Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[mickreed]

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.

I've found Mabuse's excellent post which follows.

Hello. First time poster, (very) long time reader of casebook, here.

I have several things I would like to say, and I don't think they've been adequately touched upon in this tremendously long thread, but forgive me if they have and I've missed them. I will not submit a very long post right now, though.

First thing: it's worth noting that I'm in contact with a younger member of the family who kept the "shawl" for so long. They say there's very little to add to what has been publically stated, but I think they can clear up a few things for us nonetheless.

According to them, the shawl was kept in the sea chest for ages, for many years in the former owners attic, and over 50 in his mother's attic. It was very rarely if ever brought out, and was not a discussion piece. This is not an item that they brought out to show people. It seems to have been regarded as somewhat macabre. It was never washed.

They say they obviously cannot confirm that it belonged to a Ripper victim, but that is indeed what they have always been told.

The story of the "Sunday Best" being kept in the same chest is false, my contact found this term very funny. However, other unspecified items of clothing were kept there, but nothing so very special. The previous owner was apparently "quite scared of" the shawl and kept it at the bottom of the chest.

My contact did not get a very good look at the shawl due to its rare removal from the box, and cannot confirm that it had any obvious "blood spatter".

To their knowledge, Amos did not keep any other souvenirs from crime scenes, but there may be a follow up to this, as it is a curious question that may get asked around the family.

This individual readily admits that the story of how Amos acquired the shawl is dubious, and they themselves are skeptical of it, nevertheless this is the family tradition as it has been passed down.

Due to the nature of this contact - a random comment I made about this new JtR development on another forum being added to quite by chance by the individual in question - I am not going to push it and badger them with a whole lot of questions. I'm satisfied that this person is telling the truth. If they let me know any other salient details I'll pass them along

[mickreed]

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.

Me, mischievous, Caligo. Nah!

When I first saw that there was a Mordecai Simpson in Acton, I immediately thought - that's a Hebrew name. It is, but it's also an old testament name and such names were common enough in past times amongst the non-Jewish community. Many still are.

Then there's the fact that Amos's wife, Jane, worked in a Jewish household before her marriage. (Thanks to Amanda for finding that). And the uncle of her Jewish employer lived in the East End.

Six degrees of separation - or what?

I've been around long enough not to dismiss anything without some consideration, however absurd looking it is.

[mickreed]

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.

And that is absolutely right. Basic first principles. What if they showed matches?

[Fisherman]

Leave off the discussion? Gladly. But not to save my position.
Cheers.
LC

Good idea, Lynn - no sense saving that one...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Jeff Leahy]

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.

All sounds like a master class in conspiracy to me…Then you read Begg and discovered that Anderson made that error when it was late and he was getting tired.

Its all fairies in the SKY as any straight reading of the Marginalia is specific. A story written for his own purpose presumably to jog his memory of events.

He appears to make an error about Kosminsski being dead. If that simple error was simply because that is what he was told when Kosminski was transferred around 1895-6… Then the need for all the hoop jumping just disappears and we are left with an ID at the seaside home in Hove, a clean simple solution that seems to be supported by the latest DNA evidence does it not.

The problem is that each time new evidence appears on Kosminski it seems to support his mantal. While on other suspects it largely does the opposite.

To many people spending to much time looking at fluffy clouds on a sunday afternoon

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

If you read Begg you would discover that he is referring to acompletely different interview.

I never mentioned a conspiracy.

You never deal with Mac knowing that Kosminski was alive.

I understand why not as what is there to defend it?

[mickreed]

Its all fairies in the SKY as any straight reading of the Marginalia is specific. A story written for his own purpose presumably to jog his memory of events.

I read a lot of history books by professional and often, life-long, historians. It's my job.

Seldom do I read statements written with such aplomb as the above. The absolute certainty of interpretation is very rare amongst historians.

I'm not by my books at present, but I'm sure I usually spot a bit more nuance in the likes of Begg et al.

[Jeff Leahy]

You never deal with Mac knowing that Kosminski was alive.

I understand why not as what is there to defend it?

I don't think so. You only have to deal with Swanson making an error.

And making errors when working from memory is not only not unusual. But all the sources do so.

Actually most of what Swanson said if your considering Aaron Kosminski is pretty accurate.

