Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Patrick S]

I expect this is old news but - it's new to me.

I've just seen a programme called Prime Suspect: Jack the Ripper which can be seen here:

http://yesterday.uktv.co.uk/shows/pr.../watch-online/

But it's only available in the UK I think, unless you use a VPN which I had to do.

Anyway, there's a quite lengthy section on the shawl and the DNA analysis by Dr Jari Louhelainen. According to the programme, it was the programme presenter who persuaded Russell Edwards to get the shawl analysed in an attempt to find Deeming's DNA. The quest was inconclusive allegedly because the DNA was contaminated.

It figures that contamination would probably be a problem. I wonder why it's not for the Kosminski DNA allegedly found.

Anyone else seen this?

Hi, Mick. That rung a bell with me as well, but I wasn't sure I was remembering correctly. I didn't realize that it was actually Louhelainen doing the analysis in that program. Thanks for pointing that out.

My guess would be that since the thrust of that program was clearly aimed at proving Deeming the Ripper, then they'd present things as 'inconclusive' due to contamination. This is why it's best to take any studies, books, statements, or theories that take aim at a certain 'suspect' with grain of salt. Until this shawl has been through the ringer and arond the track a few times....that includes this one.

[pinkmoon]

Hi, Mick. That rung a bell with me as well, but I wasn't sure I was remembering correctly. I didn't realize that it was actually Louhelainen doing the analysis in that program. Thanks for pointing that out.

My guess would be that since the thrust of that program was clearly aimed at proving Deeming the Ripper, then they'd present things as 'inconclusive' due to contamination. This is why it's best to take any studies, books, statements, or theories that take aim at a certain 'suspect' with grain of salt. Until this shawl has been through the ringer and arond the track a few times....that includes this one.

If it's the deeming one I watched it on YouTube a few weeks ago and yes they couldn't get a d.n.a profile I must admit the shawl did look in good nick for its age (unlike me).

[eddie1]

Please tell me you are joking to start digging dead bodies up on the strength of this story is wrong wrong wrong prove the shawl is genuine and then only then start digging up the dead.

No the reporter says it right at the end of the piece you can now see it here.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29119092

[Tecs]

Jeff:



Hmmm... are you quite sure he wasn't faking it all along? I thought there was considerable doubt about that diagnosis.

His entire pitch was that he was schizophrenic, on a mission from God to kill prostitutes. He claimed to find the blood distressing, and to gain no pleasure from the acts, but was merely following divine instructions.

Which was clearly bs. Several victims were clearly not prostitutes. He had manufactured bespoke masturbation pants, had sex with at least one woman while she was dying, and penetrated others vaginally with a screwdriver, (something that Mr Wescott might find interesting - I mean in light of his findings, not personally). Sutcliffe fooled the doctors with religious mumbo jumbo, most of which he had picked up from studying his wife's illness. He even bragged about going to a loony bin rather than a prison.

Hi Henry,

I was going to take issue myself but you beat me to it and said it perfectly.

Sutcliffe was never schizophrenic. He enjoyed attacking and killing women, end of story.

Regards,

[lynn cates]

order

Hello Jason. Thanks.

But that puts Descartes before the horse. (heh-heh) We need it to show quickly that this is all nonsense.

Cheers.
LC

[Donpayasos]

To Donpaysos

Really? How do we know that? Because ... they so?

I'm not sure why Edwards would make the rather foolish statement that he decided on Kosminski's guilt and then decided to test for his DNA, when he could have said "We found semen and, remembering that Kosminski was a known masturbator, we prioritized him," if that were basically the truth.

You seem to be saying that Kosminski was chosen as suspect in order to be able to claim that his semen was found (I'm afraid I find it not quite clear) which is possible. But I find Edwards' own version just as self-incriminating: he made up his mind, then started looking for evidence to prove he was right. Put that kind of filter over your perceptions and you will interpret everything as being in support of your view, and who knows what you will miss altogether?

So: you have advanced a theory about Edwards thinking that would make him dishonest.
I have used Edwards' own words to show that he is not approaching this in an intelligent way.

