Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Jeff Leahy]

I
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

Then I was probably thinking of the picture of Aarons Cousin sitting as my screen saver…He looks quite plump and healthy to me, actually rather dapper, and I don't see why Aaron before his illness also wouldn't have done so?

Yours Jeff

[Amanda Sumner]

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

No part of this story is true and not likely to turn out true either.
Kosminski is not our man.
No evidence supports that he was the man that terrorised London in the Autumn of 1888.
Neither is there any evidence that he was a danger to others and certainly no evidence, either, that he indulged in solitary vices.
He was a harmless imbecile that suffered hallucinations.

A bit of homework on Edwards part, and he might have come up with a better candidate for his DNA testing.

So, no shawl / table runner recorded at the scene.
No Amos Simpson recorded at the scene.
No suggestions of serious violence, solitary vices or any hatred of women recorded in Kosminski's 28 years of incarceration.

I really don't know what is left to discuss.

Amanda

[Jeff Leahy]

I really don't know what is left to discuss.

Amanda

"Undiscovered crime in London are rare, and the Jack the Ripper murders are not within that category" and then we have the man who probably knows the most about Sir Robert Anderson, Martin Fido.. stating his religious convictions wouldn't have allowed the head of the CID to make this up..

So perhaps we should wait and see what else Russel Edwards turns up?

Just in case

But great work on Amos

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

I really like Fido's book, but he had it completely
wrong about Anderson's religion and its effects on his reliability.

It actually makes him more unreliable as he could nvever concede an error being so close to the Almighty.

A bit like you not conceding you had the wrong ANderson interview.

Plus SWanson had it wrong about there beingnomore Jackmurders. You deal with that by ... ignoring it.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

I agree.

Anyone who believes the truth dripped like pearls from the lips of Sir Robert Anderson needs a serious reality check.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jonathan,

I agree.

Anyone who believes the truth dripped like pearls from the lips of Sir Robert Anderson needs a serious reality check.

Regards,

Simon

If that was what Fido said you might have a point. But actually he said something vary different and readily accepted Anderson human frailties.

What he said was that Andersons religious beliefs would prevent him from "lying for personal Kudos"

But I'm pleased we all seem to accept Martin Fidos academic perspective. He does seem to know Anderson writings and theology. Something most experts I've spoken to seem to recognise on the subject when trying to understand such a complex individual..

But then these grounds are well covered, even Harcourt.

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

wagon

Hello Amanda. Thanks.

Makes you wonder why many have recently gotten on his wagon.

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

... certainly no evidence, either, that he indulged in solitary vices.

Just for the record, of course Jacob Cohen did state to Dr Houchin in 1891 that Aaron "practise[d] self-abuse".

[Patrick S]

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

His weight at the time of his death or the years leading up to his death are completely irrelevant. I know first hand. I had an Olympic lifting partner about 15 years ago. I trained with him when he was in his late thirties through his early forties. In all that time his weight was consistently around 110kg. He began to have some physical trouble - knees and shoulders - and eventually quit training. In any event, I attended his fiftieth birthday party a few years back and he told me his weight was around 65kg. He said his weight had just bottomed out since he left the gym. Otherwise, he felt great. I found out he was pretty ill a few years after that. I saw him a few months before he died and he was much lighter than he had been when I'd seen him last. Probably around 50kg, I'd guess. This was a man who at the age 40 had clean and jerked 180kg. and back squatted 240kg.

My guess is you have a photo of Cross looking robust and healthy, thus you continue to thrash about, looking to elevate your man at every opportunity. This is one of your more pathetic attempts.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

Allow me to clarify.

Anyone who believes Sir Robert Anderson would not have lied for "personal kudos" needs a serious reality check.

I recommend a close reading of TLSOMOL and some of his other anecdotes.

Regards,

Simon

[Mabuse]

Just for the record, of course Jacob Cohen did state to Dr Houchin in 1891 that Aaron "practise[d] self-abuse".

Objection! Hearsay information

The issue (no pun intended) I find troublesome is that some commentators imply or directly suggest that Aaron Kosminski was a "compulsive public masturbator", for which there is zero evidence. In fact, I think he would have been arrested for that, so it seems entirely unlikely.

The Victorians firmly believed that masturbation led to insanity and horrible physical ailments.

They may have simply assumed he was a masturbator because he was insane.

Or, one of his siblings burst in on him at an inopportune time. Who knows? I think it is being muddled up with the claims of stains on the shawl, which have just as much probability to be mucus from the nose or throat, if they're anything at all.

[Amanda Sumner]

Just for the record, of course Jacob Cohen did state to Dr Houchin in 1891 that Aaron "practise[d] self-abuse".

Hi, so he did. Sorry, I overlooked that. However there seems to be no mention of this is his medical records while at Leavesdon, at least none that I have come across. He was not dangerous and moved about freely and there was no need, apparently, for restraint.

There is no reason to believe he was Jack the Ripper.

Amanda

[Fisherman]

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.

Exactly so. We should not normally expect a strong, stocky giant in 1888 from a man who weighed 48 kg:s in fair bodily condition in 1915. That is not to say that he could not have been fit in 1888.

Overall, though, the question was not whether he WAS fit in 1888 or not. The question was whether - as Jeff implied - weighing 48 kg:s in fair bodily condition in 1915 was something that strengthened the suggestion that Kosminski was the Ripper.

Iīt donīt. It canīt. THAT is what I am saying - whereas I am NOT saying that he could not have weighed considerably more and been considerably stronger in 1888. That is not the issue at hand, as an uninformed poster out here unfortunately seems to believe.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Then I was probably thinking of the picture of Aarons Cousin sitting as my screen saver…He looks quite plump and healthy to me, actually rather dapper, and I don't see why Aaron before his illness also wouldn't have done so?

Yours Jeff

My brother is 172 centimeters tall and weighs around 70 kilos. I am 193 centimeters and weigh around 110 kilos.

Close relatives are not moulded to the same shape or size, Jeff. 48 kilograms and fair bodily health points much more to a small, slender man than to a strong, stocky guy. And that does not take his cousin into account - since it really should not.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Amanda Sumner]

So perhaps we should wait and see what else Russel Edwards turns up?

Just in case

But great work on Amos

Yours Jeff

Wrong Amanda, I'm afraid, I cannot take the credit for the work on Amos. however I have looked into him too. He lived and worked quite a distance from Mitre Sq, didn't he?

I will be very surprised if Edwards turns up anything else.
His books are selling.... Goal achieved.

Amanda (Sumner)