Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[mickreed]

And now for something completely different

Reading Macnaghten's thing again, reminds me of Druitt. There's a bloke I know in this town whose name is Druitt, and who claims to be a direct male line descendant of Montage or his brother (I'm not quite sure which).

[Jonathan H]

To Fisherman

The 1892 interview with Anderson can be interpreted quite differently.

That he was speaking generically: in the sense that Dr. Robert Anderson is explaining that they had not identified anybody as the Ripper, but that if you put all the tabloid fads to one side he must have been a blood-lusting maniac (which, by the way, was one of the fads).

It is not a fact that Anderson had given any attention to Aaron Kosminski before 1895, but rather a theory people treat as fact (it is way too reliant on his self-serving account of 1910).

The year that Swanson first says in the extant record that the fiend is likely deceased is 1895, at about the same moment a Jewish witness [reportedly] affirmed to a prime suspect, albeit a Gentile prole.

To PaulB

I do not see a question mark over whether Anderson's suspect is Aaron Kosminski.

I think he was -- with a big caveat.

The resemblance is too close according to the bits and pieces that Macnaghten writes, and communicates via proxies; a Polish-Jew, living in the heart of the kill-zone, with homicidal tendencies separate from the murders, a chronic self-abuser, out and about for a long time after the Kelly murder and still alive in the 1900's.

The tension in the sources is because Anderson knows just the fictional variant of this suspect: eg. only at large for weeks (he wasn't), off the streets by early 1889 (he wasn't), (identified by a Jewish witness (he wasn't), deceased soon after being sectioned (he wasn't) and ... a chronic masturbator (he was).

[Jonathan H]

To Mickreed

I agree, and I think it was deliberate.

It was a way of Macnaghten informing Anderson that the Ripper was safely deceased without revealing to him the Dorset solution of 1891.

Remember this pair of top cops despised each other.

Backdating Kosminski's incarceration allowed Mac to appear dispassionate and unable to take any credit for finding, or reviving, this 'prime' suspect from 1888.

[Phil Carter]

ahh!

After a little 2 minute search- I realised a connection or two between The Diary and The Shawl.

For those of curious mind it shouldn't be too hard to join the dots either.

DO have a lovely day everyone :-)




Phil

[Jonathan H]

The Face ... again!

I don't believe it!

Right on cue, new evidence appears:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/11/loch-ness-monster-lake-windermere-photo_n_5807358.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&ir=UK

Apparently she's relocated to the south, ahead of the Scottish referendum.

[GUT]

Reading Macnaghten's thing again, reminds me of Druitt. There's a bloke I know in this town whose name is Druitt, and who claims to be a direct male line descendant of Montage or his brother (I'm not quite sure which).

G'day Mick

Can I ask which town. [I presume in Aus,] probably from Lionel or Thomas, my Great Grandfather was baptised by Thomas Druitt in Sydney in the 1800's.

[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...

He WAS quiet, he DID enter and leave Mitre Square without anybody seeing him, he DID manage to cut Eddowes neck with no visible jet of blood shooting out over the ground, he DID avoid having blood ending up on the jacket or on the front of her clothes, at least not visibly so.

Of course the police could not look at the clothing in UV light, for example, and yes, forensics was a new science, but the overall impression must be that of a cautious killer.

The more typical psychotic killer would attack Eddowes violently, giving her ample time to cry out, throw her to the ground and himself on top of her and press her to the ground before cutting her neck, resulting in an almighty jet of blood shooting out over the square. Then he would rip her open violently, spattering blood in all directions, and cut her organs out. He may well have shouted insults at her all the time when moving along. Afterwards, he would get up and leave the square with blood all over him, quite possibly shouting at anybody who saw him approach.

Generalizations? Sure enough. But this is how psychotics go about things, very roughly speaking. They do not care if they are seen or not, they sometimes make it a point to BE seen, they do not care if they leave bloody footprints etcetera, and they do not care if their lips are lined with blood as they emerge from the very few murder scenes psychotics are responsible for. That´s why they are normally not succesfull serial killers.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

To Fisherman

The 1892 interview with Anderson can be interpreted quite differently.

That he was speaking generically: in the sense that Dr. Robert Anderson is explaining that they had not identified anybody as the Ripper, but that if you put all the tabloid fads to one side he must have been a blood-lusting maniac (which, by the way, was one of the fads).

