Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[mickreed]

Let's assume the shawl/table runner/pot plant holder was at the murder scene, but it was left on the ground by Eddowes or Kosminski, to the side of the act, before the murder began . The item was splashed from a distance and either collected again by Kosminski, assuming it was his bait and trophy item to relive the acts again in private. He then dropped the item in his rush to leave the scene.

Then why didn't the police note it. Inspector Collard, at the inquest noted that:

in my presence Sergeant Jones picked up from the foot way by the left side of the deceased three small black buttons, such as are generally used for boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, and a small penny mustard tin containing two pawn-tickets. They were handed to me.

A thimble and a small button, but no 8-foot shawl.

[mickreed]

Hi Robert,


However, that said, I have seen censuses with official ranks noted, this mix, to me, means what is written in a census should not be taken as gospel.

Monty

So true Monty.

People often don't know how the census documents we use (prior to 1911) were created.

The enumerator dropped a form off at your house. You filled it in (on a good day and if you could read/write).

The enumerator comes back and:

1. Collects the form or

2. Fills it for you if you haven't. What he writes down depends on what you tell him, or he thinks you've told him.

Then he goes home and copies the forms into his book. Plenty of room for transcription errors there - could he read your writing? Was he on the juice at the time? Did he just make a mistake like we all do sometimes?

The original forms were destroyed (prior to 1911) and what we have are the transcripts from those forms.

Census forms need to be treated with the same scepticism as any other historical document.

[John G]

Hi Mick,

Yes I agree that the evidence against Kosminski is far from conclusive. Nonetheless I still feel that if only 7200 Londoners shared his haplogroup this narrows down the number of possibles, as regards sources of the genetic material, significantly, particularly as the vast majority of these individuals could easily be eliminated as possible suspects on the grounds of age, gender or infirmity. Of course, that's supposing that Eddowes' genetic material is also on the shawl and that the DNA deposits date from 1888!

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I'm astonished that Russell Edwards bothered with Dr. Jari Louhelainen and his facilities at Liverpool John Moores University when it's obvious that so many more DNA experts are freely available on Casebook.

Regards,

Simon

[mickreed]

Hello Stewart,


But if so I personally am quite astounded that two representations from two aucton houses- one being THE most famous in the world- missed the fact that apparently the pattern was NOT printed- but painted on.


Phil

I read somewhere that Sothebys' examination was based only on photos of the shawl. I've no idea whether that's right.

Anyone?

[Chris]

Mick, you seem to be following this pretty closely so perhaps you have heard whether any DNA of unknown origin was extracted from the "whatever" piece of cloth. It logically seems that over the years, others should have left some DNA imprint upon the cloth.

It's possible, because of 6 segments of mtDNA from the area of the "blood" stains which were successfully sequenced, 1 matched Karen Miller and none of the control samples and 2 others showed contamination from DNA which matched one of the control samples. It's not clear from the description in the book whether the other 3 segments matched Karen Miller plus at least one control, or none of Karen Miller and the controls.

The controls were people who had handled the "shawl" in the previous year.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I rest my case.

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

I read somewhere that Sothebys' examination was based only on photos of the shawl. I've no idea whether that's right.

The book says Russell Edwards sent photographs to Christie's and Sotheby's. But I think the Sotheby's examination that indicated an early 20th-century date was a previous one.

[wolfie1]

Hello Wolfie.

"Let's assume the shawl/table runner/pot plant holder was at the murder scene, but it was left on the ground by Eddowes or Kosminski, to the side of the act, before the murder began."

OK. I can do that.

"The item was splashed from a distance and either collected again by Kosminski, assuming it was his bait and trophy item to relive the acts again in private. He then dropped the item in his rush to leave the scene."

Where would he drop it? If it's close, it should be on the inventory; if far, how would Simpson link it to Kate?

Yes please, can we have a moderated Q and A on another thread, published facts only.


Cheers.
LC

Hi Lyn,

Now you are making way too much sense... a reminder to self, do not post before consumption of morning coffee

[Phil Carter]

A thimble and a small button, but no 8-foot shawl.

