Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[mickreed]

Thanks for the link, Gene.

Probably been asked and already answered on here - (my head is spinning from trying to keep up ) - but, if Amos can't be proved to have been at Mitre Sq area as he was on 'special duties', would there be a record of him anywhere else on normal duty during that particular period? - Apologies to all if I've missed this somewhere.

Alan.

According to Adam Wood, Neil Bell is checking.

[Semper_Eadem]

Hmm, well, I figured all of you would have a lot to say about the Shaw. Speaking for myself, I thought you could not argue DNA. But seems that is what some of us are doing which is good because that is what a good researcher and scientist is supposed to do. Seems thought I missed all the good buzz and that most of you have moved on. I still want to add my 2 cents worth since I am still a member and since I have the liberty to do so.

Speaking for myself, I am happy, because I always thought it was David Cohen when I was growing up after I read Martin Fido's book back in 1990. Kosiminski fits very well for me. Except for a time when I thought it was Sickert after Patricia Cornwall made a good argument about the watermark from a ripper letter matching the watermark from one of his letters, I still think Sickert might of written a hoax letter. However I went back to Cohen with strong leanings toward Kosiminski.

Moving on, I think that Officer Simpson nixed the said shawl for a souvenir. Not to take home for his wife but to keep. His memento of one of the most famous murder cases of his day.

The shawl does match the description of Catherine Eddowes dress, so perhaps she had or made the dress and made a shawl out of the excess material. Perhaps she got the shawl and dress second hand.

Actually I wanted to get my opinion on how Ms Eddowes might of gotten the shawl over whether or not the DNA is Kosiminski's or not. I wish the DNA was as then I could say I was right after reading Fido's book in 90 when I was 13 and that Jack The Ripper was a local insane denizen of Whitechapel.

[Monty]

According to Adam Wood, Neil Bell is checking.

Well I hope he hurrries up.

Monty

[Chris]

Actually, I'm thinking that they very well could all be in England. Based on the math with the numbers we've been given I don't think the common female ancestor to first have this mutation couldn't have much earlier than a few generations before Catherine otherwise it would be more common. I guess it depends on how many generations her family had been in England.

That's interesting, but I'm not sure how easy it would be to calculate when the mutation occurred from the numbers involved (or even whether the mutation has occurred only once, or several times independently). I suppose that when a mutation occurs, the number of descendants varies very unpredictably in the first few generations, in some cases growing very rapidly and in others becoming extinct. And I suppose that in cases where the numbers become large enough that the individual statistical variations average out - maybe a few dozen - then from that point onwards the numbers increase roughly in proportion to the whole population.

If that's right, I'd think that the worldwide total of 5000 is too many to be confined to this country. If that number had been growing in proportion to the whole population, you'd have to go well into prehistoric times to get it down to 50. Over that timescale I think there would be a significant amount of international migration. Or alternatively it may represent the total result of several more recent independent mutations.

[Robert]

If Neil has no luck, maybe Monty can have a go. Monty's the expert, Neil's the apprentice.

[Chris]

If Neil has no luck, maybe Monty can have a go. Monty's the expert, Neil's the apprentice.

I do think Monty should be a bit more patient with Neil, though.

[Ghost]

Occasional lurker, first post:

Mtd is secondary DNA which means that in 1888 400.000 people would have the same MtD profile
Nuclear is primary DNA in today's world one in a billion would have an identical match excluding identical twins

Even if we accept your 400,000 number, then by my calculation in a world of about 1.6 billion (1900 pop. estimate), and in a city of 6 million (London pop, taken from upthread) there would be 1,500 Londoners with that MtDNA.

1) Let's say Eddowes was 1 of 1,500 Londoners to share that MtDNA. Of those 1,500, how many would have reason to have an arterial blood splatter on a piece of fabric? She would presumably be the No. 1 choice. Hopefully, she would be the only choice.

2) Suppose Kozminski is one of 1,500 Londoners with that MtDNA. It's male DNA, so that knocks it down to 750. How many of those 750 would be expected to live at the center of the crime spree? How many were a suspect of the police at the time? How many were possibly identified by a witness?

In isolation, the physics/math are not 100 percent certain. But when you look at the totality and start to apply Occam's Razor, it's really intriguing evidence.

Other posters are obviously welcome to correct my science/math/reason.

[dropzone]

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 .

I would still be on the fence because there is no absolute identification based on mtDNA. Even if the suspect matches, so do his mother, his grandmother, any other children they had, and so on.

[B]On the right side of the face there is a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw. It might have been caused by a blow with the fist or pressure by the thumb. On the left side of the face there was a circular bruise, which also might have been done by the pressure of the fingers.

As I explained above, that would indicate holding up the chin with one hand while cutting her throat with the other. One-handed strangulation doesn't usually work.

This is ripperology not archeology and comparison to offer known serial killer cases is sometimes the only way we can try and understand the motives and behavior of Jack the Ripper.

