Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Errata]

Organised/disorganised is outdated terminology.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

Hoarders are actually terribly organized. Just because we don't have a prayer of finding a 1992 phone bill in a hoarder's house doesn't mean he can't. He usually can. My family is full of them.

Organized vs. Disorganized has nothing to do with actual organization skills, though organized killers do tend to have them. It has to do with how much control they exert over the crime. Did they control the scene, the victim selection, the weapon, the moment of death etc. Someone like Ted Bundy did. Very much in control, therefore organized. Certainly Jeff Dahmer committed very messy crimes, but he too was organized. He controlled the crimes

Someone like Chase, or Mullin, or even Gein were disorganized, because the only control they had over the crime was whether or not to commit the murder. The victims were handy, not preselected, the murder weapons were what was available or close to hand, the timing was not great, the scenes were not in the killer's favor. I mean, Gein shot a woman he was going to use for skin. That's not the best way of killing someone for their hide. Thus fur trappers and not fur shooters. But he didn't think about it. Disorganized.

A murder does not have to be charted and planned to be organized. And a disorganized killer does not always act on the spur of the moment. It's all about whether or not they were attempting to control the murder, and how successful they were.

[Errata]

Yeah, I was referring to the psychiatrists I've spoken to, talking about a specific analysis and treatment of someones medical condition. They seemed to believe that this could often take many consultations to come to an actuate diagnosis.

I think thats something rather different to a Profiler. To be honest my only experience of profilers is watching Robbie Coltrain play Cracker. Although I guess I site Bond as an early profiler and I've picked stuff up from reading about various cases over the year.

Jeff

*Snoopy dance of joy*

Profilers are criminologists. Some may also have degrees in psychology, but profiling comes from statistics of known criminals. Not from a diagnostic manual. A psychiatric condition has to be closely monitored for at least 6 months in order for a diagnosis to be made. One reason that not a lot of shrinks will try to diagnose a historical figure (unless it's really really obvious. Like Caligula.). Also, a lot of conditions mimic each other. Mad King George is a great example. His symptoms could be schizophrenia, mania, porphyria, heavy metal poisoning... a lot of things. But if there wasn't one tiny little note about odd colored urine, porphyria would never be on the table. Nor would the average person think of mania because they don't associate delusions with mania. But it happens. Most people think "he talks to trees, ergo he is schizophrenic". But he most likely wasn't. So yes. It takes many consultations, a lot of observation, some absolute truth from the patient, and a little imagination when it comes to diagnosing someone.

I can look at Kosminski and say he was delusional. And I can say he had scrupulosity. Those are the symptoms he described, I'm not taking a shot in the dark on that. But those are symptoms and not diseases. And many diseases have those symptoms. I cannot say he was schizophrenic. Just like if he had headaches and a fever, I couldn't say he had encephalitis. He could have had a cold. A profiler will tell you that he had a cold, because 70% of people with those symptoms had colds. A doctor will do tests, observe, and then give a specific diagnosis and course of treatment.

[Fisherman]

Fantasio:

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?

Who indeed? Well, then I see what you mean. And if itīs any comfort, I regard it as at least as possible as the Edwards story ...

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?

Maybe itīs just me, but I find it hard to think that he would have gone "Wow, once upon a time, this shawl will be worth heaps!". Of course, the later in the process he aquires it, the more likely your suggestion will be, so perhaps ...

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.

Thereīs a reason alright! But the world is full of made-up stories and half-truths, so itīs anybodys guess.

Thanks for the greetings!

Youīre welcome, Fantasio!

The best,
Fisherman

[Jeff Leahy]

*Snoopy dance of joy*

Profilers are criminologists. Some may also have degrees in psychology, but profiling comes from statistics of known criminals. Not from a diagnostic manual. A psychiatric condition has to be closely monitored for at least 6 months in order for a diagnosis to be made. One reason that not a lot of shrinks will try to diagnose a historical figure (unless it's really really obvious. Like Caligula.). Also, a lot of conditions mimic each other. Mad King George is a great example. His symptoms could be schizophrenia, mania, porphyria, heavy metal poisoning... a lot of things. But if there wasn't one tiny little note about odd colored urine, porphyria would never be on the table. Nor would the average person think of mania because they don't associate delusions with mania. But it happens. Most people think "he talks to trees, ergo he is schizophrenic". But he most likely wasn't. So yes. It takes many consultations, a lot of observation, some absolute truth from the patient, and a little imagination when it comes to diagnosing someone.

