Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[lynn cates]

agreements

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

"Um.. The problem is Lynn I know lots of people who have studied the case. And many of them don't agree about a hell of a lot."

Very well. But surely days of the week, times, PM reports are all agreed?

Cheers.
LC

[Patrick S]

Your right he essentially hid in the plain sight...if just so happens the plain sight was darkness & vice. I'm not implying the ripper was a super villain with super powers....only that he planned the murders...the same way a burglar would case before a robbery. He cased the sights and stalked the victims. Its not that much of stretch to think so is it?

In my view, it's a stretch if you look at each murder individually. You cannot say that because he killed 4, 5, 6 women and was not apprehended then he he had a plan, cased the area, and/or stalked the victims. You must take each murder invidually and ask, why did he escape? What happend with Tabram is irrelevant to Nichols. What happened with Chapman is irrelevant to Eddowes. One does not affect the other. I realize I'm being snide in my responses with respect to him being a super-villan, etc. It's just that - to me - that's what this type of behavior implies because his NOT being observed, caught, arrested, was due to things he could not have controlled. In fact, based on the ACTUAL execution of the crimes, he SHOULD have been caught. To me, he showed NO (or very, very poor) planning. He killed in spots that were easily observed, usually from several vantage points: below windows, over-fences, around corners, in the shadows. It's clear these spots were chosen by the victims. They afforded the privacy THEY needed. They had the decency to go into the shadows to conduct business, a backyard, a corner of a deserted square. These were places where they may be seen....but they'd likely be ignored. They had the decency to seek SOME privacy, away from the public. But they didn't have the time or energy to seek total seclusion. Thus, they were killed in public, semi-secluded spots.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

"Um.. The problem is Lynn I know lots of people who have studied the case. And many of them don't agree about a hell of a lot."

Very well. But surely days of the week, times, PM reports are all agreed?

Cheers.
LC

They are..you only require an A to Z. Perhaps we should all chip in and send a copy

Jeff

[Carol]

Hi everyone,

No doubt someone has already written the following but I just haven't got the time to check through all the thousands of posts on this thread!

What I can't understand is why the policeman who supposedly found the shawl by Eddowes' body was allowed to take it home with him. If it had the blood of the victim all over it surely the officer in charge of the case would have made sure it was kept somewhere safe. I appreciate that the police then didn't have the methods of identification available today but it seems very strange to me that Simpson was given permission to keep it.

Carol

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi everyone,

No doubt someone has already written the following but I just haven't got the time to check through all the thousands of posts on this thread!

What I can't understand is why the policeman who supposedly found the shawl by Eddowes' body was allowed to take it home with him. If it had the blood of the victim all over it surely the officer in charge of the case would have made sure it was kept somewhere safe. I appreciate that the police then didn't have the methods of identification available today but it seems very strange to me that Simpson was given permission to keep it.

Carol

Hi Carol

You've probably answer your own question. The victims clothes were considered of little value in 1888. Blood or know blood it offered little of any use.

Monty could probably answer whether removing clothes was a serious offence or Not but I some how doubt it. The commercial value or even the News Paper stories were all still new and everyone was on a learning curve.

They did talk about bringing in Dogs.. But I don't think that happened until MJK event.

If Simpson offered a colleague a couple of pints for the artefact and made out he was there on the night to big it up…then its possible there is a kurnal of truth, should the DNA on Eddows blood descendant be shown to be more conclusive

Yours Jeff

[Carol]

Hi Carol

You've probably answer your own question. The victims clothes were considered of little value in 1888. Blood or know blood it offered little of any use.

Monty could probably answer whether removing clothes was a serious offence or Not but I some how doubt it. The commercial value or even the News Paper stories were all still new and everyone was on a learning curve.

They did talk about bringing in Dogs.. But I don't think that happened until MJK event.

If Simpson offered a colleague a couple of pints for the artefact and made out he was there on the night to big it up…then its possible there is a kurnal of truth, should the DNA on Eddows blood descendant be shown to be more conclusive

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff,

That was quick! Thank you very much for your reply. Much appreciated!

Carol

[Mabuse]

What I can't understand is why the policeman who supposedly found the shawl by Eddowes' body was allowed to take it home with him. If it had the blood of the victim all over it surely the officer in charge of the case would have made sure it was kept somewhere safe. I appreciate that the police then didn't have the methods of identification available today but it seems very strange to me that Simpson was given permission to keep it.

Carol

Yes, it has been discussed, but the point is really not how likely it is that the policeman, Amos Simpson, was able to take this garment.

The big issue is that he should not have been at the crime scene. The evidence we currently have suggests he could not have been there. He was stationed miles away.

There is actually no evidence that the shawl was at the crime scene either! It is conspicuous by its absence in the list of Eddowes' clothing.

The descendants of Simpson merely claim that this is the story passed down to them. David Melville Hayes' mother, who kept the shawl for over 50 years after inheriting it from her mother, said "No one knows [how he got it]. He was on duty then. He must have taken it off her. It got into his hands anyway!"

Police procedure of the time should have prohibited people taking items from a crime scene. We can't absolutely rule it out, because people did take souvenirs, but in this case Amos Simpson doesn't even seem to have been in the right part of London or the right Police service branch.

Most commentators suggest that it is extremely unlikely that Simpson would have been allowed to take such an item home with him.

If the blood does match with Eddowes - which is still not proven - then we might have to hypothesise some other scenario by which the garment got stained and came into Simpson's possession.

[Amanda]

Mrs.Simpson..

Hi Carol

You've probably answer your own question. The victims clothes were considered of little value in 1888. Blood or know blood it offered little of any use.

