Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Jeff Leahy]

The idea that this item is a table runner is indeed spurious. It originated from what appears to be a faulty recollection on the part of Jeff of something that was told to him years ago. This dubious "fact" was repeated over and over in this thread until it effectively became a meme -- even after it was essentially debunked by Adam Wood and Jeff himself.

Just to clarify that I did look into the shawl in some detail around 2003-4

It was generally perceived wisdom at that time and also on casebook that the shawl was edwardian.

My miss recollection appears to be in that Andy Aliffe was working at the V&A. Apparently he wasn't. But like with many things I'm fairly certain that the Shawl had been dismissed as Edwardian. I'm fairly certain I wouldn't have dropped the story I was then chasing had I know it was genuine at that time.

So for a long time it had been assumed it wasn't the real thing. Noone doubted the families sincerity in there beliefs. Andy and Sue Parlour were of the opinion I believe that it was genuine and they at that time had a separate piece of the shawl cut from it and in a frame.

I don't know if the shawl pieces have been re-united or if they still own a separate piece of it.

Trust that clarifies

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Trying to delete

[Patrick S]

And is this kind of killer a man who kills silently, who tilts the bodies of his victims to avoid getting blood on him, who approaches and leaves the murder spots undetected, who leaves no trail, no trace, no clue...?

All the best,
Fisherman

Fisherman - Do you honestly believe that 'Jack the Ripper' managed to 'approach and leave the murder spots undetected', 'leave(ing) no trail, no trace, no clue..' due to his cunning, intellect, planning, etc.?

I think we can also debate the 'kills silently' part, as well, since many witnesses stated they heard cries of 'Oh, murder!' quite frequently throughout the East End, thus most of these disturbances were ignored, but the for purposes of this discussion, let's concede that he DID kill silently.

I think it's important not to look at RESULT so much as EXECUTION. I do not think one can argue this point: The Whitechapel murderer was incredibly fortunate not to have been observed, caught in the act...on multiple occassions.

In Bucks Row, Cross (we KNOW your thoughts here so spare us this go 'round) and Paul come upon the body moments after the murder. Bretton and Tomkins could have come upon him. Emma Green or anyone in her household had only to look out the window to have witnessed the murder.

In Hanbury street, Albert Cadosh had only to peer over the fence. John Davis could have gone into the yard a bit earlier. John Richardson could have walked upon the crime in progress. Any number of neighbors had only to look out a window. These are all random events that could not be planned around. Yet, you see a cunning, meticulously executed plan where none could possibly exist.

In Dutfield's Yard, Louis Diemschutz may have ridden upon the killer immediately after the murder. Israel Schwartz likely witnessed the killer attack Stride. Morris Eagle was about Dutfield's Yard and, but for random chance, could have witnessed the murder in progress. Joseph Lave, could have stayed for a bit more fresh air or simply gone out later. These things cannot be planned around.

In Mitre Square, George Clapp or his wife could have looked out a window. PC Harvey, but for random chance, could have witnessed the murder of Eddowes. Lawende, Harris, Levey likely saw the killer moments before the murder. George Morris could have stepped outside at any moment and witnessed the murder and the murderer.

'Jack the Ripper', in my view, PLANNED nothing. He benefited from the nature of his environment: the East End was a couldron of vice and crime. These things were not unusual. He seems to have sought only one thing: Darkness (in that he didn't kill during daylight hours). His victims, on the other hand, controlled the situation and the environment. THEY sought only enough privacy to conduct business and get their pay. Being interrupted meant being either ignored or run off. Thus they chose sports that offered minimal privacy.

The Whitechapel Murders were the work of an unorganized and mentally ill serial killer. Just as he was not a 'medical man' with anatomical knowledge, he was NOT a stealth killer who managed to avoid detection through his cunning and intellect.

[Jeff Leahy]

In Bucks Row, Cross (we KNOW your thoughts here so spare us this go 'round) and Paul come upon the body moments after the murder. Bretton and Tomkins could have come upon him. Emma Green or anyone in her household had only to look out the window to have witnessed the murder.

Harriot Lilly also may have heard the murder..

Your quite right Jack was incredibly lucky not to have been caught or seen

Also if Schwartz does witness Strides murder which seems probable given Blackwells estimate of time of death then we have a random attack by Jack actually witnessed

Yours Jeff

[Chris]

Notice you didn't pick up on my 'P.S' note that I might actually have found out exactly what the bloody thing is, so I'll keep that gem to myself.

Well, I'm interested!

