Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[wolfie1]

There would need to be a direct male line from son to father to grandfather, etc. going back to Isaac or Woolf Abrahams/Kosminski. If so then that descendants Y chromosome DNA could be potentially be matched with the DNA from the semen.

Yes, that is what I am confirming, the male Kosminsky that lived Chicksand St 1888 went to Australia, had sons in Australia, the son also had sons etc...

[PaulB]

Cheers Jeff. Well I cited the 1992 article in which Paul is listed as a co-author and which ends:

In summary, the evidence points to the serial killer Jack the Ripper being Aaron Kosminski.

So I don't think it was an unreasonable claim on my part. Paul has now said in a post just now, that he wasn't an author, but was merely given credit as one by people he didn't know.

I accept that unreservedly, but worry about the other authors all the more.

Mick
I have to say that I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the line you quote. The evidence in 1992 did point in the stated direction and maybe it still does, which is why I think Kosminski is the most important suspect for research. But I am as happy to prove he wasn't the Ripper as I am to prove that he was. I am not much interested in who the Ripper was in any case and I have worked hard to help
a lot of writers research their own suspects.

[mickreed]

Mick
I have to say that I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the line you quote. The evidence in 1992 did point in the stated direction and maybe it still does, which is why I think Kosminski is the most important suspect for research. But I am as happy to prove he wasn't the Ripper as I am to prove that he was. I am not much interested in who the Ripper was in any case and I have worked hard to help
a lot of writers research their own suspects.

Fair enough, Paul. And you are right about Kosminski being an important research subject. Perhaps even more so now.

[RockySullivan]

Irrelevant.

In everyday life, when trying to find evidence to work out whether the answer to a question is "Yes" or "No", what kind of evidence do you take into account?

Suppose you had a magic coin, which - if the answer was "No" - would come up heads only 1 time out of every 290,000 times you tossed it. Are you saying that tossing that coin would give you no useful information?

Are these the same magic coins that where found with Annie Chapman?

[Chris]

Are these the same magic coins that where found with Annie Chapman?

Do you really not see what I'm getting at, though?

[moonbegger]

Just a curious thought .. a rhetorical thought no doubt ..

How many on these boards would honestly still be on the fence regarding the scientific conclusions , if Edwards had claimed the DNA on the shawl was a 100% match for Vincent or Gull or Eddy for that matter ?

An honest answer would be zero me thinks ..

so its not so much the provenance of the shawl that has us all hooked and lined , its more to do with the provenance of the suspect ..

moonbegger .

[PaulB]

Paul Begg now denies he has written a book claiming Kosminski is the ripper

When this was put to him earlier today this was his reply

"And I haven't written a book in which I say that Kosminski is the Ripper"

Oh Paul your nose is growing it will soon be as big as your ego !

All explained. And I do not and never have believed Kosminski was Jack the Ripper. But I think it has been established that you have not read Russell Edwards' book, or very many others. In fact your research appears to be restricted largely to the internet. I. Just don't appreciate people like you who condemn a book without reading it.

[Theagenes]

Yes, that is what I am confirming, the male Kosminsky that lived Chicksand St 1888 went to Australia, had sons in Australia, the son also had sons etc...

[dropzone]

Like you pointed out--touching wouldn't do it--the close relative would have had to bleed on it. And bleed a lot--as apparently some areas are quite soaked.

And apparently some of the spatter hit the cloth with medium to high velocity--so it seems that rellie would have to have been stabbed or shot in the vicinity of the cloth.

The photos of the cloth that I have seen are not detailed enough to show blood spatter, especially since most of it is the color of dried blood. Blood spatter, by its name, does not indicate soaking as much as droplets of blood. The cloth has been available for study for decades. Did anybody at Scotland Yard’s Crime Museum sketch where the blood was found during the ten years it was there? I'd rather not take Edwards' word for it in his penny dreadful.

[GUT]

Hi,

I think the point is this, Swanson saw all the reports, he was there at the time, so it has to be accepted he had more information at his finger tips than anyone else, and certainly more than anyone now. So his view has to be more informed than yours and anyone else's today.