But, as I said, if the cloth were a fetish object, I find it odd that it would be found to carry only Eddowes' DNA, and none of the other victims. And archeology is chock full of speculation. Like in criminology, it is a helpful tool but one must guard against taking it too far.

I’m hoping you will do me the courtesy of believing I do know all the arguments relating to when how and who Aaron Kosnminski became a suspect given that I made a detailed documentary on the subject? If you don't like to read perhaps you might like to purchase a copy on amazon, although I'm pleased to say it has recently been sold to american television.

I look forward to viewing it. What is its title? However, any documentary for public consumption needs to be simplified to keep viewers awake all the way through it.

Perhaps you would do well to listen to Paul Beggs wise words and actually read one of his books instead of spending your life in a hole with a tooth brush. You never know you might actually learn something?

Who, besides Paul, do you suggest? I do not wish to see one viewpoint, and what I've seen are not much more than potboilers.

It's called 'peer review' and is what some people have been referring to since day one. It is hoped that Dr. L. will write a paper for one of the academic journals.

He claims he's too pressed for time and doesn't have the funding, but he may have to to protect his reputation.

The degree of arterial spray depends on pressure within the system, it is a clue to whether the heart was still beating.
Little to no arterial spray means she was dead.

Which does support the strangulation theory.

I made a detailed documntary on the subject

And at least I don't condemn books I haven't read.

You are not worth the trouble of even replying to

Boys, boys, don't you have videos and books to sell, just like Edwards? I don't begrudge you having a financial interest in your pet hypotheses, but it does call your open-mindedness into question.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...lice-detective

Hey, I recognize those names! Could this field of study get more incestuous?

[pinkmoon]

Occasional lurker, first post:



Even if we accept your 400,000 number, then by my calculation in a world of about 1.6 billion (1900 pop. estimate), and in a city of 6 million (London pop, taken from upthread) there would be 1,500 Londoners with that MtDNA.

1) Let's say Eddowes was 1 of 1,500 Londoners to share that MtDNA. Of those 1,500, how many would have reason to have an arterial blood splatter on a piece of fabric? She would presumably be the No. 1 choice. Hopefully, she would be the only choice.

2) Suppose Kozminski is one of 1,500 Londoners with that MtDNA. It's male DNA, so that knocks it down to 750. How many of those 750 would be expected to live at the center of the crime spree? How many were a suspect of the police at the time? How many were possibly identified by a witness?

In isolation, the physics/math are not 100 percent certain. But when you look at the totality and start to apply Occam's Razor, it's really intriguing evidence.

Other posters are obviously welcome to correct my science/math/reason.

Cart before the horse need to place shawl at murder scene before we discuss d.n.a.

[Chris]

Cart before the horse need to place shawl at murder scene before we discuss d.n.a.

What I can't work out is why some people feel a continual need to tell other people what they should and shouldn't be discussing. I am a liberal and I am against this sort of thing.

[Tom_Wescott]

According to Adam Wood, Neil Bell is checking.

Now that cricket season is over, we might get some work out of the ol' boy.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Cart before the horse need to place shawl at murder scene before we discuss d.n.a.

Hello Pinkmoon,

Cart afore horse?

Then we have to put Amos Simpson at the murder scene because atm it doesnt fit the known facts- then how and when he got the material according to the story he told vis a vis the added later details and suppositions that dont fit the known facts either, Then try and work out the age of the material to comply with previous estimates and newer comments from the author- who has to make a definitive statement on whether it is a shawl or a skirt- what the actual colour is because the green AND the chintz fabrick have miraculously changed after being locked up for 100 years yet certain stains are still present and how if a skirt did Simpson remove said skirt from the body "on the way to the mortuary"(quote Edwards on radio shown on his website)THEN work out how Sotherby'S experts missed the fact the michelmas daisy pattern was painted on and not a print when they had a look at it- THEN work out if it was Kosminski's or Eddowes as it was and has always been described as Eddowes' shawl without a MENTION of Aaron Kosminski owning it at any time- THEN ask how the shawl got to the square. I may have left something out somewhere like Collard and all not mentioning the appearance of Simpson in the City at all. Sure there is more...oh well

*I would love to hear Andy Parlour's reaction to it being owned by Kosminski all of a sudden. Not quite how he saw it if I remember correctly?

More hole-ridden swiss cheese anyone? Nay- (neigh)- let us give it to the horse whilst it watches the wheels fall off the cart it is pushing. lol Norwegian Jarlsberg anyone?

best wishes

Phil

[pinkmoon]

Hello Pinkmoon,

Cart afore horse?