I can look at Kosminski and say he was delusional. And I can say he had scrupulosity. Those are the symptoms he described, I'm not taking a shot in the dark on that. But those are symptoms and not diseases. And many diseases have those symptoms. I cannot say he was schizophrenic. Just like if he had headaches and a fever, I couldn't say he had encephalitis. He could have had a cold. A profiler will tell you that he had a cold, because 70% of people with those symptoms had colds. A doctor will do tests, observe, and then give a specific diagnosis and course of treatment.

I think thats pretty fair Errata

OF course when you approach a psychiatrist and say can you look at these asylum records and give an opinion about someone who died over hundred years ago. The first thing they do is qualify that opinion and set a range of Caveate's. Thats because as you say to give a precise diagnosis they would need extensive observation of an individual.

Obviously that is not available in this case. So the people I spoke who gave their best stab at it (And please note didn't actually come to identical conclusions) given the information provided and qualified that opinion.

So the probability given that information is that Aaron suffered a form of Schizophrenia, and Dr Lars Davidson used the term Hebophrenic. But I've never claimed a precise one hundred percent diagnosis…Its qualified opinion.

Tis the nature of TV and the best that could be done given the circumstance

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

Whose?

Hello Ghost.

"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."

Why Kate's?

Cheers.
LC

[Patrick S]

I've finished Edward's book and, perhaps owing to some prejudice going in, I found the "evidence" to be less than compelling. I'm not prepared to say that the science is rubbish. I'm not qualified. I will say that, in my experience, sound science does not have to be presented with exclamation points. The hypothoses speak for themselves. I don't find that to be the case here.

Having read the book on the heels of Rob House's book, I find I'm more intrigued by Kozminski these days. That is to say, as we've heard from Fish with resepct to Lechmere, "there's nothing to rule him out". Of couse, this isn't quite good enough and it's quite different than finding something to implicate him. Owing in large part to what I read in House's book and subsequent correspondence I've had with people more knowledgable than myself, I feel I'm not too far out on a limb in stating that Aaron Kozminski may not have been Jack the Ripper. But, Jack the Ripper was very likely to have been someone very much like Aaron Kozminski.

[mickreed]

I've finished Edward's book and, perhaps owing to some prejudice going in, I found the "evidence" to be less than compelling.

Thanks to a colleague, I got the book early and have also finished it. It's indeed less than compelling. I don't mean the science, per se, but its presentation, and the conclusions drawn from it. And as for the non-science. Well, don't get me started! Not yet, anyway.

Someone said, several squillion posts back, that the only real strength they could see in the book, was the strong possibility - if confirmed - that there was a link between Karen Miller's DNA, and some found on the shawl.

I'd second that. And I'd also say. That is interesting.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

I don't mean the science, per se, but its presentation, and the conclusions drawn from it. And as for the non-science. Well, don't get me started! Not yet, anyway.

Well mickread, I for one will be happy to see your thoughts on both the science and the non-science as I have enjoyed reading your thoughts from the start of this thread. So while "not yet" hopefully soon.

cheers, gryff

[Errata]

I think thats pretty fair Errata

OF course when you approach a psychiatrist and say can you look at these asylum records and give an opinion about someone who died over hundred years ago. The first thing they do is qualify that opinion and set a range of Caveate's. Thats because as you say to give a precise diagnosis they would need extensive observation of an individual.

Obviously that is not available in this case. So the people I spoke who gave their best stab at it (And please note didn't actually come to identical conclusions) given the information provided and qualified that opinion.

So the probability given that information is that Aaron suffered a form of Schizophrenia, and Dr Lars Davidson used the term Hebophrenic. But I've never claimed a precise one hundred percent diagnosis…Its qualified opinion.

