Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[pinkmoon]

It is interesting to see that some of the sources for this book are a bit vague, and not backed up with anything solid (such as facts).

A lot of people don't bother with facts when writing a ripper book.

[Patrick S]

Ok, maybe the thing about Sharon Tate's undergarments was a bit silly. Just trying to underline the preposterousness of this bloke's claims.
Let's face it, as far as cold cases go, the Jack the Ripper murders are as frozen as arctic tundra. The chances of any new evidence coming to light after all this time is very slim, let alone any forensic/dna evidence from a crime scene. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy discussing and adding to what we know. But it's a bit foolish to treat the subject like a cold case from the 1960's, or even 70's or 80's! A cold case is hard enough to crack as it is- but when all the witnesses are dead, the crime scenes are gone,and very little physical evidence remains and there is no known stored forensic evidence you are going to find it really hard going. You can have suspicions and present a case, but it won't be anything that would hold up in court and secure a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. It may not even be enough to convince a grand jury.

Yeah. But it just has to convince most of 'us', doesn't it? Hell, some people have been convinced by far less. Crossmere. Sickert. A few others.

I don't disagree with much of anything you said. I'm just not ready to cast my lot either way. Obviously, I think it's a long-shot of the highest order. But, I'll withhold final judgment until we get a bit more on it. That would keep me from debating and discussing, though.

I hope it's not been debunked before I finish the book. Finishing a book and THINKING you know who JtR was is almost as fun as actually proving it fact. Yeah, it's rare and you usually change your mind after running it around the noggin' a time or two, but it's fun while it lasts, eh?

[Bridewell]

The claim for the provenance of the 'shawl', as I understand it, is that Amos Simpson removed it from Mitre Square itself (presumably before any City of London officer had the opportunity to itemise what was there) and additionally that 'his superiors' gave him permission to keep the item. This is simply not credible. Removal of such an item from a City murder scene by a Met officer would be theft. No senior officer would condone his conduct which would, if revealed, almost certainly result in dismissal and disgrace.

Even if the DNA claim stands up to scrutiny in every respect, all that will be proved is that Aaron Kosminski's semen, at some time, came into contact with the shawl. It won't prove that he killed Eddowes - or anyone else for that matter. The author doesn't just have to prove that the shawl was in Mitre Square on 30th September 1888 to make a case; he also has to prove that it was on that date and at that location that the semen came into contact with the shawl. I suspect that he hasn't done so.

[lynn cates]

special duty

Hello Stewart, Poch. Why would an N division beat copper be doing "special duty"? Why not Special Branch?

And why is he not mentioned in the narrative? All the medicos and coppers are given. Why not Simpson?

Cheers.
LC

[pinkmoon]

'Oral tradition', 'family tales passed down', 'rumour', or whatever else you care to call it doesn't make for a very good source of information.

My family on my father's side originate from east end some actually lived in Whitechapel during murders (hence my interest) I'm amazed at the amount of them who saw a gentleman wearing a top hat and cloak and carrying a Gladstone back on the night of the murders and kept it secret for years.oh I forget to mention the swilling fog as well.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Debs, after a long, long time!

How many times "there will be a scientific paper published", considering this case of ours?

All the best
jukka

[Penny_Dredfull]

Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

Stewart P. Evans- "Google crash courses on forensic evidence?" haha OK! Well, I don't see anything wrong with informing oneself- after all, many of us are self-educated when it comes to Jack the Ripper, right?
Actually,you don't need to be an accredited expert in the field of forensic dna science to realize that these claims don't hold water. It's not a convincing argument, IMHO. After all, juries of lay people are asked to evaluate evidence like this in trials all the time. No one expects them to be experts or take "Google crash courses", they just exercise their judgment.

[Bridewell]

And why is he not mentioned in the narrative? All the medicos and coppers are given. Why not Simpson?

Because his presence, like that of the shawl, was completely invisible.

[Stewart P Evans]

I believe...

I believe that I have already stated that this 'shawl' first raised its head above the parapet of Ripperology in 1991 with the publication of Jack the Ripper The Mystery Solved by Paul Harrison.

So we must first turn to pages 178-180 of said book, its discovery is one of the Ripperological 'firsts' that Harrison lays claim to. He states that he was first made aware of the 'shawl' around 1988 when he received a telephone call from another police officer who was aware of his research. He was told that there was a shawl that was a 'genuine Ripper artifact' in Clacton-on-Sea. Harrison did not track this down until November 1989.