I would like to see what evidence you have to support your accusation that he was prejudiced. I presume you mean anti Jewish.

Also I must remind you that MacNaughton was NOT there at the time, as Swanson was.

Best wishes.

But all Swanson really tells us is that Anderson's suspect was Komnski, not that it was his.

[RockySullivan]

Do you really not see what I'm getting at, though?

I do actually. I'm just confused...was the DNa enhanced leaving room for error? Most cold cases from the 80's when they go back and test the DNA is too degraded. So i'm not really understanding how a DNA sample from that old could yield positive results. If the world population was 1,500 million (is that number?) in late 1880's and people of european descent were 36% of the worlds population..how doe this affect the stats? I imagine all with close match to Eddowes for the positive DNA would be centralized in England. Could it be that 1/300k from a worldwide perspective, and all the matches however many = x out of 1,500 mill would be in England so the number becomes diluted?

This is coming from someone with zero math/science skills

[christoper]

The photos of the cloth that I have seen are not detailed enough to show blood spatter, especially since most of it is the color of dried blood. Blood spatter, by its name, does not indicate soaking as much as droplets of blood. The cloth has been available for study for decades. Did anybody at Scotland Yard’s Crime Museum sketch where the blood was found during the ten years it was there? I'd rather not take Edwards' word for it in his penny dreadful.

the scientist has mentioned this pattern in interviews.

I haven't yet seen Edwards' penny dreadful

[christoper]

additionally, I don't think any photos that I have seen would have a high enough resolution for us to analyze the blood stains. The droplets would be shaped differently according to the speed that they hit the cloth--I don't think any photos that have been shown on the web would show this level of detail.

[Theagenes]

Just a curious thought .. a rhetorical thought no doubt ..

How many on these boards would honestly still be on the fence regarding the scientific conclusions , if Edwards had claimed the DNA on the shawl was a 100% match for Vincent or Gull or Eddy for that matter ?

An honest answer would be zero me thinks ..

so its not so much the provenance of the shawl that has us all hooked and lined , its more to do with the provenance of the suspect ..

moonbegger .

If you mean does the fact the DNA is purported to be from one of the more realistic suspects make it more plausible then of course it does.

But personally I have no interest at all in what Edwards claims. I am interested in what two credentialed DNA experts have to say about the results of their research. That doesn't mean I accept it uncritically at all, but certainly I'm going to listen to what they have to say. So far it's sounding very promising, but we'll see. And I'm willing to provisionally give them the benefit of the doubt until they publish have a bit of fun speculating on the ramifications of what they've said (with the liberal use of caveats). Why not?

And as for me personally, like many of you I never really considered Kosminski a serious suspect. The picture that has been painted of him as a drooling, gutter-dining masturbater is a hard one to shake. Honestly that's why I had never read Rob's book until this week. These results, preliminary as they may be, have certainly been enough for me to at least reassess him as a candidate. But it would have been the same for me had the DNA been purported to be Tumblety, or Druitt, or Chapman, or any of the other standard suspects. I never really had a favorite (maybe leaned toward Tumblety a little) and always thought it was most likely some unknown East Ender.

[Chris]

I do actually. I'm just confused...was the DNa enhanced leaving room for error? Most cold cases from the 80's when they go back and test the DNA is too degraded. So i'm not really understanding how a DNA sample from that old could yield positive results. If the world population was 1,500 million (is that number?) in late 1880's and people of european descent were 36% of the worlds population..how doe this affect the stats? I imagine all with close match to Eddowes for the positive DNA would be centralized in England. Could it be that 1/300k from a worldwide perspective, and all the matches however many = x out of 1,500 mill would be in England so the number becomes diluted?

This is coming from someone with zero math/science skills

No, I'm sure you're right that the probability would be altered somewhat if we took account of racial differences. But I'm sure it will still be a very small probability, if what the book says is correct.

What I'm saying is that we need to come up with an explanation. I can imagine a number of different kinds of explanations. I find the story about Amos Simpson taking the thing off the body unbelievable (which is why it's so irritating when people who haven't been following the discussion break in and suggest otherwise).

But I don't think we can just look at the odds and say it must have happened by chance. That's not really going to convince anyone.