Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[NRTomasheski]

I'm fairly curious about this "clue" angle. On the surface it seems ridiculous: why a clue now, and not with any of the earlier crimes? I'm of the opinion that none of the taunting letters were written by the actual killer (though I would love it to be so), so the idea that JtR was playing a game of cat and mouse, of which this shawl/runner clue is one part, hasn't any basis. (I also don't believe that the fabric was ever in Mitre Square, as you know ... but leaving that aside ...)

But it smacks so much of bad fiction that it makes me curious about the case Edwards makes for it (and I'm another who won't have a chance to see the book until it's released worldwide later this month).

[eclectic browser]

Greetings from an on and off lurker.

I would propose the following as a possibility in this case:

Kozminski kills Eddowes and takes the shawl with him when he leaves the square.

At some other location, away from the crime scene, perhaps in MET territory, he masturbates, with the shawl as a sort of souvenir/ stimulant. He then wipes up and discards the shawl.

It is later picked up and kept as a souvenir by a MET PC.

Somehow Simpson ends up owning it, and the story evolves over time.

RH

But if the shawl had been discarded away from the crime scene, how would the MET PC and/or Simpson have known that it was Eddowes's?

[mickreed]

In the book, Edwards theorizes that Kosminski didn't wear the shawl, but left it as a deliberate clue. He believes this particular pattern of Michaelmas daisies wasn't an English design, but rather Russian. According to him the symbolism is supposedly representing the celebration of the Feast day of St Michael in England (Sept 29) as well as in Russia (Nov 8). He also writes that in medieval times, and up to the end of the 19th century, Michaelmas was a time for business to be concluded.

Hello Dave

I still haven't gone out.

Well, there's some slight truth in this, Debts might be settled or contracts might run from Michaelmas or Lady Day (often the old dates of those feasts even a hundred years after the change to the Gregorian calendar in 1752). It's the reason the UK financial year ends on 5 April (or did when I last lived there 20 years ago). By 1888 in London's East End it wouldn't have featured much on a day-to-day basis for ordinary people. It was more relevant in rural areas into the 20th century. See an article in Rural History Vol 1 (1990) by one Mick Reed, and called 'Gnawing it Out'.

But Michaelmas is a Christian feast. Kosminski was a Jew, and one who'd only been in England for a few years. Even in Russia it wouldn't have meant much, if anything, to him. I don't know whether there was any connection with business in Russia anyway.

So from what I gather from the book, the theory is that by leaving the shawl in Mitre Square, Kosminski is telling the police that he's collecting a debt that night, that he'll collect another on Nov 8 (which he was late for), and that his background is Eastern European.

Given what I've just written, this is hypothesis gone mad.

[QUOTE=Dave O;309157]One of the reasons he rules out Eddowes as the owner is that when they did the absorption tests, they found that the blue dye on the fabric was especially soluble in water, and came off samples pretty dramatically. Since Eddowes, tramping around outside much of the time and carrying all her belongings with her, would've been exposed to rain, it's expected that more of the blue dye would have come off had it been hers for any length of time./QUOTE]

Kate shacked up from time to time with John Kelly, and possibly elsewhere with mates or whatever, and sometimes under the arches. We don't know whether she owned the shawl, but she might have just found it, or nicked it. She might only have had it for half-an-hour. If she'd had it longer she might have left it at Kelly's and only brought it out with her when he last saw her on the Saturday.

I mean, for heaven's sake, what is the man thinking of? Could anyone come up with an argument more full of holes?

Note again. I haven't yet got the book, so if Dave is getting confused about Edwards's arguments then I may have to take this back.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Dave,

From what I can gather your surmise of Edwards' theorising is correct.

Two points. No three.

1. If Kosmhnski was trying to conclude business on 29th Sept he was a day late there too- not just 8th November. Which really has me puzzled- why didnt he kill someone in the 24 hours BEFORE midnight, 29th September? Likewise the 24 hours before midnight 8th November? Am I wrong?