It was in a video shop in Clacton and he found that the owners were 'extremely cynical about the shawl's authenticity, and neither was prepared to claim that it was the genuine article. This statement, however, impressed Harrison. The couple had acquired it from a friend who knew an antique dealer [Note how the persons handling this thing multiply as we go along].

They did not want the thing in their home and they returned it to the man a few days later. Some days later he returned with framed pieces of the 'shawl' which he gave to the couple. These pieces appeared to have been cut from the shawl as they had noticed a piece was missing when they first had it.

[curious]

WARNING: Speculation, Conjecture and Fiction Writing Ahead! Proceed at your own risk.

The claim for the provenance of the 'shawl', as I understand it, is that Amos Simpson removed it from Mitre Square itself (presumably before any City of London officer had the opportunity to itemise what was there) and additionally that 'his superiors' gave him permission to keep the item. This is simply not credible. Removal of such an item from a City murder scene by a Met officer would be theft. No senior officer would condone his conduct which would, if revealed, almost certainly result in dismissal and disgrace.

Exactly, Bridewell. I don't for a second believe Simpson came into possession of the shawl/table runner in that way. Never.

Then, of course, Mr. Evans met members of his family and said they were nice people.

It's been great fun reading through this thread and seeing everyone's comments and reactions.

My own first thought was no way the “shawl” belonged to Eddowes as it was not listed in the inventory. However, as I have read through all the discussion, my mind has arrived at a possible way this can all be right, while so much is wrong.

Let's look at what we think we know:
1. The material (shawl or table runner) has been dated to 1902-1904.
2. Sgt. Amos Simpson worked for the Metropolitan and not the City police force, so there is no reason (and no record) for him to have been at the Eddowes crime scene.
3. The scientist who performed the tests is reputable.
4. DNA research is rapidly changing.
5. Simpson told family A. It belonged to Jack the Ripper (NOT one of the victims, apparently); B. He was given permission to take it home.
6. The Simpson family who had possession of the “shawl” are good people and believe the story that it belonged to Jack the Ripper, according to Stewart Evans who had spoken to a great- or great-great-nephew.
7. Kosminski died in 1919.
8. "So at this earlier date, 1894 or early 1895, Anderson's 'definitely ascertained fact' was only 'a perfectly plausible theory.' as Stewart Evans stated would be exactly right.
9. His family committed Kosminski to Mile End Old Town Workhouse on July 12, 1890, for threatening his sister, and then committed in February 1891 to the lunatic asylum of Colney Hatch.
10. Macnaghten named him as one of three possibilities more likely than Cutbush in 1894 and called Kosminski “a strong suspect.”
11. April 13, 1894 -- Aaron Kosminski was transferred to Leavesden Asylum for Imbeciles, noted as 'Demented and Incoherent.'
12. However, by 1910 (AFTER THE DATE OF THE FABRIC IN THE TABLE RUNNER), Anderson was certain according to Blackwood’s Magazine, Part VI (March 1910): - "One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that the criminal was a sexual maniac of a virulent type; that he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders; and that, if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice. During my absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were low-class Jews, for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.
13. In his book, also published in 1910, Anderson said: - "…In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact."
14. While Anderson did not name the suspect, Donald Swanson wrote in a private copy of Anderson's book “The suspect was Kosminski.”

Let's say all these things are correct.

Here's the speculation and conjecture - last chance to turn back.

So, how could DNA from both Kosminski and Eddowes have gotten on the table runner?

The 1902-04 runner was on a table in the home of one of Kosminski’s sisters, and, as was usual, a vase with flowers was placed on it.

Kosminski had already been committed but was home “on furlough” or over a holiday during a lucid time (Yes, cursory research indicates that some asylums and doctors did grant home visits).

Now, during that time at home, Kosminski went to his hidey-hole and brought out his beloved, dried-out trophies to play with on the table.

Kosminski was interrupted, and his family was aghast with what they saw. In the melee, the vase turned over and the trophies and table runner were soaked. (I'd like to see the material tested for Annie Chapman’s DNA.) How Kosminski’s DNA got on the material seems self-explanatory.

Now, it seems likely to me that Kosminski’s family may have suspected, perhaps having noted his absences or his bloody returns, but did not have proof and did not really want proof. Maybe, he simply waited until they were asleep before he wandered about.

To his family and those around him, he probably seemed harmless.

I suspect that him seeming so harmless is what made the victims unafraid of him. He was just that strange kid in the neighborhood they'd watched grow up.

They may even have taunted him or gotten money from him over the years. They knew him and believed they were safe with him.


Now, how did Amos Simpson get the runner?