Then we have to put Amos Simpson at the murder scene because atm it doesnt fit the known facts- then how and when he got the material according to the story he told vis a vis the added later details and suppositions that dont fit the known facts either, Then try and work out the age of the material to comply with previous estimates and newer comments from the author- who has to make a definitive statement on whether it is a shawl or a skirt- what the actual colour is because the green AND the chintz fabrick have miraculously changed after being locked up for 100 years yet certain stains are still present and how if a skirt did Simpson remove said skirt from the body "on the way to the mortuary"(quote Edwards on radio shown on his website)THEN work out how Sotherby'S experts missed the fact the michelmas daisy pattern was painted on and not a print when they had a look at it- THEN work out if it was Kosminski's or Eddowes as it was and has always been described as Eddowes' shawl without a MENTION of Aaron Kosminski owning it at any time- THEN ask how the shawl got to the square. I may have left something out somewhere like Collard and all not mentioning the appearance of Simpson in the City at all. Sure there is more...oh well

*I would love to hear Andy Parlour's reaction to it being owned by Kosminski all of a sudden. Not quite how he saw it if I remember correctly?

More hole-ridden swiss cheese anyone? Nay- (neigh)- let us give it to the horse whilst it watches the wheels fall off the cart it is pushing. lol Norwegian Jarlsberg anyone?

best wishes

Phil

A quick question Phil can you imagine this shawl or whatever it is been introduced as evidence into a modern day murder trial.

[Jeff Leahy]

Itīs Christer, actually - not Jon.

The confusion I am experiencing is due to the fact that the man that Anderson claimed was a maniac, revelling in blood, was in fact nothing like that at all in 1888, if the ones who propose Kosminski as the killer are correct. He was instead a lucid man, walking peopleīs dogs for them, probably chatting away on the streetcorners, arguably eating his supper with Woolf or whomever of his relatives he lived with, and not eating out of the gutter, guesswise he would have kept himself reasonably clean and so on.

It was only when he could not keep up this kind of life, instead sinking down into a permanent lunacy, displayed in hearing voices, refusing to wash, eating out of the gutter, that his relatives gave up on him and handed him over to a life in the asylums.

Before that, he was normally coherent, clean and kosher.

But! He has these psychotic seizures that grab him every now and then, when he looses contact with reality and turns into the homicidal maniac described by MacNaghten.
And when this happens, he takes to the streets early in the mornings, seeks out women and kills them. However, in spite of him being in a parallel universe as this goes on, deeply descended into a psychosis, his wits when it comes to obscuring what he does never leaves him. He is stealthy, quiet, mindful not to leave any clues, he leaves the murder sites just in time to stay free, he avoids getting blood on himself by tilting the victims when cutting their necks. In short, he takes care of all the little details that psychotic killers couldnīt care less about.

The suggestion that Jack the Ripper killed under psychotic attacks is to me a very clear no-no. Therefore, Aaron Kosminski has never done the trick for me. Nor has the Fido understudy Cohen done it. So if Anderson was referring to either gentleman, he would - if you ask me - be totally wrong.

No matter which of the two we imagine by Catherine Eddowesīside in Mitre Square that morning, cutting away at her, I donīt see how they would have avoided having the jacket and the front of her clothes smeared, splashed and dotted with blood.

The man who killed Eddowes managed to do it in complete silence. He did not produce a jet of blood that shot out over the ground. He furthermore apparently did NOT chop away in a frenzy at her, since that WOULD have been set of in blood spatter on the jacket and the front of the clothes. Instead, he apparently cut her open in a practical and gore-saving manner if you like, and then he excised the kidney and the uterus without one single drop of blood ending up on her jacket or the front of her clothes.

That has me thinking that the killer was meticulous, careful and conscientious about what he did.

Psychotic killers are not meticulous, careful and conscientious about what they do.

The only piece of clothing evidence that speaks of a stabbing and slashing mode when using the knife is actually the shawl, for on that one, there is the kind of blood spatter that we would have expected to see, when we look at how Catherine Eddowes ended up.

The rest of her clothing tells another story altogether. On those, there is no blood spatter. Not even on the front of the "white calico chemise" she wore - the garment we are probably looking at in Fosters drawing, being situated over the horrific gash in the abdomen.

We also have the fact that he cut away part of Eddowes apron, and the better guess is that he did so after the cutting session. If this was so, then it means that he would have felt at ease to do that rag-cutting after having finished with Eddowes, something that in itīs turn implies that he did not feel stressed for time.

Taken together with the clean clothes, the silence and the appearing and disappearing acts, this speaks to me of a practically oriented man, and not at all of a psychotic person.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman

I've just walked back in from Whitechappel and london is hell with a bike race and Hackney Carnival it took 3 hours!!!

So stiff gin and Tonic and a glass of wine…cool down

You raise some interesting points and I will address at length in the morning when I've had time to unwind… trust that is cool

Jeff

[Phil Carter]

A quick question Phil can you imagine this shawl or whatever it is been introduced as evidence into a modern day murder trial.

Hello Pinkmoon,

Not on your Nelly. No,

Especially knowing that while it resided at the "Black Museum" it was photographed lying on the floor....
(info from source and witness to said event)

and when according to my excellent sources the material arrived at Mr Edwards house wrapped in cardboard and cellotape from the auction house.


best wishes

Phil