Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[GUT]

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.

I'm still thinking about this, but first instinct was that the "Red" was added in 1897 or thereabouts. That accounts for the difference in pens, on which I agree with Mick about the nibs, and the 6mths to 6 years [i.e. it was done 5 or so years later].

[mickreed]

I'm still thinking about this, but first instinct was that the "Red" was added in 1897 or thereabouts. That accounts for the difference in pens, on which I agree with Mick about the nibs, and the 6mths to 6 years [i.e. it was done 5 or so years later].

Except that AK was in Leavesden from 1894 and not in Colney Hatch.

It's possible I suppose, that documents were brought together for patient review purposes and amended. I've really no idea.

[Chris]

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.

Woolf Abrahams was at one time thought to have been Aaron's brother-in-law, but is now known to have been his brother. Both his brothers adopted the surname Abrahams in England.

Part of the confusion arose from the fact that Woolf's wife Betsy was also a Kozminski (probably a cousin). We do have their marriage record from Poland, which identifies their parents, so there's no doubt about this.

[GUT]

Woolf Abrahams was at one time thought to have been Aaron's brother-in-law, but is now known to have been his brother. Both his brothers adopted the surname Abrahams in England.

Part of the confusion arose from the fact that Woolf's wife Betsy was also a Kozminski (probably a cousin). We do have their marriage record from Poland, which identifies their parents, so there's no doubt about this.

Thank Chris.

And I love these cousins who marry, in my own family tree I have three generations who each married girls with the same maiden surname.

[mickreed]

Woolf Abrahams was at one time thought to have been Aaron's brother-in-law, but is now known to have been his brother. Both his brothers adopted the surname Abrahams in England.

Part of the confusion arose from the fact that Woolf's wife Betsy was also a Kozminski (probably a cousin). We do have their marriage record from Poland, which identifies their parents, so there's no doubt about this.

Thanks Chris. I recall reading something about this, now. Must check.

[lynn cates]

I am Jack.

Hello Michael.

"What I'm getting from that is that, sure Kosminski was a match. But maybe we all are."

My impression as well.

Cheers.
LC

[curious4]

Shame

Almost afraid to stick my head up above the parapet after my last disastrous post. What was I thinking?! Note to self - do not post when suffering from a feverish cold! The scary thing is that I thought it made perfect sense at the time!

Anyway, what has occured to me is that the object (whatever it is called) must have been very pawnable and any dna could have come from Kate fingering it on a visit to the pawnshop.

Still feverish but hoping I make a little sense this time.

C4

[lynn cates]

straight

Hello Mick.

"Now where I was trained to do research, such things would get you metaphorically shot, and rightly so."

I'll say. If I make a miscue on student work, I ALWAYS initial it to preclude later difficulties. Only way to keep the record straight.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Tom
There is a big difference between a publisher pressuring a Ripper writer to be more definitive than they perhaps otherwise might be, and lying.
I did not say publishers make authors lie. But as I did say, having the discipline of working under an editor can make a work more credible and less self indulgent.

You specifically fairly explicitly accused Russell Edwards of lying without specifying what he was lying about. From what you have now said I guess you mean he lied by claiming that the case was solved.
In my opinion this is his genuine belief, so in the case of Russell Edwards I don’t think the publisher had any need to egg him on.
I made the point that one way or another this was no big deal as publishers often – as already said – encourage authors to be more definitive than they perhaps otherwise would be. Suspect books 'always' make the same claim. Big deal.
Take ‘The Lodger’, co-authored by Stewart Evans.
Was lying? Is he a liar?
From the dust jacket:
‘Jack the Ripper was an American, who escaped police custody’.
I have regularly seen people describe this as the best suspect book ever.
I have seen Stewart Evans explain that he was pressured into being more definitive than he otherwise would have been by his publisher – back in 1995. It is not a new phenomenon.

On a more general note, if books tended to be independently published then yes – high street bookshops would go out of business as the whole supply chain would break down. Bookselling would become an on line phenomenon and inevitably book buying would massively diminish with all sorts of consequences for literacy standards. So while I agree that in niche markets self-publishing is a good means to get ones work out there and that modern technology facilitates this, physical publishing by big publishers will hopefully remain a major part of the book industry.
If you have a book that has an appeal to potentially millions of readers, then self-publication is not an option. You need a mainstream publisher that has the infrastructure to handle that in terms of production and distribution – and translation if necessary.

The only reason I singled you out was that I saw you specifically claim he was lying, and you were generally moaning about him while at the same time cheerfully bumping up your own book to get extra sales on the back of his success.
The Jews are the men who have a word for this – Chutzpah.

[HelenaWojtczak]

This thread is approaching a quarter of a million views.

Sales of my Chapman book have taken a sudden upsurge.

Thank you Mr Edwards for putting JTR back in the public consciousness!

Helena

[HelenaWojtczak]

Chris, quoting Jari, wrote:

But my DNA work actually gives strong suggestion at this point and it needs to be verified.

I just listened to it and what he said was,

"But my DNA work actually JUST gives [a] strong suggestion at this point and it needs to be verified."

The addition of the word 'just' is only a very subtle difference, but one in which he seems to be cautioning us against reading too much into his DNA work.

Listening to it three times, I think Jari is subtly trying to tell us that he is not altogether happy with the use Russell has made of his DNA work, but feels inhibited to say this blatantly.

Anyone else feel this?

Helena

[mickreed]

Chris, quoting Jari, wrote:

But my DNA work actually gives strong suggestion at this point and it needs to be verified.

I just listened to it and what he said was,

"But my DNA work actually JUST gives [a] strong suggestion at this point and it needs to be verified."

The addition of the word 'just' is only a very subtle difference, but one in which he seems to be cautioning us against reading too much into his DNA work.

Listening to it three times, I think Jari is subtly trying to tell us that he is not altogether happy with the use Russell has made of his DNA work, but feels inhibited to say this blatantly.

Anyone else feel this?

Helena

As they say over here, Helen. Bloody oath!

Like your book BTW

[GUT]

As they say over here, Helen. Bloody oath!

Like your book BTW

I actually said crikey!

[Chris]

Chris, quoting Jari, wrote:

But my DNA work actually gives strong suggestion at this point and it needs to be verified.

I just listened to it and what he said was,

"But my DNA work actually JUST gives [a] strong suggestion at this point and it needs to be verified."

Helena

Thanks for that correction. I just listened again, and you're quite right - "just gives strong suggestion". Obviously, he is contrasting that with Russell Edwards's "hundred per cent and conclusively".

[Mabuse]

Listening to it three times, I think Jari is subtly trying to tell us that he is not altogether happy with the use Russell has made of his DNA work, but feels inhibited to say this blatantly.

Anyone else feel this?

Helena

Yes.

Dr. Louhelainen was clearly being far more cautious about the DNA results than any of the publicity material would indicate.

He also shows an unfamiliarity with the subject itself, and the history of the shawl, in regards to his comments about contamination.

If he knew how much it has been handled over the years - and put on the floor of the Crime Museum at least once (!) - he would probably be a lot more circumspect about the results.