Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Limehouse]

G'day Limehouse

As I understand Mr Edwards' scenario, because the shawl was a "clue".

But the poor old Kosminski kills MJK a day late [Mr Edwards doesn't mention that though].

Makes about as much sense as anything else he says so far.

Hmm. Is he making up as he goes along?!!

[GUT]

It shall be interesting to know if there was any Simpson Mt DNA found upon the 'shawl'.

If no, why?, considering the family claims.

If so, accepting logical conclusion, however, we have two contemporary suspects, and the case remains open.

Also be interesting to learn if any of the other victims DNA has been sought, and likewise, any other suspects.

Mr Edwards conclusions are premature.

Monty

G'day Monty

Not sure we will ever know the answer to these questions.

One would expect Simpson DNA since it appears without question that Simpson's descendents owned it at one point in time.

The other suspects is, to me, the big question.

If not why did he pick Kosminski to test for?

[Dr. John Watson]

I'm sorry, I haven't read all the posts on this thread, but I did read the Daily Mail article. Putting aside the "scientific" stuff, can someone with a better memory (hopefully some of the veteran members of this board) answer these questions for me:

1. Is there any definitive evidence connecting the so-called shawl with Catherine Eddowes, or any other Ripper victim? (Definitive meaning proven)

2. Is there any definitive evidence showing that either of the subjects who submitted DNA samples for comparison were related by blood to either Eddowes or Kosminski? (Definitive meaning proven)

3. Is there any definitive evidence showing that Aaron Kosminski ever sexually assaulted anyone, or ever attacked anyone (male or female) with a knife or any other weapon? (The isolated incident with his sister was a threat)

4. Is there any definitive evidence that the Ripper sexually assaulted any of his victims, either before or after killing them?

I'm not looking for detailed answers, just Y or N will suffice.

Dr. John

Since no one has responded to my queries, I'll rely on my own memory and experience and state that the answer to all of the questions is "NO." That alone should properly assign the author's claims to the bulging "conjecture" files. As for genealogical records affirming a DNA submitter's relationship with Eddowes, I'd question the validity of any second-hand records including family bibles, letters, etc. Public documents (birth, marriage, death) are reliable if generated at the time of the event, but the individual(s) named in the document must still be linked to the individual claiming a relationship.

John

[The Good Michael]

Legal question: If this was submitted as fact, re: the DNA match, but there was no peer review/corroborative work completed to at least give it plausibility, why is not fraud? wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain It is deception in my mind as a scientist in the field would know about cross-contamination, about provenance, and about seeking corroboration.

Mike

[Gene Lewis]

Kate Eddowes, mobile shop…

Hello all
maybe this has been already discussed, but we remember Kate described by the police as a sort of "mobile shop", with a long list of possessions and clothes.
(see below) But where is the bloody shawl ? And I always believed the killer used an apron to clean his hands and knife ?

• Black straw bonnet
• Black cloth jacket
• Dark green skirt
• Man's white vest
• Brown linsey bodice
• Grey petticoat
• Green alpaca skirt
• Blue skirt with red flounces
• White chemise
• No drawers or stays
• men's lace up boots
• 1 piece of red gauze silk worn as a neckerchief
• 1 large white pocket handkerchief
• 1 large white cotton handkerchief with red and white bird's eye border
• 2 unbleached calico pockets
• 1 blue stripe bed ticking pocket
• Brown ribbed knee stockin

[Monty]

G'day Monty

Not sure we will ever know the answer to these questions.

One would expect Simpson DNA since it appears without question that Simpson's descendents owned it at one point in time.

The other suspects is, to me, the big question.

If not why did he pick Kosminski to test for?

I agree, but we cannot condem Kosminski and exclude Simpson solely on DNA alone.

Monty

[Gene Lewis]

One more thing: semen stains on any clue could link to Kosminski, for sure, as he was known for "Compulsive Masturbation". But will this links to a murderer never convinced of a single sexual assault on any canonical victim ?
And Kosminski was "not known to have had violent tendencies"…

[TomTomKent]

One more thing: semen stains on any clue could link to Kosminski, for sure, as he was known for "Compulsive Masturbation".

