Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[tji]

Hi Mick

That's right Chris. I actually posted that article myself a week or more ago. Tracey was already onto it.

Yes you did, and I would just like to apologise as I shot it down, believing at the time I was wrong. Apologies for that Mick.

Tracy

[mickreed]

Hi Mick



Yes you did, and I would just like to apologise as I shot it down, believing at the time I was wrong. Apologies for that Mick.

Tracy

No worries, Tracy. I nursed my wounded pride by crawling under my stone, defeated, but you and Chris came good. Well done.

And apologies never necessary. But thanks anyway.

[Mabuse]

I accept that statistically Paraniod schizophrenics tend to be more dangerous.

People suffering from schizophrenia are rarely dangerous at all.

The idea that people suffering from schizophrenia alone are dangerous is a terrible myth that needs to go away.

Firstly the reports of compulsive masturbation are ...

Completely fictional, Mr Leahy.

We've been over this.

There is no evidence at all that Kosminski was a compulsive masturbator. That he was a masturbator at all is anecdotal.

So that's one thing you can put in your theory's favour.

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…

The descriptions of Aaron's symptoms are completely typical of paranoid-type schizophrenia. They are not unusual at all for that type of illness.

With respect, you appear to be reaching to fit the known evidence to your hypothesis.

M.

[Fisherman]

What we know is Jack the Ripper style murders are extremely rare and Aaron appeared to have a very rare condition...
Yours Jeff

A bit too easy to my taste.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jeff Leahy]

People suffering from schizophrenia are rarely dangerous at all.

The idea that people suffering from schizophrenia alone are dangerous is a terrible myth that needs to go away.

Well it certainly isn't a MYTH that can be laid at my door. Anyone who has taken the trouble to actually read what I say, or indeed what I was told by various experts, knows I always state categorically that schizophrenics are not dangerous , indeed my favourite quote from Dr Lars Davidson is 'Nomore likely that other people in society to commit violent crimes'

I've also supplied extensive research from Finland which disputes this statement claiming that from studies carried out there schizophrenics are percentage wise slightly more likely to commit violent crimes and I've answered that anomaly by pointing out schizophrenics are more likely to form addictions to drugs and alcohol. And Addicts are more likely to commit violent crimes.

But incase anyone hasn't noticed it…. Schizophrenics are not dangerous

Completely fictional, Mr Leahy.

We've been over this.

There is no evidence at all that Kosminski was a compulsive masturbator. That he was a masturbator at all is anecdotal.

So that's one thing you can put in your theory's favour.

Yes we have and it was an argument you lost because its quite clear that everyone who actually comments, including Sir Robert Anderson, make it absolutely clear that he did.

The descriptions of Aaron's symptoms are completely typical of paranoid-type schizophrenia. They are not unusual at all for that type of illness.

With respect, you appear to be reaching to fit the known evidence to your hypothesis.

M.

Yes but as has been explained Aarons age, development and descent into 'burnout' is more typical of what Dr Lars Davidson describes as a form of schizophrenia that used to be termed Hebophrenic..

It would be very rare for someone to become dangerous from this form but it is possible if the person suffering it in the early stages was using a catalyst that induced 'psychosis'

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

confident

Hello Anna.

"If it were me, and I had the confidence in what I was pushing, I wouldn't need to be aggressive."

Indeed. When you are confident of your material, you let the reader decide.

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

A bit too easy to my taste.

The best,
Fisherman

Actually I think you could go further in that the Jack the Ripper style murders are almost unique

The problem with that is you also have to accept some fairly out there solutions put forward by various suspect ripperologists and accept we could be looking at a bizarre one off..

Personally I don't think so. There have been other examples of mutilation and canibalism. But all from extreme serial killers.

Yours Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Actually I think you could go further in that the Jack the Ripper style murders are almost unique

The problem with that is you also have to accept some fairly out there solutions put forward by various suspect ripperologists and accept we could be looking at a bizarre one off..

Personally I don't think so. There have been other examples of mutilation and canibalism. But all from extreme serial killers.

Yours Jeff

Jeff
I have seen to many comparisons being made on here between JTR and modern day serial killers which I think is wrong.

Where do modern day serial killers get their motives and ideas about mutilation and cannibalism from, other killers that have preceded them and what they did to their victims etc.

JTR did not have the benefit of that did he that is why we must seriously question all that he is supposed to have done in connection with these murders. When you do that there is a clear case to dispute what he is supposed to have done to the victims and more importantly there is a case to suggest one killer was not responsible for all the murders.

I have not come across any murders before JTR where a victim had their organs surgically removed in the street in a short period of time. But there a more modern recent cases when this happened so were did the more recent killers get their motives and ideas from JTR perhaps?

This man JTR has a lot to answer for !

[Fisherman]

Actually I think you could go further in that the Jack the Ripper style murders are almost unique

The problem with that is you also have to accept some fairly out there solutions put forward by various suspect ripperologists and accept we could be looking at a bizarre one off..