It is not a fact that Anderson had given any attention to Aaron Kosminski before 1895, but rather a theory people treat as fact (it is way too reliant on his self-serving account of 1910).

The year that Swanson first says in the extant record that the fiend is likely deceased is 1895, at about the same moment a Jewish witness [reportedly] affirmed to a prime suspect, albeit a Gentile prole.

I did not mean that Anderson pointed "Kosminski" out when speaking of a maniac revelling in blood. I too think that he was giving his generalized picture of whom the killer would be at that stage, and I too think that he opted for "Kosminski" at a very late stage.

The best,
Fisherman

[mickreed]

G'day Mick

Can I ask which town. [I presume in Aus,] probably from Lionel or Thomas, my Great Grandfather was baptised by Thomas Druitt in Sydney in the 1800's.

Armidale NSW

[curious4]

Blood splatter

Hello Christopher

What I meant was that you would expect more blood on the wall from an arterial spray. It was a confined space, after all.

Best wishes
C4

[GUT]

Armidale NSW

Thanks mate, Newie!

Thomas Druitt was one of the first heads of King School, my family have had "stories" that probably relate to Montie forever. As I said Great Grandad was baptised by Thomas and his grandad [and the next 4 or 5 generations] was a clergyman in Dorset.

[PaulB]

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

"As is the norm...." That's very funny. It doesn't make sense, but it's very funny. If you care to look back you'll see that you chose to make a snide comment to a comment I made to "Monty". You were rude. I responded to your rudeness.

I have read the article. I regret to say that I suffered reading it several times. Let's see, "The DNA findings were '“inconclusive and unsafe”. He said the DNA evidence did not stand up to scrutiny.’’' You further said that the “profiles obtained could match any one of 400,000 people in 1888.” And you added, “Sotheby’s did some tests on this shawl and they believed it to be Edwardian, not Victorian”, and “as it has been handled by countless people over the years, it is likely to be cross-contaminated.”

And you described Russell Edwards’ book is a “total fantasy".

That's as about as condemnatory as you can get. Nobody is going to go out and buy Russell Edwards' book after reading that.

Especially as much of it is wrong.

Did you actually tell the Star that you hadn't read the book and knew next to nothing about the evidence being offered?

So what's left: back peddle like mad, try to make out that you are raising valid questions (a tad difficult as we've seen) and be rude to me. All your usual tactics in fact.

But all I want is for people to give a book a fair hearing.

[Amanda Sumner]

After a little 2 minute search- I realised a connection or two between The Diary and The Shawl.

For those of curious mind it shouldn't be too hard to join the dots either.

DO have a lovely day everyone :-)




Phil

Hi Phil,

Why does that not surprise me?

It seems that many posters on here are quick to dismiss historical records that strongly suggest that the shawl was never at the crime scene.
Provenance is crucial in claims such as this.
I have, as others have too, shown that Amos Simpson could not possibly have been legitimately in Mitre Sq. that night. Certainly no records state he was there.
The description and drawing of Eddowes, as she laid there, suggest that no such apparel existed.

No Amos Simpson
No shawl

Over 2,000 posts on here are totally irrelevant, I'm afraid to say. Any DNA, old or new, found on this shawl/ table runner have no bearing on the case at all.

Prove that either Amos or the shawl were anywhere in the vicinity of Mitre Sq. that night, then there might be something worth discussing.

Until that happens everything else is moot.

I'm not good at joining dots, but I am intrigued.

Amanda

[Admin]

General Information for Posters:

1. The Personal Attack policy is in place and will be enforced on this thread. Do not attack other posters. Even if they totally deserve it and even if they started it. You will receive an infraction. Just like they will, until everyone is banned and peace reigns and the Admin can go drink margaritas on a nice beach in Aruba.

2. If you cannot discuss the adult content of this case without resorting to sophomoric terminology such as wanking, jizz. boner, etc, don't post about these issues.

If your mommy never taught you the grown-up words for things, now is a good time to go and enrich your vocabulary so that you can have a mature conversation.

Dehumanizing the victims and the crimes committed against them with juvenile terminology will not be tolerated on this board.

[lynn cates]

strangulation

Hello Gwyneth.

"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)."

I wonder if perhaps the partial strangulation were responsible for that?

Cheers.
LC