Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[John G]

Nexus and provenance

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.

Hi Mick,

For me the key issues in all of this long saga are nexus and provenance. Thus, applying the most favorable interpretation of the evidence, let us accept provisionally that Eddowes' genetic material is on the garment together with other genetic material relating to Kosminski's mtDNA. What would that actually prove? I mean, assuming that around 90.000 Londoners in 1888 shared Kosminski's haplogroup, why would it be any more likely to be his genetic material than any one of the other 90,000 individuals?

What is required is something more. Firstly, clear provenance regarding the scarf so that we can at least postulate that the genetic material may have been deposited in 1888. Secondly, some nexus connecting Kosminski directly to Eddowes or another victim.

As regards provenance, this is virtually non existent, relying on some story about Amos Simpson and the shawl that appears to have been passed down through the ages like some generational Chinese whispers.

As regards nexus, it seems to me that all we have at the moment to connect Kosminski to the murders is an unreliable identification, possibly but not necessarily at the Seaside Home, of some one who may or may not have been Kosminski, by an unreliable witness, possibly Lawende, but maybe not, several years after the event!

[Theagenes]

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

Nonsense. Trying to get at the truth is not a fool's errand nor did anyone here go crazy. New evidence was presented by Jari and Edwards, some of us who weren't scared of it did the best we could to evaluate what was presentated (in a very unsatisfactory way by Edwards), and we pointed out the flaws in it as well as the possible strengths, pending the presentation of further information. New information has now come to light that casts doubt on the one strong piece of evidence presented (the Miller-shawl match) and that needs to be re-evaluated. This is what rational people without agenda's do.

The closest thing to crazy I've seen in this thread are the people who cling to any anecdotal tidbit they can if it feed's their own confirmation bias -- like someone putting their hands over their ears, closing their eyes, while sitting in the corner, rocking back and forth, chanting "Edwardian table runner" over and over again. I have seen behavior like that -- metaphorically speaking of course.

[mickreed]

He had other brothers, another one was Isaac.. Betsys maiden name was Kosminski.
Only one brother was acknowledged on his burial stone. The other was possibly dead by 1919

Hi Wolfie,

As I say, when I suggested what you just did, I was corrected and having checked, I was rightly corrected. The attached gives the basics.

[mickreed]

Hi Mick,

For me the key issues in all of this long saga are nexus and provenance. Thus, applying the most favorable interpretation of the evidence, let us accept provisionally that Eddowes' genetic material is on the garment together with other genetic material relating to Kosminski's mtDNA. What would that actually prove? I mean, assuming that around 90.000 Londoners in 1888 shared Kosminski's haplogroup, why would it be any more likely to be his genetic material than any one of the other 90,000 individuals?

What is required is something more. Firstly, clear provenance regarding the scarf so that we can at least postulate that the genetic material may have been deposited in 1888. Secondly, some nexus connecting Kosminski directly to Eddowes or another victim.

As regards provenance, this is virtually non existent, relying on some story about Amos Simpson and the shawl that appears to have been passed down through the ages like some generational Chinese whispers.

As regards nexus, it seems to me that all we have at the moment to connect Kosminski to the murders is an unreliable identification, possibly but not necessarily at the Seaside Home, of some one who may or may not have been Kosminski, by an unreliable witness, possibly Lawende, not, several years after the event!

No arguments with most of that John, and, if the discussions in other threads are even half-right, then even the 'Eddowes match' is looking very dodgy.

[wolfie1]

Hi Wolfie,

As I say, when I suggested what you just did, I was corrected and having checked, I was rightly corrected. The attached gives the basics.

Yes, I understand that is what was published back in 2010. But is not the full story as I know it....will leave it at that.
Wolfie

[Fisherman]

Hey Christer

This proves nothing, but may be suggestive.

Aaron's brother, Woolf, had three sons with WWI records. Two of them give their height and build:


Harry - 5ft 2" Expanded chest 32"

Joseph - 5ft 3.75" Expanded chest 34 inches

Little, quite slender blokes.

Was Aaron like this?

The Leavesden notes seem to reinforce the suggestion, at least. But that´s all we can say. The balance of probabilitites does speak for a small, slender man, and these notations about his nephews (Woolf was his brother) do nothing to dissolve that picture.