Tis the nature of TV and the best that could be done given the circumstance

Yours Jeff

Hebephrenic Schizophrenia is certainly a possibility for Kosminski, though he would not be considered a "classic" case. But it is absolutely impossible for Jack the Ripper. Hebephrenia is not so much characterized by delusions and hallucinations, though they are present. The real problem is that hebephrenia is a very critical lack of behavioral organisation. Which essentially means an inability to complete basic tasks, such as bathing, eating, etc. Anything requiring more than a couple of steps to complete is out of the question. These are the kinds of Schizophrenics who need to be institutionalized for their own continued survival. They can and do starve to death. They do not in any way shape or form pass as normal. Their speech is jumbled, their affect is blunt, they do not use gestures at all, and the more the disease progresses the less their reflexes work. If we are operating under the assumption that the Ripper interacts at all with these women, he cannot be hebephrenic. Most importantly, two of the hallmark symptoms of hebephrenia are an inability to experience pleasure and an inability to be internally motivated. Both result in their own cascade of other behaviors, but none of them result in any kind of murder that is not motivated by (perceived) self defense.

Though it's interesting because one of the reasons that Kosminski might be eating out of the trash is because he was actually incapable of either preparing food or purchasing it. His delusions would cover his actual reasons, and there are quite a few good arguments that many delusions are in fact coping mechanisms covering other disabilities.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Fantasio:

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?

Who indeed? Well, then I see what you mean. And if itīs any comfort, I regard it as at least as possible as the Edwards story ...

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?

Maybe itīs just me, but I find it hard to think that he would have gone "Wow, once upon a time, this shawl will be worth heaps!". Of course, the later in the process he aquires it, the more likely your suggestion will be, so perhaps ...

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.

Thereīs a reason alright! But the world is full of made-up stories and half-truths, so itīs anybodys guess.

Thanks for the greetings!

Youīre welcome, Fantasio!

The best,
Fisherman

Hi, Fisherman.
I've been giving this matter quite a lot of thought.
My feeling is that it may come down to a confused family memory.
Firstly, remember that in the late 19th and early 20th Century, there was actually very little written about JTR and the crimes. And what was written was sensational and often fictionalized. There was a collective social memory of the whole episode but little chance for most people to do any serious fact checking.
So Amos Simpson has in his possession a garment taken from a crime scene or obtained in some manner from a lady who spent the night in the cells.
While he may not specifically ascribe it to JTR , because of Simpson's police background,someone in the family gets the idea that it may have belonged to a prostitute.
Then all it needs is a foggy recollection that a bloodied part of Eddowwes clothing was discovered on JTRs scape route.
We know today, because we have access to most of the reports, that it was a piece of her apron. But the recollection then may have been less distinct, simply that it was an article of feminine clothing.
So, although this may seem rather convoluted, its quite possible that a torn piece of apron becomes transformed into a shawl.
Thank you, Caligo.

[Caligo Umbrator]

And I just read this thread here -
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8348&page=16
Maybe a tall story but worth researching.
Caligo.

[Chris]

Someone said, several squillion posts back, that the only real strength they could see in the book, was the strong possibility - if confirmed - that there was a link between Karen Miller's DNA, and some found on the shawl.

I'd second that. And I'd also say. That is interesting.

But there appears to be a serious problem with it:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8370

[Fisherman]

Hi, Fisherman.
I've been giving this matter quite a lot of thought.
My feeling is that it may come down to a confused family memory.
Firstly, remember that in the late 19th and early 20th Century, there was actually very little written about JTR and the crimes. And what was written was sensational and often fictionalized. There was a collective social memory of the whole episode but little chance for most people to do any serious fact checking.
So Amos Simpson has in his possession a garment taken from a crime scene or obtained in some manner from a lady who spent the night in the cells.
While he may not specifically ascribe it to JTR , because of Simpson's police background,someone in the family gets the idea that it may have belonged to a prostitute.
Then all it needs is a foggy recollection that a bloodied part of Eddowwes clothing was discovered on JTRs scape route.
We know today, because we have access to most of the reports, that it was a piece of her apron. But the recollection then may have been less distinct, simply that it was an article of feminine clothing.
So, although this may seem rather convoluted, its quite possible that a torn piece of apron becomes transformed into a shawl.
Thank you, Caligo.

Thatīs not half bad, Caligo. I have little problem accepting that there may once have been street-lore involving faulty conceptions of what garment it was that went lost in the Eddowes case. In cases like these, exaggerations will typically be more common than toned-down stories, so the shawl fits well into that kind of thinking.