2. Rain or no rain. There is no evidence EITHER owned this shawl PRE Mitre Square anyway is there? And in a recent interview Edwards calls it the 'green chintz skirt' with said pattern on. Umm so the green colour has faded away despite being out of the light for over 100 years AND the material isnt chintz. Please correct me if I have missed something?

3. Can you please explain to me how SOTHERBY'S- a world reknowned auction house with an impeccable reputation- have in their midst a person-an expert even- who apparently failed to see the difference between printed pattern and hand painted pattern? Have I got this wrong?

best wishes

Phil

[mickreed]

Hello Dave,

From what I can gather your surmise of Edwards' theorising is correct.

Two points. No three.

1. If Kosmhnski was trying to conclude business on 29th Sept he was a day late there too- not just 8th November. Which really has me puzzled- why didnt he kill someone in the 24 hours BEFORE midnight, 29th September? Likewise the 24 hours before midnight 8th November? Am I wrong?


best wishes

Phil

Moreover, why didn't he leave it with Liz Stride? Of, of course, he was disturbed.

[christoper]

Apologies is any of this is old hat - it's a big thread and I haven't read it all.

Edwards' forensic research is big news because it appears to provide an independent new piece of evidence to advance the case against a man already strongly suspected of being JtR. A problem here though is that we don't know quite know how Kosminski originally came to be a suspect. Apparently an eye witness put him in the frame but it is exceedingly unlikely that he was seen killing anyone. Presumably rather he was seen with one of the victims close to the time of her murder.

One would imagine that the police would be particularly interested in identifying any man who was known to have been a client of any of the victims. Supposing Kosminski was one of Eddowes' and came to the attention of the investigation solely for that reason. That would provide a (sort of) innocent explanation for the presence of his DNA. It wouldn't actually reinforce the case against him as it would have simply confirmed something that the police already knew, namely that Kosminski had had sex with her.

Thought two is quite different, because I think that the “shawl” is an out and out hoax.

The two things are well known about Eddowes' apparel is that her skirt was decorated with Michaelmas daisies and her apron was cut by her killer. I think that someone has acquired this shawl/table runner because of its pattern and hoped to pass it off as her apron. They have confused the two garments and thought that the apron ought to have the daisy pattern and be missing a portion.

Having eventually reread the case files, our hoaxer realises that the thing cannot in fact be passed off as her apron, but has already hacked a piece off. Not to worry – the little piece could still fetch a few quid and be nicely framed. He also realises that the remaining cloth cannot be a skirt or an apron. The only way it could possibly be worn by Eddowes is by draping it over her shoulders. So therefore it becomes a shawl.

yes--if it went to court today, any defense attorney could explain away that DNA as not meaning guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, we can't dismiss it so lightly.

This is arguably the biggest, best piece of evidence we have ever had. We have never had ANY physical evidence that linked a victim to a suspect before. And this is one of the few suspects that arguably has a good circumstantial case against him--even without the physical evidence.

Plus--going back over old threads--it seemed that the case against AK was typically ridiculed not based on any evidence but simply because people felt that in their judgment AK was so obviously crazy that a prostitute would never do business with him.

This proves that theory wrong--and shows that there is no reason to automatically exclude him from consideration--and that indeed taking everything into consideration, he is by far the most likely prospect--although of course it is not and probably never will be 100% proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[The Good Michael]

Greetings from an on and off lurker.



But if the shawl had been discarded away from the crime scene, how would the MET PC and/or Simpson have known that it was Eddowes's?

He couldn't have known. Perhaps he saw the blood on it and thought it might have something to do with the murder. His bosses weren't interested because it seemed unrelated to them as it was found in a completely different area. So Simpson took it home. His wife didn't want it, but Simpson didn't want to discard it quickly and so the the thing became known as the murder stole, and through family tradition became associated with JTR. The irony is, it is associated with JTR.

Mike

[Henry Flower]

I believe the DNA evidence is real.

But the shawl isn't.




My head hurts.

