Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[GUT]

G'day Mabuse

Re the writing above Koz's name I take it as rec'd [received] and a signature. How do you see it.

[GUT]

I'm a little confused [nothing new in that] I always thought that "Wolf" was Wolf Abraham, Kosminski's brother in law, but I note that his commitment papers refer to next of kin as Wolf Kozminski. Were there 2 Wolfs, otherwise which is correct?

[Mabuse]

G'day Mabuse

Re the writing above Koz's name I take it as rec'd [received] and a signature. How do you see it.

G'day.

I thought it might be a signature, but was foxed by the first word. I think you're right.

[mickreed]

Agreed about the handwriting. It certainly appears to be an addition by another person.

But why?

Agreed Mabuse, and thanks for the response. Yes I was dubious about the 1920 date, and I now know it to be wrong in that it refers to the artists' pencils you noted.

I notice that, in their books, Phillip Sugden, Paul Begg, inter alia, say the amendments are in red ink. They look like pencil in the image that Rob House posted, but I daresay they may be in red ink. Perhaps Rob could help us.

I'm not entirely convinced that they are from circa 1891. They could easily be of course, but they look later. I've forwarded the image to a friend of mine who's very experienced with old documents. Unfortunately, he left for Europe today, and if he's got any sense, he'll be leaving his university email well alone.

I'm also going to try and track down a historical handwriting forensic expert I was in touch with many years ago. All I have to do is remember her name and where she worked.

One thing that does strike me. According to the document, Aaron's first 'attack' was at age 25 which would be 1890 or so. This would fit with his condition being of six month duration. Had the amendment to six years date from 1891, it would have been logical to amend this as well. Logic of course, isn't always followed.

Since I retired, I do voluntary (and sometimes paid) work in a university and regional archive. I KNOW that in the fairly recent past (1980s and 1990s) reputable academics have annotated documents and photos with their own notions. Often in bloody biro for heaven's sake. Now where I was trained to do research, such things would get you metaphorically shot, and rightly so.

We may never know how, when, or why, these amendments were made, but it does show, to me, that we all need to be cautious about interpreting these documents.

[mickreed]

G'day Mabuse

Re the writing above Koz's name I take it as rec'd [received] and a signature. How do you see it.

It's hard. My first guess is 'Seen' and some initials, but it could be 'Rec'd' Again, with other documents to compare it too, you might be in with a shout. Another job for the LMA visit?

[mickreed]

I'm a little confused [nothing new in that] I always thought that "Wolf" was Wolf Abraham, Kosminski's brother in law, but I note that his commitment papers refer to next of kin as Wolf Kozminski. Were there 2 Wolfs, otherwise which is correct?

G'Day GUT

I'm not sure. I do know that at various times people have got themselves in a tiswas about Woolf Abrahams, the brother-in-law, being described merely as 'brother'.

Presumably they didn't know that this was standard practice in the nineteenth century.

We also need to remember that just because it's written down, it ain't necessarily so.

Could refer to Abrahams but a clerical error led to Kosminski being entered? Again, something to follow up. I daresay it already has been by Sugden, Begg, et al.

[Caligo Umbrator]

I'm afraid not Trevor, I put a picture up of the sketch, drawn by Frederick Foster as she lay in Mitre Sq, to show quite clearly that no shawl, table runner or a 8 foot wrap around skirt was at the scene.
It could not have been clearer, but it seems people want to have a long hypothetical debate about an item that was not there.

Amanda

But surely the sketch or drawing that was taken at the time was intended to show the way the body was lying and the basic details that might pertain to its initial discovery. So that the detectives who were not able to attend the scene had a valuable reference indicating the manner in which the body was found.
It should not be expected that every detail would be recorded in a preliminary sketch.
So it is possible that details pertinent to the crime scene were missed.
The sketch only focuses upon the body, not the surrounding area.
Are we to believe that because the artist did not record it that cobbles that make up the surface of the street were not present?
Or that the street itself does not and can never have existed because it does not appear fully, with enameled signs in this sketch?
Sorry, I'm not trying to be cruel but there is a limited purpose to early crime scene sketches.
So, while you and I may agree its unlikely that a shawl as has been described recently was ever present at the scene, the fact that it doesn't appear in a sketch doesn't preclude its presence.

[GUT]

G'Day GUT

I'm not sure. I do know that at various times people have got themselves in a tiswas about Woolf Abrahams, the brother-in-law, being described merely as 'brother'.

Presumably they didn't know that this was standard practice in the nineteenth century.

We also need to remember that just because it's written down, it ain't necessarily so.

Could refer to Abrahams but a clerical error led to Kosminski being entered? Again, something to follow up. I daresay it already has been by Sugden, Begg, et al.

