make sure you don't sleep at night.

Haha - only too true!

C4

[christoper]

Itīs Christer, actually - not Jon.

The confusion I am experiencing is due to the fact that the man that Anderson claimed was a maniac, revelling in blood, was in fact nothing like that at all in 1888, if the ones who propose Kosminski as the killer are correct. He was instead a lucid man, walking peopleīs dogs for them, probably chatting away on the streetcorners, arguably eating his supper with Woolf or whomever of his relatives he lived with, and not eating out of the gutter, guesswise he would have kept himself reasonably clean and so on.

It was only when he could not keep up this kind of life, instead sinking down into a permanent lunacy, displayed in hearing voices, refusing to wash, eating out of the gutter, that his relatives gave up on him and handed him over to a life in the asylums.

Before that, he was normally coherent, clean and kosher.

But! He has these psychotic seizures that grab him every now and then, when he looses contact with reality and turns into the homicidal maniac described by MacNaghten.
And when this happens, he takes to the streets early in the mornings, seeks out women and kills them. However, in spite of him being in a parallel universe as this goes on, deeply descended into a psychosis, his wits when it comes to obscuring what he does never leaves him. He is stealthy, quiet, mindful not to leave any clues, he leaves the murder sites just in time to stay free, he avoids getting blood on himself by tilting the victims when cutting their necks. In short, he takes care of all the little details that psychotic killers couldnīt care less about.

The suggestion that Jack the Ripper killed under psychotic attacks is to me a very clear no-no. Therefore, Aaron Kosminski has never done the trick for me. Nor has the Fido understudy Cohen done it. So if Anderson was referring to either gentleman, he would - if you ask me - be totally wrong.

No matter which of the two we imagine by Catherine Eddowesīside in Mitre Square that morning, cutting away at her, I donīt see how they would have avoided having the jacket and the front of her clothes smeared, splashed and dotted with blood.

The man who killed Eddowes managed to do it in complete silence. He did not produce a jet of blood that shot out over the ground. He furthermore apparently did NOT chop away in a frenzy at her, since that WOULD have been set of in blood spatter on the jacket and the front of the clothes. Instead, he apparently cut her open in a practical and gore-saving manner if you like, and then he excised the kidney and the uterus without one single drop of blood ending up on her jacket or the front of her clothes.

That has me thinking that the killer was meticulous, careful and conscientious about what he did.

Psychotic killers are not meticulous, careful and conscientious about what they do.

The only piece of clothing evidence that speaks of a stabbing and slashing mode when using the knife is actually the shawl, for on that one, there is the kind of blood spatter that we would have expected to see, when we look at how Catherine Eddowes ended up.

The rest of her clothing tells another story altogether. On those, there is no blood spatter. Not even on the front of the "white calico chemise" she wore - the garment we are probably looking at in Fosters drawing, being situated over the horrific gash in the abdomen.

We also have the fact that he cut away part of Eddowes apron, and the better guess is that he did so after the cutting session. If this was so, then it means that he would have felt at ease to do that rag-cutting after having finished with Eddowes, something that in itīs turn implies that he did not feel stressed for time.

Taken together with the clean clothes, the silence and the appearing and disappearing acts, this speaks to me of a practically oriented man, and not at all of a psychotic person.

The best,
Fisherman

maybe he was meticulous, careful and conscientious, maybe he wasn't and left clues all over the place--but forensic science barely existed--so he got lucky...