Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Tom_Wescott]

Eddowes Shawl, not Simpson Shawl, or Ripper Shawl

There's too much goal post moving. The only history this shawl have is family lore. That lore puts the shawl in Mitre Square and has it belonging to Eddowes. Because this is inconvenient for the Kozminski theorists, they are first moving possession of the shawl from Eddowes to Kozminski. And I understand there is now forming a movement to take the shawl from the factually problematic Mitre Square and to put it somewhere else where it would be easier to place Simpson on the scene. Is this correct? If such a movement isn't underway, it will be. It has to be.

But if they want to fight fair, they have to keep their tender shred of folk lore intact. The shawl must remain Eddowes' and it must have been found by Simpson in Mitre Square.

I'm a bit annoyed that for 20 years it's been called the 'Eddowes Shawl' and is now being referred to - even by non-believers - as the 'Simpson Shawl' or 'Ripper shawl'. Why? Because a new writer no one had heard of before decided to rechristen it? Sorry, it's still the Eddowes shawl to me, although a more appropriate name would be That 80s Shawl, since that's when it first entered the historical record.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[pinkmoon]

Hello Boris.

"As for Kosminski . . . it seems to me he's still as viable as any other named suspect."

Funny, but I don't disagree with this.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,like I said before if Kosminski was that good a suspect why did sir Melville choose Druitt over him .

[lynn cates]

trophy

Hello Rocky.

"What do y'all think the ripper did with the rings he took as trophies?"

Trophies? Why call them trophies?

My lad took worthless studs, costume jewelry, etc. and saved them in a piece of paper. Thought he was wealthy.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

sense

Hello Tom. For the last time, will you stop making sense? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

exonerate

Hello Jason. Thanks.

Perhaps even more germane is the question, Why did he "exonerate" him?

Cheers.
LC

[Prosector]

Occasional lurker, first post:



Even if we accept your 400,000 number, then by my calculation in a world of about 1.6 billion (1900 pop. estimate), and in a city of 6 million (London pop, taken from upthread) there would be 1,500 Londoners with that MtDNA.

1) Let's say Eddowes was 1 of 1,500 Londoners to share that MtDNA. Of those 1,500, how many would have reason to have an arterial blood splatter on a piece of fabric? She would presumably be the No. 1 choice. Hopefully, she would be the only choice.

2) Suppose Kozminski is one of 1,500 Londoners with that MtDNA. It's male DNA, so that knocks it down to 750. How many of those 750 would be expected to live at the center of the crime spree? How many were a suspect of the police at the time? How many were possibly identified by a witness?

In isolation, the physics/math are not 100 percent certain. But when you look at the totality and start to apply Occam's Razor, it's really intriguing evidence.

Other posters are obviously welcome to correct my science/math/reason.

I don't follow that at all. Since there's no direct evidence to place this piece of material at the crime site then blood on it (if that's what it is) could have come from any of the 1,500 (if your calculation is correct) other Londoners, or more if you include surrounding counties. Also, although the mtDNA may have come from a man it cannot be described as male DNA. mtDNA is passed down the female line but it is sexless as it is not carried on an X or Y chromosome.
Prosector

[pinkmoon]

Hello Jason. Thanks.

Perhaps even more germane is the question, Why did he "exonerate" him?

Cheers.
LC

I think if the story of the fellow Jew refusing to identify him in case Kosminski was hung was true then that statement in it self points to Kosminski been the killer.

[Bridewell]

I think if the story of the fellow Jew? refusing to identify him in case Kosminski was hung was true then that statement in it self points to Kosminski been the killer.

If forty percent of the population was Jewish, why does this point specifically to Kosminski? Anderson doesn't name his suspect - or his witness for that matter.

[Harry D]

Furthermore, who was the witness and "only man who ever got a good look" at the Ripper? It couldn't have been Lawende. For one he stated that he wouldn't be able to identify the man he saw with Eddowes that night, and secondly he was used to identify James Sadler after the murder of Frances Cole, so they wouldn't have called upon him again if he had already identified the Ripper and refused to testify.

Of course, it wasn't only Lawende who caught sight of the Ripper that night.

[lynn cates]

story

Hello Jason. Thanks.

Regarding the ID, if we ever get to the bottom of the Wirtkofsky/Loenheim story, we'll put that seaside business to bed. It contains many of the same elements.

Cheers.
LC

[robhouse]

But if they want to fight fair, they have to keep their tender shred of folk lore intact. The shawl must remain Eddowes' and it must have been found by Simpson in Mitre Square.

Is this a joke, or are you being serious?

RH

[mickreed]

Do any of us know what we're talking about?

There's a lot of discussion in this forum about DNA in the case, including from me. I haven't read this yet (only having just found it) but it looks a fairly accessible (and apparently peer-reviewed) piece that could enhance all our knowledge of the general principles.

Linacre and Templeton, 'Forensic DNA profiling: state of the art' in Research and Reports in Forensic Medical Science, 28 August 2014

http://www.dovepress.com/getfile.php?fileID=21387

I shall read it properly tonight. Anyone else?

[christoper]

Thanks Semper

Actually its my partner getting rather fed up with me spending to much tie on the boards..

So taking a step back.. But thanks for your comments

Yours Jeff

Jeff, I don't want you to get in trouble with your partner--but I hope you can still come around even if it is less often.

[Phil Carter]

G'day Phil

But other than those trifling matters, there's not much left to do!

Hello GUT-

LOL :-) Just as a comparison- the Swanson Marginalia has just as many of the same trifling matters-likewise the McNagthen Memorand and Aberconway versions- all three plagued with factual errors- like this skirtgate/shawlgate rubbish.

Is it any wonder some see doubt in things?


best wishes

Phil

[mickreed]

Is this a joke, or are you being serious?

RH

Hi Rob

I thought Tom's wording wasn't very clear here, but I take his point. Unsupported 'family lore' places the shawl in Mitre Square and belonging to Eddowes, although even if the Mitre Square bit was true, ownership of it could never have been proven unless she was wearing it perhaps, since poor Kate was dead.

The 'lore' bit is just that - LORE with zero real evidence. So, from there, the author moves to a position, whereby the shawl belonged to Kosminski. There's not even 'family lore' to back this up, just a use of guesses (educated or otherwise) to back up a case that is nothing other than speculation itself.

The DNA case is not much more than a hypothesis itself until we have Jari's peer-reviewed article, rather than just Edwards's presentation, garbled press reports, and even Jari's fascinating but restrained radio interview. Then we may have something to discuss.