Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[RavenDarkendale]

In this particular case, you might say the term DNA should stand for "Do Not Assume"

[Mabuse]

If I remember correctly he blocked the drains with body parts.

You're thinking of Dennis Nilsen.

[GUT]

In this particular case, you might say the term DNA should stand for "Do Not Assume"

I actually prefer the earlier one [by Pinkmoon I think, but sorry if wrong]

Definitely. Not. Aaron

[GUT]

I actually prefer the earlier one [by Pinkmoon I think, but sorry if wrong]

Definitely. Not. Aaron

The biggest problem is he's a very good suspect, just a pity that this book is likely to see a lot of people turned off him because of all the apparent flaws.

[Jeff Leahy]

You're thinking of Dennis Nilsen.

I don't think so… Hardy also dumped body parts in bin liners in local wheelie bins… I think he killed three possibly four prostitutes.. but targeted other victims aswell.

He chopped up the bodies in his bath so must have caused quite a smell.

but a little off topic

Yours Jeff

[Observer]

The biggest problem is he's a very good suspect, just a pity that this book is likely to see a lot of people turned off him because of all the apparent flaws.

That's crap. We're dealing with one man's beliefs, the book will do Kosminskis candidacy no harm whatsoever. Nor will it see a "lot" of people turned off him.

[Trevor Marriott]

The biggest problem is he's a very good suspect, just a pity that this book is likely to see a lot of people turned off him because of all the apparent flaws.

A very good suspect you have to be kidding?

[Fisherman]

You're thinking of Dennis Nilsen.

Or Joachim Kroll.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fantasio:

I'm yet another long-time-lurker, first-time poster and so on. I'm especially interested in dissertations, but I also like some forum debate.

Welcome to the boards, Fantasio!

So, what about the "shawl" provenance? I trust people who investigated the matter, and I believe it could not have been in Mitre Square. Also, I believe neither Simpson was. But it's quite obvious his story is made up: the thing about "asking for permission, permission was given" strongly reminds me of children caught in doing something wrong: "mummy gave me permission, so what?".

I concur - the shawl was most probably not in Mitre Square on the murder night, and the same goes for Amos Simpson.

What I think is the "shawl" was owned by Jack. Who - never forget that! - took away one of Eddowes' kidney. If he took the kidney home, and the "shawl" was there, a contact could have occurred (if the "shawl" was a table runner, for example, just putting the kidney on it for a moment). And that's more than enough to justify both Eddowes' DNA and Jack's DNA without theorizing strange ways to place the "shawl" in Mitre Square without everyone noticing. And there's no need to speculate on Jack's masturbation habits and if/when/where/how fast he did it.

Possible, I guess.

The Simpson story is a puzzle. There are tenths of possibilities.

At the very least, yes.

He could have bought/stolen/found/was given the "shawl" by a lot of people (fellow policemen, Jack/Cohen/Kosminsky's relatives, through his wife).

I guess that could happen - but things are beginning to stretch here, I fear.

He likely knew the "shawl" belonged to a suspect...

Wait a minute - didn´t you just say that the shawl belonged to Jack?

...and thought that in time could be worth a lot of money.

I´m not too sure about this. The hunt was ongoing, and there was every chance that the murderer would have been found, in which case the shawl would probably not have been worth much money. Simpson could not possibly foresee the interest that would rise in the Ripper case.

But could not link the object to a murder, despite the bloodstain.

Without DNA fingerprinting and even blood types, that was not possibile.

Well, if it had been listed, he would have had the provenance in black and white ...

So - perhaps - that's the reason he made up his story: only claiming to have found himself the "shawl" near the body of Eddowes a link was possible. At the time many people knew the story was untrue and nor he neither the "shawl" had been there. But would have been the same after 10-20 years or more? How could he know that even after 126 years (!) researchers would still be able to prove his story untrue?

I think it would be a stretch to speculate that Simpson sussed out that the killer would become the most infamous one in history. And it seems very far-fetched to me to accept that he speculated that the shawl could become valuable at a stage when those who could testify that it was never there had died out. It would predispose that he left it as some sort of future investment for his great-great grandchildren to potentially profit from.

I don't think well'ever know the truth about the "shawl", so further studied will be needed, but until dr. JariLou's work will have been peer reviewed, there's little we can do...

... and it now seems this may never happen, Fantasio!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fantasio]

He likely knew the "shawl" belonged to a suspect...

Wait a minute - didn´t you just say that the shawl belonged to Jack?

Let's put it in this way: I think the "shawl" belonged to Jack. IF Jack was one of the then-suspects (Kosminky, Cohen, Druitt and so on) it's possible Simpson knew that and thought something like "if this guy is ever found guilty and hanged everything that belonged to him, especially everything with bloodstains, will be worth a lot".
That depends, of course, on when the "shawl" came into Simpson's hands - sooner or later it did, after all! But that's one thing we don't know and likely never will. So there's nothing we can do apart from speculation. Unless some miracle from great Amanda not-Sumner... who knows?

I think it would be a stretch to speculate that Simpson sussed out that the killer would become the most infamous one in history.

Why not? He was one of the first known serial killers, and by far the most (in)famous at the time. Could he imagine JTR was going to be the first of many?

And it seems very far-fetched to me to accept that he speculated that the shawl could become valuable at a stage when those who could testify that it was never there had died out.

Possibly. Or maybe he just stole the "shawl" and made up a cover story. The story cannot be true, so there must be a reason why he (or some relative of his) made it up.

Thanks for the greetings!

[Ghost]

Given Simpson's profession, it would seem likely that a shawl with a blood stain on it, especially if in a splatter pattern, came from a murder scene.

If not from Mitre Square, then someone needs to explain how Simpson randomly came into possession of an object that most likely has Eddowes' blood on it.

[Ghost]

@theagenes

I wanted to thank you for your careful take on the book. I just got done reading through some of those posts. When the number 7,200 possible people is used, has that been adjusted for coming from a male source? Are the figures really 1 of 7,200 people and 1 of 3,600 males? Or is it 1 in 7,200 males?

[Theagenes]

@theagenes

I wanted to thank you for your careful take on the book. I just got done reading through some of those posts. When the number 7,200 possible people is used, has that been adjusted for coming from a male source? Are the figures really 1 of 7,200 people and 1 of 3,600 males? Or is it 1 in 7,200 males?

That number for T1a1 came from a DNA database website that was discussing the Daily Mail article early on. Another source cited by John a few pages back suggested that it was more common than that. So I don't think it's very clear just how common T1a1 is as there seems to be conflicting information.

Suffice to say it's certainly more common than what is being claimed for the Eddowes match.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good morning Ghost and welcome to the discussion group,

If not from Mitre Square, then someone needs to explain how Simpson randomly came into possession of an object that most likely has Eddowes' blood on it.

He didn't.

The shawl is a textbook case of 'do not analyse' item due to contamination.

Roy

[Carol]

[QUOTE=Mabuse;311386]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.

Thank you, Mabuse, for your feed back.

Carol