After the discovery of Aaron Kosminski playing with body parts, his family was very conflicted. Did they go to the police and bring shame to the family? Aaron was already judged to be insane, there would be no repercussions to him (except to be permanently and forever locked away, without benefit of furloughs, but at this point, maybe his family would want this).

Instead of going to the authorities directly, they sent a family lawyer who worked a deal with officers who already feared riots if the Ripper was Jewish.

The proof of Kosminski’s guilt was to be given to the authorities with the agreement that the Ripper never be officially named. The authorities could rest, knowing the killer was “safely caged,” the Kosminski family would not be harmed and no riots would ensue.

Besides, it was not as though Kosminski could ever be brought to trial.

So, the lawyer got the agreement, and the table runner and its gruesome contents were given to the Met officers.

Simpson asked for the runner and was allowed to take it home as it wasn't evidence and it could never be used in a trial. Because the trophies had received a thorough soaking, DNA was embedded into the fabric of the table runner.

Perhaps Simpson himself said he was first on the scene and mentioned Eddowes because a kidney was one of the treasures. But he did not have to have said that for it to have been reported or remembered that way.

As someone has mentioned already with the “Chinese Whispers” game, which is likely known as “Gossip” in the southern United States, a statement is whispered into one person's ear and several people pass the information along, ear-to-ear, until, at the end, the statement is nothing like the original.

Minds also interpret what they are hearing. We started with a four-week deadline for brides and they instantly thought “one month.” Not really the same thing. I have written down quotes, then turned on the recorder and seen that mentally I have written down synonyms for the words the speaker actually used. Things get changed, innocently, but almost always.

I would personally think it likely Simpson mentioned Eddowes and the minds of his listeners thought he must have been at the crime scene in order to have possession of the runner when perhaps all he said was that it had belonged to Jack the Ripper. He must have been first on the scene in order to have gotten the table runner, right? So that became part of the family tradition.

Who knows how things really happened?

I do hope the owner of the shawl/table runner allows independent review, because possibilities do exist -- just outside the remembered story that has been handed down through generations. With new knowledge and tests for the “magic” of DNA, who knows what can be discovered that was out of reach a few years or even a few months ago?

My first reaction — no way. But I'm eager to see what develops.

[Bridewell]

After all, juries of lay people are asked to evaluate evidence like this in trials all the time. No one expects them to be experts or take "Google crash courses", they just exercise their judgment.

But they do so under the guidance of a judge who has the final word on matters of law. A jury only makes findings of fact based on the evidence.

[lynn cates]

hope

Hello Debs. Thanks.

"I'm more asking than adding, Lynn ... but not getting any answers!"

I feel the same.

Hope there is a genuine scholarly paper forthcoming. I could follow that. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Penny_Dredfull]

Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

Patrick S.- Well, yes! I agree with you there. And if this book does nothing more than get people discussing the Jack the Ripper case again then at least it's served some purpose. Personally though, I prefer research which looks at new angles of the case, however small, to books solely concerned with establishing the identity of the Ripper. In a way it becomes a game- it was Jill the Ripper, it was a member of the Royal family, it was an American, it was Lewis Carrol, it was Aaron Kosminski. I would rather get back to the basic, bare bones of the case and reassess what we know.

[lynn cates]

coppers

Hello Colin. Thanks.

Just so. Thank God for real coppers who can't be hoodwinked.

Cheers.
LC

[Patrick S]

The claim for the provenance of the 'shawl', as I understand it, is that Amos Simpson removed it from Mitre Square itself (presumably before any City of London officer had the opportunity to itemise what was there) and additionally that 'his superiors' gave him permission to keep the item. This is simply not credible. Removal of such an item from a City murder scene by a Met officer would be theft. No senior officer would condone his conduct which would, if revealed, almost certainly result in dismissal and disgrace.

Even if the DNA claim stands up to scrutiny in every respect, all that will be proved is that Aaron Kosminski's semen, at some time, came into contact with the shawl. It won't prove that he killed Eddowes - or anyone else for that matter. The author doesn't just have to prove that the shawl was in Mitre Square on 30th September 1888 to make a case; he also has to prove that it was on that date and at that location that the semen came into contact with the shawl. I suspect that he hasn't done so.

Let's suppose that there is absolutely no reason to believe that the shawl was ever in Mitre Square aside from the Simpson family tradition. Yet, the shawl not only contains Kosminski's DNA (semen) but also Eddowes' (blood). This is FAR from an established fact at this point, but, bear with me. That's not convincing in any way? A leading contemporary Ripper suspect, named as the likely Ripper by a senior police official and an established Ripper victim - both of their DNA on one article of clothing. That's not convincing at all, regardless of the inability to prove when and where the DNA was deposited?