(my emphasis)

Call me sceptical... But even if the shawl were found near the crime scene, where it could get blood splatter on it, that lends itself to the conclusion that a compulsive masturbator known to frequent the vicinity may have masturbated compulsively into a material that happened to be disposed of in an alley frequented by those who did not wish to be disturbed.

As you rightly pointed out, what we know of the poor chap does not lend itself automatically to the assumption he was the murderer.

[paul g]

Puzzled

One thing is puzzling me or am I missing something.

Mr Edwards buys the shawl from auction and in good faith believes the historical story connecting the shawl to miss Eddowes.
He decides to pass it over to Mr D.N.A scientist man who comes back and I informs him that he has done extensive tests and has discovered stains identified as blood and semen.

Mr Edwards is so excited

Mr scientists says ok what do you want me to do now

Mr Edwards says get a sample from a living descendant of miss Eddowes see if it matches.

Months pass Mr scientist comes back yeahhhhhh result it matches

Mr Edwards is over the moon.

Mr scientist asks what do you want me to do now

Mr Edwards says test the semen to see if we can match it to a suspect.

Which suspect asks the scientist we have Tumbelty, chapman, kominsky, Barnett, maybruck, sickert, druit well to be honest there's over 40 of them there suspects.

Mmm difficult to chose, we could pick the easiest one to trace possibly MAybrick I'm sure there descendants would be easy to trace.
Or pick one

Ok we will go down the pick one out of the hat way.

Said hat appears and it is Kominsky.


Years of expensive research later as his traceable D.N.A is in Australia mr scientist has a result it matches but only secondary D.N.A.

Mr Edwards is ecstatic and thanks his lucky stars that the first suspect he picked out at random just so happens to match.

[Gene Lewis]

What's the word? Oh yes: LOL…

[Gene Lewis]

Mmm difficult to chose, we could pick the easiest one to trace possibly MAybrick I'm sure there descendants would be easy to trace.

Oh why not Queen Victoria's descendants, not so difficult neither ?

[Henry Flower]

I agree, but we cannot condem Kosminski and exclude Simpson solely on DNA alone

I can't believe you racists are trying to pin this one on O.J. as well. Leave the poor guy alone. If the shawl doesn't fit, you must acquit!

[wolfie1]

I can't believe you racists are trying to pin this one on O.J. as well. Leave the poor guy alone. If the shawl doesn't fit, you must acquit!

[pinkmoon]

Stewart
You are forgetting the publishers who are happy to keep publishing books on who the killer was, but shy away from publishing books on who the killer wasnt !

The whole problem with this subject is people want to put a name to the killer which after 126 years isn't going to happen.Any book that claims to name jack the ripper will sell it might not contain silly things like FACTS but it will always sell.Mr Edwards is going to make a lot of money out of this via book sales and television appearances and of course increased yoyo sales.I have no problem anyone making a living out of this subject it's just when people publish things that they know are false we laugh about it on here but on the serious side things like this cheapen the whole subject and when serious authors who through hard work publish excellent books find that people wont buy them because they have been stung before by forking at money for something that turned out to be false.

[Observer]

G'day Limehouse

As I understand Mr Edwards' scenario, because the shawl was a "clue".

But the poor old Kosminski kills MJK a day late [Mr Edwards doesn't mention that though].

Makes about as much sense as anything else he says so far.

Hi Gut

Forget Kosminski dropping it as a clue, a ruse to sell more books. Much more interesting to create a storyline that will intrigue Joe public. Do you really believe Mr Edwards is not aware of the day on which Mary Kelly was murdered?

This length of material, for that is what it is, it's not a shawl, it's 8 feet by 2 apparently, it's too large to use as a shawl I'd say. However, it would fold down to a very manageable piece of material, it could easily have fitted into one of Eddowes pockets. This piece of material is just the kind of thing I'd expect to see in a street woman's pocket. You have only to look at the inventory of Eddowes belongings to realise they carried their worldly goods around with them, on their person. It's possible that Eddowes owned the material in question, and the killer turned it out when rifling her pockets. It's also possible that a policeman "acquired" the material, if you get my drift, for I doubt whether a senior officer would allow a police constable to take away an article belonging to a murder victim.

Observer