Monty could probably answer whether removing clothes was a serious offence or Not but I some how doubt it. The commercial value or even the News Paper stories were all still new and everyone was on a learning curve.

They did talk about bringing in Dogs.. But I don't think that happened until MJK event.

If Simpson offered a colleague a couple of pints for the artefact and made out he was there on the night to big it up…then its possible there is a kurnal of truth, should the DNA on Eddows blood descendant be shown to be more conclusive

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff,
Amos Simpson isn't the only issue here. As I've just posted on the other thread, what about Mrs.Simpson...

Amos : hello love, just been hanging around in Whitechapel instead of my usual beat, dropped in on a murdered prostitute and brought you a semen stained shawl as a gift

Jane: ah, thanks love, very thoughtful, now just sign those divorce papers before you pop up to bed!

Something smells of a rat...probably the shawl

On a lighter note, I'm disappointed that during this whole fiasco Russell Edwards failed to discover Jane Simpsons employment history (with a Jewish family) as I feel that line of enquiry deserves at least a cursory mention.

Amanda

[RockySullivan]

In my view, it's a stretch if you look at each murder individually. You cannot say that because he killed 4, 5, 6 women and was not apprehended then he he had a plan, cased the area, and/or stalked the victims. You must take each murder invidually and ask, why did he escape? What happend with Tabram is irrelevant to Nichols. What happened with Chapman is irrelevant to Eddowes. One does not affect the other. I realize I'm being snide in my responses with respect to him being a super-villan, etc. It's just that - to me - that's what this type of behavior implies because his NOT being observed, caught, arrested, was due to things he could not have controlled. In fact, based on the ACTUAL execution of the crimes, he SHOULD have been caught. To me, he showed NO (or very, very poor) planning. He killed in spots that were easily observed, usually from several vantage points: below windows, over-fences, around corners, in the shadows. It's clear these spots were chosen by the victims. They afforded the privacy THEY needed. They had the decency to go into the shadows to conduct business, a backyard, a corner of a deserted square. These were places where they may be seen....but they'd likely be ignored. They had the decency to seek SOME privacy, away from the public. But they didn't have the time or energy to seek total seclusion. Thus, they were killed in public, semi-secluded spots.

Fair enough...that's always possible too. I personally do not think the victims were chosen at random. I think the Killer knew his victims beforehand and stalked them, especially because Tom just said that two lived on the same street for nearly a decade....to me it make sense he's someone they both knew locally. Nothing about the attacks seem random to me...but thats just my personal theory.

However when you say each murder is irrelevant to the next....I wonder if this is so? There must be something about the earlier attacks that says something about the later attacks? How is the method evolving? The ripper must have learned to improve from an early mistake? What do you think?

[Patrick S]

Fair enough...that's always possible too. I personally do not think the victims were chosen at random. I think the Killer knew his victims beforehand and stalked them, especially because Tom just said that two lived on the same street for nearly a decade....to me it make sense he's someone they both knew locally. Nothing about the attacks seem random to me...but thats just my personal theory.

However when you say each murder is irrelevant to the next....I wonder if this is so? There must be something about the earlier attacks that says something about the later attacks? How is the method evolving? The ripper must have learned to improve from an early mistake? What do you think?

I didn't mean irrelevant from the perspective that the killer didn't evolve or improve (although that could be argued as well). I simply meant from the perspective that he avoided detection.

[Mabuse]

The ripper must have learned to improve from an early mistake? What do you think?

He did. He alters his M.O. with each attack. He refines his methods as he goes along and increases in the extremity of violence and mutilation.

I haven't got time to list the pattern here, but a pretty good rundown is given in the paper "The Jack the Ripper Murders: A Modus Operandi and Signature Analysis of the 1888–1891 Whitechapel Murders" by Keppel, Weis, Brown and Welch - Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling 2: 1–21 (2005).

He had target specificity, planning and organisation.

[Chris]

Are you saying that he, in effect, reverse engineered the mDNA match?

No, not in the least.

[Jeff Leahy]

He did. He alters his M.O. with each attack. He refines his methods as he goes along and increases in the extremity of violence and mutilation.

I haven't got time to list the pattern here, but a pretty good rundown is given in the paper "The Jack the Ripper Murders: A Modus Operandi and Signature Analysis of the 1888–1891 Whitechapel Murders" by Keppel, Weis, Brown and Welch - Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling 2: 1–21 (2005).

He had target specificity, planning and organisation.

Yeah but even animals learn as they go along and get better at their kill.

Takes a lion some time to learn its trade

I think your confusing what is meant by 'disorganised.' It simply means little if any pre-planning on who the actually victim will be..

Jack was just waiting an opportunity. Didn't mean he didn't go out on the hunt every night for all we know

Yours Jeff

[RockySullivan]

He did. He alters his M.O. with each attack. He refines his methods as he goes along and increases in the extremity of violence and mutilation.

I haven't got time to list the pattern here, but a pretty good rundown is given in the paper "The Jack the Ripper Murders: A Modus Operandi and Signature Analysis of the 1888–1891 Whitechapel Murders" by Keppel, Weis, Brown and Welch - Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling 2: 1–21 (2005).

He had target specificity, planning and organisation.

Thanks DR I will give a read. Jeff, As for him being on the hunt....I would say the stalking and planning is the hunt...not just aimlessly wandering looking for a lucky break.

[Westbourne Wink]

Yeah but even animals learn as they go along and get better at their kill.

Takes a lion some time to learn its trade

I think your confusing what is meant by 'disorganised.' It simply means little if any pre-planning on who the actually victim will be..

Jack was just waiting an opportunity. Didn't mean he didn't go out on the hunt every night for all we know

Yours Jeff

To me what you describe fits very well with Lechmere. He is organised but opportunistic.