Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[lynn cates]

mutation

Hello Mick. Thanks.

"And Lynn, that's 4 lines - has there been a DNA mutation?"

Yes, but only 1/7200 have it. So the rest use only two lines. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Jonathan H]

To Jeff

Wild speculation?

You mean like a shawl that's really a tablecloth, that belonged to a victim, well, no, to her murderer, that ended up in the possession of a policeman with no connection to the crime, and though it contained semen was never washed, and has DNA on it not only to the victim but to a suspect too--without any kind of peer reviewed check of the, eh, science?

What's that? Sensible speculation?

The 'Seaman's Home' theory is by Evans and Rumbelow in their 2006 masterwork.

Your objection that a Gentile could never be mistaken or misrecalled for a Jew does not hold up when deadling with the deteriorating, self-serving memory lapses of Sir Robert Anderson by the late 1900's.

You do not seem to be aware that in a 1908 interview he confused the pipes from the Kelly and McKenzie murders, and got it wrong as to why it was broken.

More appallingly this Tory reactionary blamed the Liberal Home Secretary, William Harcourt, for giving him a hard time over the Whitechapel murders. He has confused the Liberal Home Sec. from the previous govt. with Henry Matthews from the Tory govt. of 1888?!

A police officer who is capable of that kind of that kind of hopeless, biased error--of confusing political parties, ministers, years, and governments in one hit--is more than easily capable of substituting Sadler, a Gentile, for Kosminski, a Jew. after all, both were no-account proles.

This is a point made devastatingly by the late Phillip Sudgen in the update of his book.

Plus William Grant was reportedly affirmed to by [almost certainly] Lawende at the very moment that Anderson first begins to speak of the un-named Kosminski in the extant record (there is as yet no mention of a witness).

As usual it is Macnaghten who first introduced the notion of a witness to Kosminski, his fictitious beat cop. This appeared in Griffiths in 1898.

In 1907 Sims wrote about the cop checking on the suspect, but he had onyl seen asn outline.

By 1910, in the magazine version--and only in a footnote--Anderson self-servingly mentioned a Hebrew witness who refused to testify.

I think Swanson asked for clarification and Anderson provided further details, sincerely misrecalling the Seaman's Home as the Seaside Home.

[Hercule Poirot]

Although I'm only on page 201 I felt I had to say something.

I've been reading the Casebook boards since 2008 as I do with my daily news paper and almost every book written on JTR. Call me lurker, newbie, Joe Public #XWZ or whatever comes to your mind, it doesn't matter. My shrink keeps telling me I should return to my 'Good ole Playboy' period and read the articles instead, so I expect the worst.

Anyway, this is what I need to say. Don't hesitate reading the book. A friend of mine offered me the eBook version and got it probably in a similar way Simpson got a hold on the shawl (you know, the 'don't ask, just trust me' method). You won't get sucked into believing it's content quite to the contrary. I took a serious Zen approach from the moment Louhelainen said he was using a 'novel in-house technique' and further down an 'in-house method' without giving any details. Many asked for a leap of faith. Don't. Never mind the DNA results offered and a hoped-for peer review of the analysis as well as the provenance of the shawl issue, if no one has ever heard of this 'novel method', forget it and move this topic into the "Pub talk" at least many will have the best 'one to many' excuse for being rude.

Regarding this topic, Spock would have obviously said 'Fascinating', not that he would have believed what's been said but simply cause he would be wondering how we're able to have these kind of 'coming from nowhere/heading nowhere' discussions.

Let me conclude by adding this image I made giving you a better idea of how I feel about the book and the topic. Sorry to say that a lot of people here are arguing about line 1 while the real equation is somewhere else.



Yours, Hercule Poirot

P.S. Forgive my poor English. I'm one of those French Canadians better known as 'frogs' (good in jumping, unable to leap). LOL

[wolfie1]

You know what, I believe you're right!
With your skills in wild speculation coupled with my knack of making things up, the world of crime solving is our oyster!
Bring on the next case whilst I open up our JtR 'authentic Primark Y front shop'.


Just please don't mention shawls, mtDNA or daisies. I've read enough nonsense about them to last a lifetime.

I bet within a month it will be possible to purchase replica shawl/table runner/pot plant holder, (wouldalso like to suggest it is a Piano Shawl as a possible item) complete with fake blood stains in Ripper stores, courtesy of Mr Edwards, who now will also own copyright on the item and staining pattern.

[Caligo Umbrator]

previous owners of shawl

Has anyone seen any comments from the previous owners of the shawl about this whole affair? Other than what has been stated by Edwards regarding his ' letter of provenance?
Thanks, Caligo.

[wolfie1]

Has anyone seen any comments from the previous owners of the shawl about this whole affair? Other than what has been stated by Edwards regarding his ' letter of provenance?
Thanks, Caligo.

None to my knowledge, I assume they will stick to their story regarding provenance, as it was sold at auction on hearsay. Family folklore does tend to stick from generation to generation.

[mickreed]

Your objection that a Gentile could never be mistaken or misrecalled for a Jew does not hold up when deadling with the deteriorating, self-serving memory lapses of Sir Robert Anderson by the late 1900's.