Hello Mick,

Because Eddowes' shawl wasnt at the murder scene but (acbording to Edwards WAS on the cart carrying Eddowes on the way to the mortuary, where on route (according to Edwards it metamorphasised into Eddowes green chintz skirt) then )underwent another metamorphic transformation into (according to Edwards) Kosminski's shawl, not Eddowes' skirt....which became magically Eddowe7 skirt which magically re-appeared AT the mortuary ON the body of Eddowes and is listed by Collard- an Inspector outranking Simpson anyway.

See Mick? All totally straight forward and above board is this story. Now why on Earth should anybody doubt something so obvious?

lol- what a load of old shoemakers.
Read the book? Read the book? (quote Mr Edwards and various others....) Thank you but no thank you Mr Edwards and all connected to his publisher and publishing company.... I shall not waste a penny of my money reading the words of a man that thinks I will be duped into buying it. It clearly has the essence and qualily of Jack the Ripper lip balm, Jack the Ripper goggles.

Like Stewart Fvans, I will not be buying it. The publishers of rubbish fooled me once before with a Diary. Once bitten and all that

best wishes

Phil

[GUT]

G'day Phil

Because Eddowes' shawl wasnt at the murder scene but (acbording to Edwards WAS on the cart carrying Eddowes on the way to the mortuary, where on route (according to Edwards it metamorphasised into Eddowes green chintz skirt) then )underwent another metamorphic transformation into (according to Edwards) Kosminski's shawl, not Eddowes' skirt....which became magically Eddowe7 skirt which magically re-appeared AT the mortuary ON the body of Eddowes and is listed by Collard- an Inspector outranking Simpson anyway.

And then he's allowed to take it home to wifey!

All makes perfect sense to me.

[Phil Carter]

Hi All,

I rest my case.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

A cynic would think that you dont believe in amateur DNA experts, lol


best wishes

Phil

[mickreed]

Hello Mick,

Because Eddowes' shawl wasnt at the murder scene but (acbording to Edwards WAS on the cart carrying Eddowes on the way to the mortuary, where on route (according to Edwards it metamorphasised into Eddowes green chintz skirt) then )underwent another metamorphic transformation into (according to Edwards) Kosminski's shawl, not Eddowes' skirt....which became magically Eddowe7 skirt which magically re-appeared AT the mortuary ON the body of Eddowes and is listed by Collard- an Inspector outranking Simpson anyway.

See Mick? All totally straight forward and above board is this story. Now why on Earth should anybody doubt something so obvious?

The publishers of rubbish fooled me once before with a Diary. Once bitten and all that

best wishes

Phil

Stuff me Phil, if I'd had your incisive logic, I'd have really gone a long way. As it is I only came to Australia - where -praise the Lord - I found the diary in an op shop for 50 cents. I paid way too much for it.

[Toofew]

It's possible, because of 6 segments of mtDNA from the area of the "blood" stains which were successfully sequenced, 1 matched Karen Miller and none of the control samples and 2 others showed contamination from DNA which matched one of the control samples. It's not clear from the description in the book whether the other 3 segments matched Karen Miller plus at least one control, or none of Karen Miller and the controls.

The controls were people who had handled the "shawl" in the previous year.

Thank you Chris and Mick!

Logically, there is DNA of unknown origin on that piece of cloth simply based upon the years it has existed; whether Victorian or later. I hate researchers (Edwards) who have a preconceived agenda and slant all research and evidence to that agenda.

One other question. I've seen various numbers on the possible matches to Kosminski mDNA from very high numbers to more reasonable numbers. Are there any numbers as far as the likelihood of Kate's mDNA being matched with others?

Chris, did you find Kosminkski in the 1891 census?

Thanks,

Billy

[mickreed]

Hello Simon,

A cynic would think that you dont believe in amateur DNA experts, lol


best wishes

Phil

How does Simon know we are all amateur DNA experts