Contrary to what Jeff says, I find that instead of all finds pointing to Aaron being the Ripper they actually lead me away from that conclusion. I feel more certain about that today than I did in the pre-shawl days.

All the best,
Fisherman

[mickreed]

Yes, I understand that is what was published back in 2010. But is not the full story as I know it....will leave it at that.
Wolfie

Up to you Wolfie, but if you know different, I for one, would value the knowledge.

[Phil Carter]

cynical..

Hello Mick,

Being cynically inclined about all of this... I have the odd notion that something else is suddenly going to 'turn up' out of the blue to "re-inforce" the Simpson/Kosminski/Edwards "claim" because the overwhelming reaction to this latest saga from within the field of interested parties is that this "story/theory/presentation" is woefully lacking in many different ways.

I sincerely hope I am wrong. But since the late 1950's attempt after attempt has been made to make something out of nothing.
"The ghost of Christmas past" haunts this field.

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

I didn't realise you were knowledgeable about serial killers in Eastern Europe, who, if Kosminski was the murderer, were the people who would have influenced him, assuming one accepts that serial killers learn from the serial killers who went before them. Anyway, I would have thought that Eastern Europe, with their traditions of vampires and werewolves, would have furnished lots of examples of Ripper-like serial killings.

No one, that was the point but it seems as usual you rush to have your usual sarcastic dig at me has backfired on you yet again.

The killer did not have anyone to model himself on, So it makes the organ removal issue somewhat weaker do you not think ? For a killer in 1888 to suddenly think "Oh i will and show my anatomical skills by removing organs from two out of the handful i kill!"

Historians !

ADDED
Please tell me where a lunatic like Aaron Kosminski acquired his anatomical skills ?

[PaulB]

No one, that was the point but it seems as usual you rush to have your usual sarcastic dig at me has backfired on you yet again.

The killer did not have anyone to model himself on, So it makes the organ removal issue somewhat weaker do you not think ? For a killer in 1888 to suddenly think "Oh i will and show my anatomical skills by removing organs from two out of the handful i kill!"

Historians !

ADDED
Please tell me where a lunatic like Aaron Kosminski acquired his anatomical skills ?

Let me see. You wrote:
"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."

This thread is called “Kosminski and Victim DNA…”, so let’s just take Kosminski as an example. He came from Eastern Europe where there were a plethora of werewolf and vampire stories, many resulting from the discovery of mutilated corpses. You have written that “some sources suggest that medieval serial killers inspired legends such as those concerning werewolves and vampires.” But let’s extend your premise and just include England, and look at, let’s say, the case of Fanny Adams, who was so appallingly dismembered and mutilated that it took several days to put the pieces together. There are numerous examples of murder/mutilations, mainly discussed in medical textbooks, and the indication is that murder and mutilation is a manifestation of the person’s illness and not something learned from previous killers.

So, it would seem that neither of your suggestions - that serial killers copy earlier serial killers and that there were no earlier murder/mutilations - stands up to scrutiny.

So, maybe your theorising is right, but on the basis of the foregoing I suggest that your claim needs more work doing on it, so I am not sure what has backfired on whom.

[PaulB]

ADDED
Please tell me where a lunatic like Aaron Kosminski acquired his anatomical skills ?

Why don't you get out your ouija board and ask Sir Robert Anderson, he's the one who seems to have thought "Kosminski" was Jack the Ripper, and since he possesssed more information than you do, that's a question he may well be able to answer.

Did Jack the Ripper have anatomical skills? I rather thought the jury was still out on that one.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why don't you get out your ouija board and ask Sir Robert Anderson, he's the one who seems to have thought "Kosminski" was Jack the Ripper, and since he possesssed more information than you do, that's a question he may well be able to answer.

Did Jack the Ripper have anatomical skills? I rather thought the jury was still out on that one.

He has a lot to answer for as even today the sheep are still following him believing him without question all I can say to you is "Mint Sauce"

[PaulB]

He has a lot to answer for as even today the sheep are still following him believing him without question all I can say to you is "Mint Sauce"

Somebody has said that before.

Ah yes, it was you. Many times.