[Guest]

OK. Throwing my jolly bonnet into the ring on my first post:

My thoughts after reading the book:

I found it an interesting read & far less turgid & formulaic than some I've read since 1988. Edwards comes across as naive & excitable, & readily admits he struggles to understand the science.
My personal opinion is that he probably doesn't believe the Simpson family tale but would be unlikely to rubbish it in print so as not to besmirch the family reputation & offend Mr. M-Hayes. Therefore, I'm not hung up on the 'lore' as a problem. Simpson could have got hold of it 'somehow' (via a 3rd party who filched it from the mortuary bin?) & excitedly took it home to the wife who was as thrilled as he to own such a 'trophy'. I feel the many assumptions that the wife would be askance are somewhat naive & gender stereotypical.
Back to the 'mortuary bin' bit...it's been postulated there was a red scarf around her neck. This along with the skirt/dress Observer description suggests to me a possible scenario where the 'shawl', brought by Kosminski from his brother's workshop to pay/impress a prostitute (easy to wear/carry as silk isn't bulky), was laid on the ground in order to better display it & distract her. After committing his deeds the shawl was left underneath her with some of the red/brown material being near her neck (hence the splatter pattern/possible evidence of 'split body parts' where intestines were thrown over the shoulder, & the idea it was a scarf), & the bundled daisy part being rumpled up with her own lower garments, giving the impression of a skirt or dress.
Perhaps he couldn't get it out from underneath her with ease so just left it there; quickly popping back to a relative's house within the 'circle theory' geographical profiling zone. Maybe he carried similar cloth to MK's room &, having had difficulty retrieving it from Eddowes, decided to burn it in her grate instead.

The clothing description/list at the time would surely have been more about identification of the victim rather than crucial evidence. Nothing is stated as to what was done with her clothing after the post-mortem, & I think it's quite likely it was just slung out; giving anyone there the chance to pinch it either to keep or to sell on.
There certainly wasn't the care over evidence there is nowadays. You've only to think of them washing the blood away with buckets of water...let alone the mystery of the location of the apron & kidney, so I think scant attention would have been paid to the whereabouts of her clothing post-mortem.

I think the confusion over the dress/skirt/chintz/silk could quite easily be down to the fact that men were talking/writing about the clothing. OK, yes, that is gender stereotyping but even now...if an average man & woman are asked to describe what a woman is wearing he's likely to say 'A dress & sandals' where a woman might say 'A strapless, A-line, empire dress & espadrilles'! Also, we don't know if Collard's description of 'Michaelmas daisies' is similarly erroneous if the flowers are actually pansies or whatever. The background golden lily part of the pattern seems to be undisputed.

I feel the book does a thorough job of dating the pattern/dye to be much older than originally assumed, & gives a good case for its material possibly originating in Russia.
Regarding the shawl never having been washed, I inherited loads of embroidered samplers, tray cloths, table runners etc, from my great-grandmother from around 1891. I attempted to wash one after using it as a cushion cover & the blue dye ran, ruining it. Feeling very guilty I never washed any of the others so to my mind it's entirely reasonable to assume it may never have been conventionally laundered. The rest of my collection remains unwashed in a trunk.

Many posters seem to be of the opinion that as there was no mention of the shawl before 1990 this points to it being bogus. However, as far as I can remember the match tin wasn't publicly known about until circa 1987 (?). So, if someone had turned up in 1984 saying 'This tin from my granny's attic belonged to Eddowes' everyone would have similarly rubbished it as 'This tin couldn't possibly exist as it has no provenance!'. People can keep quiet about things for many years for varied reasons.

My feelings on the DNA are 'Let's wait & see'. As I understood it, the idea of Edwards introducing the descendants DNA whilst in possession of the shawl would be impossible as there was a distinct difference between the old & new DNA samples wasn't there? I can't remember as I haven't re-read the book since 9/9/14, but something along the lines of the new samples being whole genomic rather than mtDNA? I'm probably wrong on the specifics but I'm sure there was a detailed difference in the book. I feel if the DNA evidence falls apart it will be from error/misinterpretation rather than a deliberate hoax. Also, the rush to publish could be responsible for haplotype T101 being printed instead of 'Y' etc. They haven't done themselves any favours there. If anything they should have written half the book each, in their own words, for proper clarity.
I find it highly unlikely that a renowned lecturer like Jari, who assists 2 police forces, would do anything fraudulent, &, with respect, though Edwards seems a likeable chap, I doubt he'd have the cunning genius necessary to put one over on Jari & Miller.
The author also addresses its handling by other people over the years in some depth.
Many posters seem fixated on the idea it's semen on the shawl & get hung up on the 'Did he have time to masturbate?' issue but as the epithelial cells could have come from saliva etc I see no reason to rubbish these findings as yet.