[The Good Michael]

This proves that theory wrong--and shows that there is no reason to automatically exclude him from consideration--and that indeed taking everything into consideration, he is by far the most likely prospect--although of course it is not and probably never will be 100% proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

It doesn't prove anything wrong. Kosminski, without this "shawl" is not the "by far" the most likely prospect.

Mike

[Theagenes]

I just want to reiterate an important point.

Most people here are treating these DNA tests as though the final results will be all or nothing: Either the whole thing will turn out to be a hoax and it's all nonsense or it will all be inconclusive and meaningless on the one hand -- or it will be a slamdunk and it's Eddowes blood and Kosminski's semen without a doubt, case closed, on the other. But that is greatly oversimplifying things and a mixed result may be likely.

Because based on the somewhat dubious information we have been given so far, there is a very real possibility that end result will be that the blood is likely Eddowes and the shawl legit, but the semen is not Kosminski's or least could belong to many people of which Kos is only one. That is not an unlikely result at all just based on the claims in Edwards' book so far.

So how people feel about that? If Louhelainen's report comes out and the results are that the blood splatter is almost certainly Eddowes, but the semen could belong to Kos or several thousand other people?

[Phil Carter]

[QUOTE=mickreed;309161]

"I mean, for heaven's sake, what is the man thinking of? Could anyone come up with an argument more full of holes?"

Hello Mick,

Bang on the head. It is shooting in the dark stuff.


best wishes

Phil

[mickreed]

So how people feel about that? If Louhelainen's report comes out and the results are that the blood splatter is almost certainly Eddowes, but the semen could belong to Kos or several thousand other people?

I agree with most of your post. On the bit above, I'll feel something about it, when I know what it is really is.

[John Wheat]

I just want to reiterate an important point.

Most people here are treating these DNA tests as though the final results will be all or nothing: Either the whole thing will turn out to be a hoax and it's all nonsense or it will all be inconclusive and meaningless on the one hand -- or it will be a slamdunk and it's Eddowes blood and Kosminski's semen without a doubt, case closed, on the other. But that is greatly oversimplifying things and a mixed result may be likely.

Because based on the somewhat dubious information we have been given so far, there is a very real possibility that end result will be that the blood is likely Eddowes and the shawl legit, but the semen is not Kosminski's or least could belong to many people of which Kos is only one. That is not an unlikely result at all just based on the claims in Edwards' book so far.

So how people feel about that? If Louhelainen's report comes out and the results are that the blood splatter is almost certainly Eddowes, but the semen could belong to Kos or several thousand other people?

Surely any serious author would have waited until the DNA tests actually proved Kosminski was Eddowes's killer rather than making outlandish claims on very suspect evidence?

[christoper]

Moreover, why didn't he leave it with Liz Stride? Of, of course, he was disturbed.

I don't believe he purposefully left clues.

If AK was the Ripper, my working hypothesis (just theory, not facts mind you), is that he didn't have lots of "walking around money" to lure the prostitutes. His family was hard working--and probably not happy about supporting a loafer. Providing food, shelter, and clothes for an able bodied adult is generous enough. They had children, spouses, and employes to support. I don't see any of his siblings handing him a few quid and saying--"here Jack, go find a hooker and have some fun"

And the prostitutes probably wanted to see the cash upfront--they would have tried to sort serious customers from those who weren't especially during the Ripper scare.

AK probably didn't have much cash--but his family (Lady Tailors) would have an assortment of cloth and pieces of clothing that were unclaimed, or had a small defect, or were from a remnant that could not be matched. something like that likely never would be missed--and if it was---AK probably wouldn't be the first suspect anyway (poor employees would likely be blamed if anything was noticed missing). It would be simple to take something like this--bundle it up in a little parcel (like the Ripper was spotted with) and offer it to the ladies as payment.

[Theagenes]

I agree with most of your post. On the bit above, I'll feel something about it, when I know what it is really is.

Yeah, I know what you mean. But I'm just trying to get people to stop thinking terms of such absolute extremes all the time. That truth, as usual, is probably going to be somewhere in the middle. But it seems many people can only operate in black and white absolutes instead of possibilities and likelihoods.