Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Scott Nelson]

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.

Maybe it was found by a citizen some distance from Mitre Square, who subsequently gave it to a policeman some time afterwards -- in this case a MET officer (Simpson).

[Patrick S]

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

And how on God's green earth do you know that Charles Lechmere was 'organised and opportunistic'? One might think that Eddie Stowe has a new user name.....

[John G]

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

Hi Amanda

I'm beginning to get a strange feeling that Russell Edwards might have been somewhat less than rigorous in the research department! Still, can't really blame him- we all need to establish a good work-life balance!

Best wishes,

John

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

You've just gotta love Jeff Leahy, the world's only surviving brain-donor.

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

Awaiting an opportunity? Oh puhleeze! Get a grip. There were an estimated 1200 prostitutes in the Whitechapel area.

If Jack really was "down on whores," he was literally spoiled for choice.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lynn

If your referring to Russell Edwards then these charges could be levelled at all of us. We are after all largely struggling ripperologists trying to understand lots of fields that seem relevant to one area or another we are examining..

Indeed it might be argued that becoming a ripperologist you condemn yourself to being the 'Jack' of all trades, if you'll excuse the pun.

My conversation with Russell suggested a genuine chap with an interest in the case trying to follow a lead he believes in. And that accusation might be laid at many 'Suspect' ripperologist on these boards.

And in my opinion it is often suspect ripperologist who drive the case forward so please cut the man some slac. I don't believe we are looking at any 'untoward' if some understandable over enthusiasm.

Yours Jeff

That's not an 'accusation', Jeff. There's nothing wrong with following leads or sharing your suspicions. And I wholeheartedly agree that suspect Ripperology is the primary source of popular interest in this case. But the "I've proved the Ripper's identity beyond doubt" days should now be behind us. Or don't you agree?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[pinkmoon]

None of this is true because the shawl could never have been at any of the murder sites.

[Westbourne Wink]

And how on God's green earth do you know that Charles Lechmere was 'organised and opportunistic'? One might think that Eddie Stowe has a new user name.....

Haha. God forbid MULTIPLE people might have the same opinion, not just Edward Stow.

Although I know you do like to only be one suspect.

What I am saying is - I don't believe the killer was 'disorganised' as Jeff says, in fact I think that's wrong (and rules out Kosminski, for me, emphasis on for me) but I do agree there is evidence that he took his chances when they presented themselves, rather than carefully selecting his victim. Which is a slightly more disorganised approach.

So a man who used his work and routes he was very familiar was as the basis for his hunting ground because he would (a) know his way around, know where to look, where to hide and where to run (b) blend in seemlessly (c) chose a time of day that would keep potential witnesses to a minimum (d) a time of day that also happened to blend in with his legitimate work patterns = organised.

Selecting a prostitute at random when a good moment came up (within the context outlined above) = disorganised.

Therefore, if Lechmere were the Ripper, he would fit well with a fusion between a organised AND disorgansised killer.

That's what I was saying.

[RockySullivan]

That's not an 'accusation', Jeff. There's nothing wrong with following leads or sharing your suspicions. And I wholeheartedly agree that suspect Ripperology is the primary source of popular interest in this case. But the "I've proved the Ripper's identity beyond doubt" days should now be behind us. Or don't you agree?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Exactly Tom. The "I proved it" when he clearly hasn't yet is what makes this a fraudulent claim. Lots of people keep saying it's not fraud....but that's a fraudulent claim!!! It is fraud by definition!!
It's not the he faked the DNA...it's that he faked what the DNA amounts to in the media.

[Tom_Wescott]

Organised/disorganised is outdated terminology. I've never been comfortable with the black/white, either/or rankings of profilers. And then years later they tag on organised/disorganised. Think of how ludicrous this is. You can't even call it profiling because it fits almost everyone. Hoarders are disorganised, OCD people are organised. The other 95% of us are a combination of both.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

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

Yes I agree. But if a positive match.. blood to endows descendant is made..

We'll have to figure out a drama where it works because the evidence says so

But I appreciate your scepticism, you have the makings of a fine Ripperologist

With thanks for your style... Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Organised/disorganised is outdated terminology. I've never been comfortable with the black/white, either/or rankings of profilers. And then years later they tag on organised/disorganised. Think of how ludicrous this is. You can't even call it profiling because it fits almost everyone. Hoarders are disorganised, OCD people are organised. The other 95% of us are a combination of both.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Yep the whole organised disorganised thing is miss leading. All the experts I spoke to said they need One to One diagnosis

And if I'm honest I didn't get the feeling they could give me a definitive answer even if they did..