As to AK's mental state, I feel it's quite feasible he could have been utterly different when incarcerated. Look at Peter Sutcliffe....transformed from a physically fit, aggressive monster to a timid, weighty diabetic being attacked by other prisoners.

I have reservations over the large, missing part of the shawl. Is it missing because it gives something away which would refute its history? Whilst I know various snippets have been taken, framed etc I'm somehow not buying the large, bloodstained area being cut off because it was a bit too 'icky'!

I think the Michaelmas dates 'theory' is just plain daft. However, I feel the personal insults levelled at the author in past posts (bald businessman etc) are unwarranted & just smack of jealousy. If this theory is proved correct, no matter what level of competence the author has in relation to research or writing skills, his decision to buy the shawl & approach Jari was his alone & he'll deserve a great deal of acclaim for bringing it to light. He seems to be very anxious to keep his wife out of the picture (multiple variants of 'she has no interest in this'). What did anyone else make of that? Perhaps he anticipated a huge amount of attention & wanted to protect her...or...?


It would be very interesting to know if any wills in the Simpson family are on record as showing the shawl as a bequest. As wills are in the public domain maybe someone here could find out. Even a mention of 'the chest full of antique material' would be beguiling!

I'd like to see the stitching between each coloured section analysed....to see if any sections were added at later date.

Also, I wonder if it could be analysed for substances such as embedded grit/soot consistent or not with the times.

Anyway, that's all for now!

[Theagenes]

Just to clarify that I did look into the shawl in some detail around 2003-4

It was generally perceived wisdom at that time and also on casebook that the shawl was edwardian.

My miss recollection appears to be in that Andy Aliffe was working at the V&A. Apparently he wasn't. But like with many things I'm fairly certain that the Shawl had been dismissed as Edwardian. I'm fairly certain I wouldn't have dropped the story I was then chasing had I know it was genuine at that time.

So for a long time it had been assumed it wasn't the real thing. Noone doubted the families sincerity in there beliefs. Andy and Sue Parlour were of the opinion I believe that it was genuine and they at that time had a separate piece of the shawl cut from it and in a frame.

I don't know if the shawl pieces have been re-united or if they still own a separate piece of it.

Trust that clarifies

Yours Jeff

Thanks for the clarification Jeff. It's this "perceived wisdom" problem that I'm referring to. Nobody seems to be able to point out exactly where this idea came from and so it's a lot like an urban legend -- and it's caused researchers like yourself to dismiss it when it probably deserved a closer look. That's why this sort of thing is harmful.

For example, how many people are now going to repeat the erroneous idea that 400,000 people could have left the mtDNA on the shawl, especially since ripper "expert" Trevor Marriott has told this to a media outlet.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Theagenes!

Despite all these talks here, I have already noticed the common people have already decided:

"Case is solved and that's it!"

All the best
jukka

[Amanda]

Well, I'm interested!

Hi Chris,

Sent you a private message.

Amanda

[Jeff Leahy]

Thanks for the clarification Jeff. It's this "perceived wisdom" problem that I'm referring to. Nobody seems to be able to point out exactly where this idea came from and so it's a lot like an urban legend -- and it's caused researchers like yourself to dismiss it when it probably deserved a closer look. That's why this sort of thing is harmful.

Yeah I must admit I don't know where its origins were. I have asked that question can anyone clarify and nothings poped up as yet. I was hoping that Paul might have known.

The A to Z says: Uncertainly dated by fabric experts as late nineteenth or early twentieth century. Goes on to talk about testing being inconclusive for the TV program First Serial killer.
'It is doubted that the shawl was really endows…'etc

So if the A to Z put doubt on it being genuine I guess thats why I said ..perceived wisdom

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

form

Hello Alice. Welcome to the boards.

"The clothing description/list at the time would surely have been more about identification of the victim rather than crucial evidence."

Actually, it's more about form. Both CoL and the Met were meticulous when it came to inventories.

Cheers.
LC

[Patrick S]

Harriot Lilly also may have heard the murder..

Your quite right Jack was incredibly lucky not to have been caught or seen

Also if Schwartz does witness Strides murder which seems probable given Blackwells estimate of time of death then we have a random attack by Jack actually witnessed

Yours Jeff

AH! I forgot her. One of my favorite witnesses! Thanks, Jeff.