Personally I don't think so. There have been other examples of mutilation and canibalism. But all from extreme serial killers.

Yours Jeff

What I disliked was the construction that the murders were quite rare, and since Kos suffered a quite rare illness ...

That is not enough to make any sort of connection at all. It´s linguistically deceptive, but that´s about all it amounts to.

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

Suffice it to say that in your original post you didn't say any of those things you're now talking about - all that that came only after I challenged you.

Your allegations weren’t confined to a single post. But, since you mention it, here’s what was written in my ‘original post’: ‘In his BBC radio interview Dr Jari described how he ‘authenticated’ the shawl. He compared the mtDNA derived from one of Kate’s descendants to that contained within a presumed bloodstain on the shawl, uncovered a match, and from there used this mtDNA match as the basis for assuming that the shawl had been present at the Mitre Square crime scene.’

The clue is in the opening sentence: ‘In his BBC radio interview Dr Jari described how he ‘authenticated’ the shawl.’ The paragraph was never intended as a comprehensive account of Dr Jari’s every case-related utterance. It was a simple description of how he claimed to have authenticated the shawl. Clear and unambiguous. The fact that you are now talking about ‘tactics’, ‘omissions’ and ‘misrepresentation’ on my part says a great deal more about you, I’m afraid, than it does me.

Here’s what Dr Jari also stated in that same interview: ‘Russell is showing the circumstantial evidence which is linked to this case … But we think that we have the most plausible scene that has happened presented in the book.’

But we think that we have the most plausible scene that has happened presented in the book.

And here’s one of his recent tweets: ‘For Radio Israel I told that our suspect had always been described as Polish Jew since 1888 - do not blame us !!’

For Radio Israel I told that our suspect had always been described as Polish Jew since 1888 …

So carp on as much as you like, Chris, but I’ve misrepresented no-one. Dr Jari is unquestionably of the belief that the shawl was at the Mitre Square crime scene. He also shares Mr Edwards’ views regarding the so-called solution and even refers to Kosminski as ‘our suspect’.

You misrepresented what Dr Louhelainen had said then, and now you're misrepresenting what I've posted here.

Not so. But if you want misrepresentation try this for size:-

Since then Garry Wroe has similarly omitted Dr Lohelainen's statement that his estimate of the age of the stains could only be a vague one.

Somewhat predictably, despite the fact that this statement has been exposed as demonstrably untrue, you continue to insist that I’m the one guilty of misrepresentation.

Small wonder that you appear to be making a habit of antagonizing other posters on this thread.

[Theagenes]

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

Yeas, this certainly changes everything and requires explanations. Without the Eddowes match, this really is much ado about nothing.

Reading the article now.

[Mabuse]

Yes we have and it was an argument you lost because its quite clear that everyone who actually comments, including Sir Robert Anderson, make it absolutely clear that he did.

There is zero evidence that Aaron Kosminski was a compulsive masturbator, and the evidence that he masturbated at all comes from second hand sources who could not possibly know whether he did or not. David Cohen apparently tells Kosminski's doctor this, for which I cannot find any verification but I trust it is true. Macnaghten claims it, without any supportive evidence. It's also added to the Admission form in red ink, by persons unknown at an unknown time. This isn't very strong.

Anecdotal evidence is not worth much.

Add to that, the Victorians thought masturbation was a bizarre evil which caused all sorts of illnesses, including mental illness. Such sources are not credible.

It is absolutely imperative for your position to claim that these sources have veracity. That is clear from the thread thus far, and you've done a good job of ignoring every salient critical argument thrown your way. That doesn't mean you've won an argument, it means you've stopped up your ears!

However, it seems to me that objective analysis erodes the value of your position on Kosminski profoundly.

Thus, we see the claim that your source verified the shawl was an early 20th C. table runner get blown away, when it transpires that the gent you quoted didn't even work at the institution you claimed, and he did not support your position at all. It actually turns out it *is* a shawl, and absolutely does fit the Regency era design pattern very well, as does the method of manufacture.

We also see the claims about Kosminski whittled down to a few lines written long after the events by people who either make substantial errors or exonerate him of the Ripper crimes.

No evidence for Kosminski having a history of violence or any priors at all. His violent outbursts are normal for someone with an illness like schizophrenia - almost always directed at a family member or in the home.

So we're left somehow trying to massage Kosminski's illness into the dangerous lunatic category by desperately grasping at straws. It's not a good look.

M.

[Carol]

Why is that woman wearing a table runner?

Just what I was wondering, Patrick!

Carol

[Carol]

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.

Hi Caligo,

Totally agree with you! Thanks for posting this.

Welcome to Casebook, by the way!

Carol

[lynn cates]

fool's errand

Hello Theagenes.

"this certainly changes everything and requires explanations. Without the Eddowes match, this really is much ado about nothing."

Yes, this was ALL a fool's errand--the shawl lacks a believable provenance.

But for some reason, everyone goes crazy when hearing the word "science."

Cheers.
LC