And no I'm not supporting case closed Tom… I'm just trying to figure out the latest leads and info as I'd like to update my program…

But thats about getting the FACTS straight.. I'm a ripperologist these days

Currently looking forward to the Druit walk next month!! as My main current interest is the Jack the Stripper murder sites two of which take a similar journey

Jeff

[pinkmoon]

None of this is true because the shawl couldn't have been at any of the murder sites

[Patrick S]

Although I know you do like to only be one suspect.

I don't understand this.......

What I am saying is - I don't believe the killer was 'disorganised' as Jeff says, in fact I think that's wrong (and rules out Kosminski, for me, emphasis on for me) but I do agree there is evidence that he took his chances when they presented themselves, rather than carefully selecting his victim. Which is a slightly more disorganised approach.

Well, then what you believe is wrong. It' wishful thinking. And that's fine. You're not alone, obviously. I'll just drag a quote from my notes. I'll cut and paste from 2003.....a man who does this kind of thing for a living that I now count as a close friend said this to me:

Its fairly simple. If you stop by a friends house unannounced and you see dirty dishes lying all over the place, dirty underwear on the floor, fithly toilets, and trash that hasn't been taken out in a week, you know that this guy's a slob, don't you? It's the same with a crime scene. You make initial impressions like 'organized' and 'disorganized'. The body always tells you that. When you've been doing this as long as _____ and I have you know. In the twelve years I've been at _____ I've never had an initial assement proven wrong. It's something you can pretty much count on. We were trained to make those impressions and tweak them as we get more information and go deeeper into the investigation. We were never told this would be such a solid thing. But it is. At least it has been up to now.

Do I think Kozminski was Jack the Ripper? I have no idea. I'm not in the business of naming suspects. I'm open to all possibilities, believe it or now. I'll tell you what people with training and experience in these matters have told me: If it wasn't him it was someone just like him.



So a man who used his work and routes he was very familiar was as the basis for his hunting ground because he would (a) know his way around, know where to look, where to hide and where to run (b) blend in seemlessly (c) chose a time of day that would keep potential witnesses to a minimum (d) a time of day that also happened to blend in with his legitimate work patterns = organised.

I really hope you can see what you're doing here. You are arriving a misguided conclusion that the killer was 'organized' because IF Charles Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, he would have been organized. This is exactly the wrong approach and I can't believe intelligent people still take it. We only know what we know! What we KNOW about Jack the Ripper comes ONLY from his victims bodies and the crime scenes. We know the condition of the bodies. We know they were mutilated. We know were killed on the spot. We know this is a killer who professionals would today categorize as 'DISorganized'. Sometimes things are fairly simple. I know it's not romantic and we often like things to be complex. This is not. IF Charles Lechmere were a serial killer his victims would NOT look like Jack the Ripper's victims. It really is that simple.

Selecting a prostitute at random when a good moment came up (within the context outlined above) = disorganised.

Therefore, if Lechmere were the Ripper, he would fit well with a fusion between a organised AND disorgansised killer.

See above. Stating it this way doesn't make it LESS wrong. You are bestowing upon the killer attributes you THINK Lechmere may have had, if he HAD been the Ripper and if he HAD used his work routes, etc. Again, what do we KNOW!?!

That's what I was saying.

See above bold.

[Patrick S]

Yep the whole organised disorganised thing is miss leading. All the experts I spoke to said they need One to One diagnosis

And if I'm honest I didn't get the feeling they could give me a definitive answer even if they did..

And no I'm not supporting case closed Tom… I'm just trying to figure out the latest leads and info as I'd like to update my program…

But thats about getting the FACTS straight.. I'm a ripperologist these days

Currently looking forward to the Druit walk next month!! as My main current interest is the Jack the Stripper murder sites two of which take a similar journey

Jeff

Hi, Jeff. Can you elaborate on "One to One diagnosis"?

I've never had an investigator or profiler tell me they were surprised by what kind of person the killer was. These guys can be pretty arrogant, yeah. But, I tend to believe them. Another great quote I have here: "They pretty much are what they do."

Let me know about the Druitt walk. I'm going to be in London soon and need a diverson or two.

[John G]

Yep the whole organised disorganised thing is miss leading. All the experts I spoke to said they need One to One diagnosis

And if I'm honest I didn't get the feeling they could give me a definitive answer even if they did..

And no I'm not supporting case closed Tom… I'm just trying to figure out the latest leads and info as I'd like to update my program…

But thats about getting the FACTS straight.. I'm a ripperologist these days

Currently looking forward to the Druit walk next month!! as My main current interest is the Jack the Stripper murder sites two of which take a similar journey

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

How would you categorize Anthony Hardy, the Camden Ripper? The police believe he may have murdered 10 or more women, despite the fact he seemed to lead a highly dysfunctional lifestyle. He was homeless for a period, living in hostels, and had a number of mental health and substance abuse problems- not unlike Kosminski, really.

Just a minute, I seem to be making a case for Kosminski...what's going on! All this analysis of Edwards' arguments must be sending me mad!