I'd also like to address another point made by Fisherman. The only reason that he continues to state that "the Ripper" managed to avoid getting blood on his person is because CROSS would have HAD to have emerged from each killing WITHOUT blood on his person, due to the fact that, in most instances, he would have been on his way to work. This is - again - another case of the Lechmerians fitting details to their "suspect". Obviously, as he was not discovered by police, we have to idea if "Jack" walked away from the murders as clean as Jurassic Snow.....or as bloody as "Carrie" on prom night.

[Mabuse]

'Jack the Ripper', in my view, PLANNED nothing. He benefited from the nature of his environment: ...

It could just as well be that his thrill came from doing these crimes in places where he could be seen and he had a chance of being caught.

This chance may have been part of the lure for him.

In which case, he is planning; he's selecting a situation that gives him this potential to be caught, a suitable victim, and an escape route - and doing the crime anyway, because he gets some of his jollies from this brazen act. This is also why he displays his victims in such a vile tableau.

It is very unlikely for a disorganised thinker to be this lucky, time after time.

There were groups of men out looking for him, the police rounds had been increased. For him not to be seen at any time suggests he's doing more than randomly acting out on delusional impulses.

That he is almost caught in Dutfield's yard and curtails that killing (yes I think it's likely this was the Whitechapel killer) shows that he is not disorganised; he stops what he's doing when interrupted and flees. Disorganised thinker experiencing a psychotic episode is not even on the same planet as Diemschutz.

The Whitechapel Murders were the work of an unorganized and mentally ill serial killer. Just as he was not a 'medical man' with anatomical knowledge, he was NOT a stealth killer who managed to avoid detection through his cunning and intellect.

He clearly was stealthy, by definition. That's why he killed at night. This is evidence of organisation.

He is of course mentally ill.

Personally, I find it difficult to ascribe this almost supernatural level of luck to him.

It seems clear that this killer was highly selective in target and goals, it would seem reasonable to extend that to his overall planning.

[Theagenes]

My thoughts after reading the book:

I found it an interesting read & far less turgid & formulaic than some I've read since 1988. Edwards comes across as naive & excitable, & readily admits he struggles to understand the science.
My personal opinion is that he probably doesn't believe the Simpson family tale but would be unlikely to rubbish it in print so as not to besmirch the family reputation & offend Mr. M-Hayes. Therefore, I'm not hung up on the 'lore' as a problem. Simpson could have got hold of it 'somehow' (via a 3rd party who filched it from the mortuary bin?) & excitedly took it home to the wife who was as thrilled as he to own such a 'trophy'. I feel the many assumptions that the wife would be askance are somewhat naive & gender stereotypical.
Back to the 'mortuary bin' bit...it's been postulated there was a red scarf around her neck. This along with the skirt/dress Observer description suggests to me a possible scenario where the 'shawl', brought by Kosminski from his brother's workshop to pay/impress a prostitute (easy to wear/carry as silk isn't bulky), was laid on the ground in order to better display it & distract her. After committing his deeds the shawl was left underneath her with some of the red/brown material being near her neck (hence the splatter pattern/possible evidence of 'split body parts' where intestines were thrown over the shoulder, & the idea it was a scarf), & the bundled daisy part being rumpled up with her own lower garments, giving the impression of a skirt or dress.
Perhaps he couldn't get it out from underneath her with ease so just left it there; quickly popping back to a relative's house within the 'circle theory' geographical profiling zone. Maybe he carried similar cloth to MK's room &, having had difficulty retrieving it from Eddowes, decided to burn it in her grate instead.

The clothing description/list at the time would surely have been more about identification of the victim rather than crucial evidence. Nothing is stated as to what was done with her clothing after the post-mortem, & I think it's quite likely it was just slung out; giving anyone there the chance to pinch it either to keep or to sell on.
There certainly wasn't the care over evidence there is nowadays. You've only to think of them washing the blood away with buckets of water...let alone the mystery of the location of the apron & kidney, so I think scant attention would have been paid to the whereabouts of her clothing post-mortem.

I think the confusion over the dress/skirt/chintz/silk could quite easily be down to the fact that men were talking/writing about the clothing. OK, yes, that is gender stereotyping but even now...if an average man & woman are asked to describe what a woman is wearing he's likely to say 'A dress & sandals' where a woman might say 'A strapless, A-line, empire dress & espadrilles'! Also, we don't know if Collard's description of 'Michaelmas daisies' is similarly erroneous if the flowers are actually pansies or whatever. The background golden lily part of the pattern seems to be undisputed.

I feel the book does a thorough job of dating the pattern/dye to be much older than originally assumed, & gives a good case for its material possibly originating in Russia.
Regarding the shawl never having been washed, I inherited loads of embroidered samplers, tray cloths, table runners etc, from my great-grandmother from around 1891. I attempted to wash one after using it as a cushion cover & the blue dye ran, ruining it. Feeling very guilty I never washed any of the others so to my mind it's entirely reasonable to assume it may never have been conventionally laundered. The rest of my collection remains unwashed in a trunk.