And what's more, how the hell do you tell a Jew from a Gentile just from external appearance? Not all Jews had what was known as a 'strong Semitic appearance' - a bit like the current Aussie favourite, 'of Middle Eastern appearance - it's not always helpful. Certainly that's true of Ashkenazis, some of whom had fair hair and blue eyes. It appears that Aaron's family had the latter at least.

[mickreed]

None to my knowledge, I assume they will stick to their story regarding provenance, as it was sold at auction on hearsay. Family folklore does tend to stick from generation to generation.

According to Mabuse in his first post a week or so back, his contact (a Simpson family member) said the family were indeed sceptical of the story.

Richard Whittington-Egan said that the Dowlers, who had possession of the shawl for a while in the late-1980s were 'extremely cynical as to the shawl's bona fides'.

[wolfie1]

According to Mabuse in his first post a week or so back, his contact (a Simpson family member) said the family were indeed sceptical of the story.

Richard Whittington-Egan said that the Dowlers, who had possession of the shawl for a while in the late-1980s were 'extremely cynical as to the shawl's bona fides'.

Well, someone made a nice profit at Auction 2007. Indeed, one born every minute.

[Errata]

Am I the only one who wonders at the idea of a policeman (whose job requires a certain amount of common sense and reason) picking up a blood and semen stained shawl that belonged to a murdered unfortunate and bringing it home as a gift to his wife?

Was he part cat? Did he also go out in the back garden and bring her dead squirrels between his teeth? What on earth possessed this guy to think that his wife would want something so gruesome?

"Here honey, I got you a bloody murder relic that reeks of booze that was wrapped around a woman of questionable sanitation you would likely not voluntarily touch who was murdered by someone you personally fear a great deal! Happy Birthday!"

Worst. Husband.Ever.

[wolfie1]

And what's more, how the hell do you tell a Jew from a Gentile just from external appearance? Not all Jews had what was known as a 'strong Semitic appearance' - a bit like the current Aussie favourite, 'of Middle Eastern appearance - it's not always helpful. Certainly that's true of Ashkenazis, some of whom had fair hair and blue eyes. It appears that Aaron's family had the latter at least.

Agree with Mick on this one, my family has Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jewish heritage. Mix of brown, auburn, dirty blonde hair with blue, brown and green eyes.

[Caligo Umbrator]

According to Mabuse in his first post a week or so back, his contact (a Simpson family member) said the family were indeed sceptical of the story.

Richard Whittington-Egan said that the Dowlers, who had possession of the shawl for a while in the late-1980s were 'extremely cynical as to the shawl's bona fides'.

Thanks, Wolfie and Mick.
Interesting feedback. Seems from what you are saying that the only person to believe the story of the shawls history is the same person who needs to sell that history to make his case.

[mickreed]

Has anyone seen any comments from the previous owners of the shawl about this whole affair? Other than what has been stated by Edwards regarding his ' letter of provenance?
Thanks, Caligo.

As anyone who's read my posts will know, I am not a sceptic.

So I will not suggest that, perhaps, the previous shawl owner (and apparent Simpson descendant) - David Melville-Hayes - had any interest in driving the price of this artifact up.

He seems to have let the Dowlers have it in the 1980s but they didn't want it, so then somehow two bits turn up, framed by a company of which Hayes was a director (not merely a worker as claimed by Edwards).

Then it seems to have shown up at the Black Museum with the story that the donor's mother had cut out the missing bits because of blood. The framed bits are sold to a bloke called Malcolm who contacts the Black Museum which prompts the new curator to go to Sothebys who date in to post-1900.

That's no good for driving the price up, so it's taken back out of the Black Museum by, presumably Hayes, and finally sold with a nice 'letter of provenance' for, reportedly several thousand quid, to someone who then needs to recoup his investment.

The sod of it all is, that if any part of this story turns out to be true, then the laugh will be on us.

[mickreed]

Am I the only one who wonders at the idea of a policeman (whose job requires a certain amount of common sense and reason) picking up a blood and semen stained shawl that belonged to a murdered unfortunate and bringing it home as a gift to his wife?

Was he part cat? Did he also go out in the back garden and bring her dead squirrels between his teeth? What on earth possessed this guy to think that his wife would want something so gruesome?

"Here honey, I got you a bloody murder relic that reeks of booze that was wrapped around a woman of questionable sanitation you would likely not voluntarily touch who was murdered by someone you personally fear a great deal! Happy Birthday!"

Worst. Husband.Ever.

You're a damned cynic Errata. There is actually a very good case for the Amos argument that no-one has spotted as far as I know.

Amos Simpson was born in Acton in Suffolk, where lived one Mordecai Simpson, presumably a relative. They both appear in the village in 1851.

The name Mordecai is believed to be identical with Aaron Kosminski's middle name, Mordke.

Now, as a connection, surely that clinches it?

[Caligo Umbrator]

You're a damned cynic Errata. There is actually a very good case for the Amos argument that no-one has spotted as far as I know.

Amos Simpson was born in Acton in Suffolk, where lived one Mordecai Simpson, presumably a relative. They both appear in the village in 1851.

The name Mordecai is believed to be identical with Aaron Kosminski's middle name, Mordke.

Now, as a connection, surely that clinches it?

I realise you're being a little mischievous with that last post. Actually, as foolish and timewasting as it may sound, does anyone think there may be a distant connection between these people? From what I've read the descendants of A.S. were not tested to eliminate them from potentially having contaminating the shawl.