G'day Mick

I'm aware of the Brother v Brother-in-Law, it was the Kozminski v Abrahams that made me wonder, I think it was Sugden where I got t stuck in my head that it was Abrahams.

[moonbegger]

What I find distastefull about the whole shawl business is the fact we are been told case closed it was Kosminski that's that and it so obviously not.That shawl can never be used as any form of evidence to support the claim of case closed because even if it could be dated to 1888 it can never be placed at the murder scene so to make any money out of this and money will be made no doubt of that is simply wrong and I personnelly think we need to use common sense and ask ourselves how d.n.a could have found its way onto the shawl.

Well said Moon .. I think it's his certainty in a very uncertain situation , garnished with the sensational headlines that grind folk the wrong way .. And at its very best , all we have , is possible evidence of Kate's Shawl with a trace of AK's seamen .. A well known seller of vice and a most likely buyer , rubbing shoulders in a very small and tight district .. far from an unlikely union by any stretch of the imagination .

By the same rule of thumb , every man who paid for her services and left a trace of seamen on her clothing was Jack the Ripper .

Was it just his unfortunate familiarity with prostitutes in the area that brought him under Police suspicion at the time ? And that being the case is it just these two flimsy bits of circumstantial evidence tied together that have Mr Edwards claiming he was 100% JTR ?

In all fairness to Ed & Fish , at least we know their man was there at a murder scene , alone with a freshly killed victim 100% . And although I don't buy into their theory , you cant argue with that particular fact , which for my mind is a lot stronger evidence than the unknown provenance and uncertain DNA findings surrounding the shawl at this moment in time .

moonbegger .

[mickreed]

G'day Mick

I'm aware of the Brother v Brother-in-Law, it was the Kozminski v Abrahams that made me wonder, I think it was Sugden where I got t stuck in my head that it was Abrahams.

Hello Mate,

I'm sure it refers to Woolf Abrahams, the brother-in-law married to Aaron's sister Betsey. He lived at 3 Sion Square in 1891 census which was taken only a few weeks after the asylum document was created (qv). The document, apart from the Kosminski surname, gives the address as 8 Sion Square. It could, at a pinch, be read as Lion Square except that there wasn't one.

So my guess is, two errors, one on the house number, the other on the surname.

[The Good Michael]

One thing that does strike me. According to the document, Aaron's first 'attack' was at age 25 which would be 1890 or so. This would fit with his condition being of six month duration. Had the amendment to six years date from 1891, it would have been logical to amend this as well. Logic of course, isn't always followed.

I don't remember why it was amended, but I would suggest it was just an error correction, and the red ink would have shown that nothing was hidden here, and that perhaps, the supervisor was doing his/her job by checking records.

Mike

[moonbegger]

Sorry, I'm not trying to be cruel but there is a limited purpose to early crime scene sketches.
So, while you and I may agree its unlikely that a shawl as has been described recently was ever present at the scene, the fact that it doesn't appear in a sketch doesn't preclude its presence.

Hello Caligo ,

Hanbury street & Leather apron . if it was there we would be aware

moonbegger

[GUT]

Hello Mate,

I'm sure it refers to Woolf Abrahams, the brother-in-law married to Aaron's sister Betsey. He lived at 3 Sion Square in 1891 census which was taken only a few weeks after the asylum document was created (qv). The document, apart from the Kosminski surname, gives the address as 8 Sion Square. It could, at a pinch, be read as Lion Square except that there wasn't one.

So my guess is, two errors, one on the house number, the other on the surname.

Thanks mate that's what I suspected but just couldn't get my head around it and the house number had me wondering if there was a brother as well.

Families are funny things with names.

[mickreed]

I don't remember why it was amended, but I would suggest it was just an error correction, and the red ink would have shown that nothing was hidden here, and that perhaps, the supervisor was doing his/her job by checking records.

Mike

I think, Mike, that we don't know why it was amended. Phil Sugden assumes (p. 403) that the amendments were the result of ongoing experiences of the staff, and later contact with relatives. This is a quite reasonable assumption, but it is only, on the face of it, an assumption. If it's right then, presumably, other patient files will carry similar updating amendments. If they don't then there's something else going on.

I'm absolutely not an expert on this, and without the original document, even less of one, but the main entries look to be done with a steel pen. Perfectly normal for the time.

The red bits are either in coloured pencil, or in red ink. Looks like pencil to me, but without the document I don't know. If it's red ink, then it doesn't look as though it's done by a steel pen. Much more like a stub pen. These were around at this time, but pretty uncommon. They became much more common into the 20th century.

Must go to the Old Dart and check out the LMA.

[mickreed]

Families are funny things with names.

****, yeah.