Many posters seem to be of the opinion that as there was no mention of the shawl before 1990 this points to it being bogus. However, as far as I can remember the match tin wasn't publicly known about until circa 1987 (?). So, if someone had turned up in 1984 saying 'This tin from my granny's attic belonged to Eddowes' everyone would have similarly rubbished it as 'This tin couldn't possibly exist as it has no provenance!'. People can keep quiet about things for many years for varied reasons.

My feelings on the DNA are 'Let's wait & see'. As I understood it, the idea of Edwards introducing the descendants DNA whilst in possession of the shawl would be impossible as there was a distinct difference between the old & new DNA samples wasn't there? I can't remember as I haven't re-read the book since 9/9/14, but something along the lines of the new samples being whole genomic rather than mtDNA? I'm probably wrong on the specifics but I'm sure there was a detailed difference in the book. I feel if the DNA evidence falls apart it will be from error/misinterpretation rather than a deliberate hoax. Also, the rush to publish could be responsible for haplotype T101 being printed instead of 'Y' etc. They haven't done themselves any favours there. If anything they should have written half the book each, in their own words, for proper clarity.
I find it highly unlikely that a renowned lecturer like Jari, who assists 2 police forces, would do anything fraudulent, &, with respect, though Edwards seems a likeable chap, I doubt he'd have the cunning genius necessary to put one over on Jari & Miller.
The author also addresses its handling by other people over the years in some depth.
Many posters seem fixated on the idea it's semen on the shawl & get hung up on the 'Did he have time to masturbate?' issue but as the epithelial cells could have come from saliva etc I see no reason to rubbish these findings as yet.

As to AK's mental state, I feel it's quite feasible he could have been utterly different when incarcerated. Look at Peter Sutcliffe....transformed from a physically fit, aggressive monster to a timid, weighty diabetic being attacked by other prisoners.

I have reservations over the large, missing part of the shawl. Is it missing because it gives something away which would refute its history? Whilst I know various snippets have been taken, framed etc I'm somehow not buying the large, bloodstained area being cut off because it was a bit too 'icky'!

I think the Michaelmas dates 'theory' is just plain daft. However, I feel the personal insults levelled at the author in past posts (bald businessman etc) are unwarranted & just smack of jealousy. If this theory is proved correct, no matter what level of competence the author has in relation to research or writing skills, his decision to buy the shawl & approach Jari was his alone & he'll deserve a great deal of acclaim for bringing it to light. He seems to be very anxious to keep his wife out of the picture (multiple variants of 'she has no interest in this'). What did anyone else make of that? Perhaps he anticipated a huge amount of attention & wanted to protect her...or...?


It would be very interesting to know if any wills in the Simpson family are on record as showing the shawl as a bequest. As wills are in the public domain maybe someone here could find out. Even a mention of 'the chest full of antique material' would be beguiling!

I'd like to see the stitching between each coloured section analysed....to see if any sections were added at later date.

Also, I wonder if it could be analysed for substances such as embedded grit/soot consistent or not with the times.

Anyway, that's all for now!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the book Alice. In general your impressions seem to be similar to my own -- though perhaps a bit more charitable on his writing style than I was. .

[Westbourne Wink]

AH! I forgot her. One of my favorite witnesses! Thanks, Jeff.

I'd also like to address another point made by Fisherman. The only reason that he continues to state that "the Ripper" managed to avoid getting blood on his person is because CROSS would have HAD to have emerged from each killing WITHOUT blood on his person, due to the fact that, in most instances, he would have been on his way to work. This is - again - another case of the Lechmerians fitting details to their "suspect". Obviously, as he was not discovered by police, we have to idea if "Jack" walked away from the murders as clean as Jurassic Snow.....or as bloody as "Carrie" on prom night.

Patrick S it seems to me that you have just as much of an 'agenda' to prove everything doesn't fit with Lechmere. To a new comer the hypocrisy of the concerted campaign to dismiss the Lechmere theory is ridiculous.

For instance have you ever investigated what kind of work he might have been doing as a carman? I'm guessing not but you might find it enlightening.

And it is not a fact that the Ripper did take special care to avoid being splattered with blood? Sometimes he strangled his victim to death to stop her heart beating and he also cut their necks in such a way that if there was spray, it would point away from him.

So saying the killer, be it Lechmere or anyone else, might be relatively free of blood is not incorrect.