[Tecs]

Morning Henry,we are seriously asked to believe that a serial killer has been taking a tablecloth to the scene of his murders and then masturbating on it and then we are asked to believe he leaves his much loved tablecloth behind and a policeman who isn't even meant to be on duty in the area picks it up and gives it to his wife for a present who then gladly accept the gift which is covered in blood and semen never washes it and puts it away and forgets about it ....and like all good fairy stories they all lived happily every after.

Hi Pink.

Firstly please let me make it crystal clear that I don't believe in the shawl or that a copper took it home etc.

However, the idea of the ripper taking something with him to lie on more comfortably whilst performing his mutilations etc is not without merit. Sutcliffe sewed together a bizarre item made out of a jumper, padding and other parts in order that he could wear it on his bottom half meaning that he was comfortable whilst kneeling, masturbating over the bodies. He also made it with easy access to his parts so that he could get the job done quickly and efficiently, something which proves both premeditation and sexual elements. (See last post)

It's not impossible that the ripper, whoever he may be could have taken an item with him to kneel on and if unfolded, possibly catch any semen, not to avoid leaving DNA of course but to avoid any extra disgust if he was ever caught.

Probably not likely, but not impossible.

Regards

[Amanda Sumner]

I really don't understand these endless discussions of shawls and DNA. There is no basis for the claim. The shawl never belonged to Eddowes or JtR. Even if it had, it was not at the crime scene. Neither was Amos Simpson. I'm afraid the whole thing is based on fiction and not fact.

[Henry Flower]

Tecs, not impossible, I agree. In this instance I'm not inclined to believe it - this thing is too flimsy to provide much comfort. However, in true Norman Bates fashion, such an item might have had some personal maternal significance to this rather brutal little bed-wetter.

All moot, obviously, unless the dating of 1902 has been proved erroneous.

Anyone finished the book yet????

[Henry Flower]

I really don't understand these endless discussions of shawls and DNA. There is no basis for the claim. The shawl never belonged to Eddowes or JtR. Even if it had, it was not at the crime scene. Neither was Amos Simpson. I'm afraid the whole thing is based on fiction and not fact.

Amanda, that's begging the question somewhat, isn't it? Very authoritative!

[Stewart P Evans]

I just had to...

I really don't understand these endless discussions of shawls and DNA. There is no basis for the claim. The shawl never belonged to Eddowes or JtR. Even if it had, it was not at the crime scene. Neither was Amos Simpson. I'm afraid the whole thing is based on fiction and not fact.

I just had to return and say what a succinct and accurate post this is. Nothing further need be said.

[Jonathan H]

I stand by what I wrote.

They wanted to find DNA that links a contemporaneous police suspect. But DNA of what exactly?

This leads to semen, which leads to Aaron Kosminski, which leads to his semi-fictional variant 'Kosminski' (who was 'seen' with Eddowes), both of whom exhibit "solitary vices".

I'm not saying flat-out dishonest.

I wrote: got carried away.

People see what they want to see, especially in ambiguous and/or broad chemical results.

Of course they would not say this was about male secretions publicly.

Let's preserve some dignitas amidst the ick factor!

[pinkmoon]

No the reporter says it right at the end of the piece you can now see it here.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29119092

The fog swilled round during eddowes murder......and the only clue eddowes shawl was taken from the scene and kept by a policeman.......people who know nothing about this case(and that includes Mr Edwards)are going to watch these reports and believe it and buy the book .

[curious4]

Hello Lynn,

Indeed - not much fun in the asylum.

Best wishes,

Gwyneth

[sepiae]

Another thing...I was a police officer for sixteen years, and I never had any inclination to take an item from a crime scene (especially one from a murder victim) to have as a keep sake. Why would this officer take a shawl covered in blood and then pass it down to his family members?

Something isn't adding up!!!!!

Hi bladen,
and it doesn't begin with inclination, but with prohibition, same in the late 1880s. Monty opened a thread regarding police procedures back then:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=306866&posted=1#post306866