Itīs just a guess on your behalf, of course, and we need explanations foremost to where the shawl originated and how it ended up with the Amos SImpson family (which is all we can say, since there can be no certainty that Amos himself ever saw the shawl). But itīs - once again - a guess that is way ahead of the Russell Edwards version!

All the best,
Fisherman

[mickreed]

But there appears to be a serious problem with it:
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8370

That's right Chris. I actually posted that article myself a week or more ago. Tracey was already onto it. I said then that 314.1c was an 'error in nomenclature' but my knowledge didn't allow me to go much further. This explanation is very helpful.

Yes 315.1c is very common. I have it myself. Again the real issue is that RE cannot explain what's happening here. He, like most of the rest of us, doesn't have the background. If Jari doesn't come to the rescue, then it's all over I suspect.

I've now read the book, and apart from the possibility of an 'Eddowes match' there is nothing at al in its favour. If that falls over then …

Cheers

[Jeff Leahy]

Hebephrenic Schizophrenia is certainly a possibility for Kosminski, though he would not be considered a "classic" case. But it is absolutely impossible for Jack the Ripper. Hebephrenia is not so much characterized by delusions and hallucinations, though they are present. The real problem is that hebephrenia is a very critical lack of behavioral organisation. Which essentially means an inability to complete basic tasks, such as bathing, eating, etc. Anything requiring more than a couple of steps to complete is out of the question. These are the kinds of Schizophrenics who need to be institutionalized for their own continued survival. They can and do starve to death. They do not in any way shape or form pass as normal. Their speech is jumbled, their affect is blunt, they do not use gestures at all, and the more the disease progresses the less their reflexes work. If we are operating under the assumption that the Ripper interacts at all with these women, he cannot be hebephrenic. Most importantly, two of the hallmark symptoms of hebephrenia are an inability to experience pleasure and an inability to be internally motivated. Both result in their own cascade of other behaviors, but none of them result in any kind of murder that is not motivated by (perceived) self defense.

Though it's interesting because one of the reasons that Kosminski might be eating out of the trash is because he was actually incapable of either preparing food or purchasing it. His delusions would cover his actual reasons, and there are quite a few good arguments that many delusions are in fact coping mechanisms covering other disabilities.

My understand is that Dt Lars Davidson reached that conclusion based on Aaron's estimated age, the described progression and eventually burn out. The other expert I sort advice from in detail didn't go as far simply stating a form of schizophrenia. My understand is that these old forms of schizophrenic description have been largely droped and some modern psychiatrists suggesting schizophrenia is actually a single SYNDROME. (My guess is there is little agreement internationally)

But as I understand all three of these previously used categories can and do enter a phase known as 'Psychosis' under certain conditions. The catyalist often being drugs (Majuana) or usually alcohol (Discussed Antony Hardy yesterday)

I accept that statistically Paraniod schizophrenics tend to be more dangerous. Hebophrenic attacks are more rare and are more often associated with one off 'Spree' killing events in our modern society.

Aaron possess a number of problems because he doesn't appear to fit into an easy categorisation. Firstly the reports of compulsive masturbation are not usual with Hebophrenic schizophrenia and then we have that beguiling phrase:

'He knows the where a bouts of all mankind"

This might possibly indicate quite a savere paranoia again atypical of hebephrenic and possibly Paraniod. But as I've said we accept today that these terms are far from satisfactory. Its a subject we are still trying to understand and learn more about.

What we know is Jack the Ripper style murders are extremely rare and Aaron appeared to have a very rare condition not a typical of hebephrenic schizophrenia… So we are back to the same basic problem… What happened in those vary early schizophrenic attacks? Could Aaron at first be vary lucid and highly functional but extremely dangerous whilst under the influence of alcohol?

I think while its rare we have to accept the possibility it could have happened. And that needs to be balanced against Anderson and Swansons claims that they knew who committed the crimes, it was Kosminski and Aaron is currently the only man in the records.

If Aaron where suffering a rare form of Hebophrenic Schizophrenia rather than Paranoid schizophrenia my personal opinion is that it far better explains why the murders suddenly stopped, as he became increasingly dysfunctional. And why there is little evidence of later violence..

Especially if the incident with the knife and sister happened in brick lane in 1888.

Of course this is largely speculation but hopefully it is considered

Yours Jeff