But I suppose trotting out these little platitudes saves you from addressing the more important questions.

[Trevor Marriott]

Somebody has said that before.

Ah yes, it was you. Many times.

But I suppose trotting out these little platitudes saves you from addressing the more important questions.

That was a baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad reply

You and other delegates on their way to the next ripper conference !

[Errata]

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.

I think we can all agree that Kosminski was not okay. Not only was he engaging in behaviors that socially ostracised him, he was desperately unhappy and afraid.

I think that we can also agree that the best reporter of what he was going through was Kosminski himself. And in his own words he reported many symptoms and many problems, which can best be described as delusions (believing that which is not real) and scrupulosity (obsessive behaviors prompted by either religious indoctrination or the belief that god is directly speaking to the sufferer).

I think we can also agree that given his lifestyle and dietary habits, that he was not in good health.

And I think we can agree that even people with unusual presentations of mental illness still abide by the "laws" of that mental illness. Someone with OCD is always going to do something obsessively, even if it's something we don't usually associate with OCD. We think of compulsive hand washing, that seems normal for OCD. If a man is compulsively biting pencils in precisely half, that an unusual presentation. But the rules are the same.

But Mabuse is right. Any diagnosis we come up with would be purely for our own comfort. We cannot diagnose a dead man. We can try, it's an interesting exercise, but anything we come up with serves only to give us the comfort of being able to put Kosminski in a box. There is no diagnosis that would make him the Ripper. There are diagnoses that would exclude him, but we have no evidence of those disorders.

If he was dangerous (and I certainly believe he was a danger to himself), it was not because of a diagnosis. Schizophrenics don't kill unless they do. Which is probably the least helpful statement ever made on the issue, but it's true. Yes, statistically a sane white man is far more likely to murder someone that a schizophrenic (Sane white males 7%, Schizophrenics >1%). But Schizophrenic serial killers do happen. Female serial killers happen. Black serial killer happen. But none of them kill unless they do. And when they do, they do it because they want/need to do it. And they want it for different reasons, and yes, the reason might be the result of a delusion or a hallucination. But it could be they just want to.

We have two options. We can fit the crimes to the suspect, or fit the suspect to the crimes. I prefer the former. It seems more fair. I take what I think I know about the Ripper, and I compare that to the suspect. And yes, I don't think the Ripper crimes fit Kosminski.

But looking at it the other way seems more difficult. What do I have to add to what I know about Kosminski to make him the Ripper? Well, I'd definitely need him to be cycling, because I think he has to be lucid to pull off mutilating Annie Chapman. So now his mental illness has to be a cycling one, and one that fits his symptoms, and then I have to come up with some reason for him to be killing these women, and "because he's crazy" is neither a good reason nor an accurate one. I have force Kosminski to fit the Ripper mold.

I can't say that Kosminski could not be a killer. Of course he could. I can't even say that he could not be a serial killer. There have been psychotic serial killers. I know that can happen. But when I look at the serial killers who most resemble Kosminski, their crimes don't look anything like the Ripper murders. I think Chase is a great comparison. He was known to be psychotic. He was known to potentially dangerous. Like Kosminski he spent some time being crazy in the streets. Like Kosminski he felt that his life was in mortal danger unless he took extreme measures with his diet in order to stay alive. Wouldn't you think that if Kosminski was a serial killer, his crimes would look a lot like Chase's crimes? Chase's crimes don't look at all like Ripper crimes. Not even a little. So if Kosminski is like Chase, and if Kosminski is the Ripper, wouldn't the Ripper crimes look a lot different?

That's my logic. It is flawed. It's what I got. It's what we all got. I would love nothing more than to kind a reason to exclude Kosminski. I feel for him. I get him. I feel like I know what he went through. The man spent his life in a living hell, and I can't change that. But I would protect him from the indignity of being a suspect if I could. But I can't. One cannot prove a negative. So I'm attached in a way I should not be for a scholar. I think we all are. And I don't think admitting that is a bad thing. But we are all trying to force information to fit, because if the information fit naturally, the crime would have been solved. And not by the discovery of some errant shawl, but the cops at the time. Probably (and sadly) before Mary Kelly was butchered.