Yours Jeff

[Fisherman]

The problem is that each time new evidence appears on Kosminski it seems to support his mantal. While on other suspects it largely does the opposite.

Yours Jeff

I donīt think the evidence supported the Kosminski idea when it was stated that he was probably schizophrenic and given to psychotic fits.

Nor did I think that he was supported by having it revealed that he weighed around 48 kilograms in 1915, after having been judged to be of fair bodily health the year before. It somehow did not tally with the picture of a physically strong Ripper that most people share.

The difference inbetween the MacNaghten description of a homicidal maniac and the Colney Hatch picture of a meek man, not posing any sort of danger to other people, was not something that elevated him in my eyes either.

Maybe I read the evidence differently, but my overall picture is that the more I learn about Aaron Kosminski, the less of a good Ripper candidate he seems to me.
There is the odd exception, like the identification of a Kosminski family home in Berner Street. But otherwise, I find him far from an impressive candidate.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Jeff Leahy]

Seldom do I read statements written with such aplomb as the above. The absolute certainty of interpretation is very rare amongst historians.
.

I totally agree mick. But I'm not and have never claimed to be a Historian. Actually I'd probably go further and say that most experts in most fields are fairly cautious of direct commitment.

I believe Woody Allan summed it up while talking about experts in the Art field when he said "Art critics are like the Mafia they only kill their own"

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

I donīt think the evidence supported the Kosminski idea when it was stated that he was probably schizophrenic and given to psychotic fits.

Nor did I think that he was supported by having it revealed that he weighed around 48 kilograms in 1915, after having been judged to be of fair bodily health the year before. It somehow did not tally with the picture of a physically strong Ripper that most people share.

The difference inbetween the MacNaghten description of a homicidal maniac and the Colney Hatch picture of a meek man, not posing any sort of danger to other people, was not something that elevated him in my eyes either.

Maybe I read the evidence differently, but my overall picture is that the more I learn about Aaron Kosminski, the less of a good Ripper candidate he seems to me.
There is the odd exception, like the identification of a Kosminski family home in Berner Street. But otherwise, I find him far from an impressive candidate.

All the best,
Fisherman

I don't think trying to argue Kosminski weight in 1915 is going to compare with his physical appearance in 1888. People change over 27 years. Even I'm not as slender around the girth as I once was

Yours Jeff

[mickreed]

I totally agree mick. But I'm not and have never claimed to be a Historian. Actually I'd probably go further and say that most experts in most fields are fairly cautious of direct commitment.

I believe Woody Allan summed it up while talking about experts in the Art field when he said "Art critics are like the Mafia they only kill their own"

Yours Jeff

Yeah, I recognise that, Jeff. There're few feuds as vicious as an academic one.

[Fisherman]

I don't think trying to argue Kosminski weight in 1915 is going to compare with his physical appearance in 1888. People change over 27 years. Even I'm not as slender around the girth as I once was

Yours Jeff

It is impossible to know exactly what he weighed in 1888, yes ...

... but it IS possible to know that he weighed 43,5 kilograms a month before his death, and so he had lost a significant lot of weight from 1915. And 1914, he was described as being of "fair bodily condition". It will therefore be a useful guess that he was a smallish man of slender body constitution.

If he had weighed, say, 65-70 kilograms when described as being of fair bodily condition, it would have been another matter.

And anyhow, I posted this detail in response to your claim that all the surfacing material seems to strenghten his candidature. I donīt think that 48 kilograms in 1915 strengthens that candidature at all. I think it weakens it, if anything.

All the best,
Fisherman

[mickreed]

Even I'm not as slender around the girth as I once was

Yours Jeff

That's true of most of us Jeff. It might be even more true when you're locked in institution for years without, I imagine, a gym and other fitness facilities. The food probably wasn't great, it's likely to have been pretty stodgy. Carbohydrates in considerable quantities so that would encourage a bit of weight gain.

So you are likely to be heavier in 1914 than in 1888. If Aaron was fairly slender in 1914, he's unlikely to have been a stocky figure 24 years earlier. So I think there are reasonable speculations to be made, but certainly not definite conclusions.

[lynn cates]

caveat emptor

Hello Mick.

"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."

Well, at least those whom have bought the book.

Cheers.
LC