Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[dropzone]

Ah right this is your pet theory? Possibly but unlikely..

Why is it unlikely? Because it doesn't fit with YOUR pet theory? I only commented on your strangulation theory because it doesn't fit the post-mortems and because you seem to have such a fixation with AK that you insult people who suggest otherwise.

Might be worth getting your tooth brush the correct way around…bloody amateurs

Indeed. My problem is that I'm used to working with forensics professionals and I find amateurs like you alternate between amusing and annoying.

O grow up for christ sake

F'rinstance.

I'm watching your TV show thanks to YouTube. It's interesting so far.

[Tom_Wescott]

Is this a joke, or are you being serious?

RH

The joke is a male serial killer walking around the East End in an 8ft. shawl.

Everyone should put the DNA nonsense out of their heads for a moment and focus on the theory itself.

A male serial killer walking around the East End in an 8ft. shawl.

Let that sink in, because that's the theory being endorsed by the Koz camp.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Rob

I thought Tom's wording wasn't very clear here, but I take his point. Unsupported 'family lore' places the shawl in Mitre Square and belonging to Eddowes, although even if the Mitre Square bit was true, ownership of it could never have been proven unless she was wearing it perhaps, since poor Kate was dead.

The 'lore' bit is just that - LORE with zero real evidence. So, from there, the author moves to a position, whereby the shawl belonged to Kosminski. There's not even 'family lore' to back this up, just a use of guesses (educated or otherwise) to back up a case that is nothing other than speculation itself.

The DNA case is not much more than a hypothesis itself until we have Jari's peer-reviewed article, rather than just Edwards's presentation, garbled press reports, and even Jari's fascinating but restrained radio interview. Then we may have something to discuss.

I makes no sense that Kate had an 8 ft silk lined shawl. That's never made sense. Yet it makes more sense than the notion that Jack the Ripper walked around in it killing women, and that theory did not exist prior to this month.

But since there's a lot of evidence proving the shawl was not Kate's, they have no choice but to pass it off to Kozminski, about whom there's virtually zero evidence anyway, so no way to prove he didn't walk around in drag.

Was Kozminski Pearly Poll? Hmmmm

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mickreed]

The joke is a male serial killer walking around the East End in an 8ft. shawl.

Everyone should put the DNA nonsense out of their heads for a moment and focus on the theory itself.

A male serial killer walking around the East End in an 8ft. shawl.

Let that sink in, because that's the theory being endorsed by the Koz camp.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

The day has just begun here in sunny Oz so I'm off out. But first …

Tom, the DNA stuff, whatever it proves to be, won't be nonsense, although what people will make of it might be. There are so many assertions made by those of both camps. Jeff (I think, if what wasn't you Jeff, I'm sorry) said the science places the shawl at the crime scene. Does it buggery!

Even if we really knew what the DNA says about the identity of those who came into contact with it (and we won't until Jari publishes his findings) it wouldn't place it in Mitre Square. It might lend support to a hypothesis that it was there, but that's all.

Others are saying. It's all bollocks, the shawl was never there, or Kosminski could never have done it, or Kosminski definitely did it, and so on ad nauseam.

My view is what it's always been. This theory is quite unsubstantiated at the moment. It has zero supporting evidence and is not much more than flying a kite. But, until Jari's work comes out I reserve judgement on his side of things. If it demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Kate and Aaron came into contact with the shawl, then we will need to explore how that could be. The crime scene idea would be one, but only one, hypothesis. The journey has only just begun.

Me, I'm not taking the first step until I know where we're going.

[Jonathan H]

To Tom W

An excellent point!

To Jeff

I was referring to the idea that the 'Kosminski' solution does not make [common] sense.

There is no way that a Ripper suspect could have been positively identified and that this identification was accepted by the head of CID and the operational head -- and yet nobody else knows about it?!

Everybody would have known, at least inside Scotland Yard.

From 1895 Anderson began bragging about his 'safely caged' solution, but there was no mention of a positive i.d. until 1910.

Swanson is either repeating a story of Anderson's, or it's his own but he is not a source who will ever be held to account in public.

If you read Anderson's extraordinary interview of 1908 you can see a sincerely failing memory has probably mixed up Lawende's no and yes to Sadler and Grant, respectively.

That's what I was referring to.

To Amanda

I agree. The lack of a provenance, and the lack of even a logical or coherent origin story, renders the so-called DNA breakthrough moot (or worse?)

[paul g]

There's a lot of discussion in this forum about DNA in the case, including from me. I haven't read this yet (only having just found it) but it looks a fairly accessible (and apparently peer-reviewed) piece that could enhance all our knowledge of the general principles.

Linacre and Templeton, 'Forensic DNA profiling: state of the art' in Research and Reports in Forensic Medical Science, 28 August 2014

http://www.dovepress.com/getfile.php?fileID=21387

I shall read it properly tonight. Anyone else?

Think everyone who has put forward a post on dna should read this, it is quite interesting especially the bit involving secondary dna.
The important bit I gleaned was the fact that any tests in a dna approved environment must adhere to standards under EMPOP ( European mitochondrial dna population database ) which is basically a quality assurance check of the data.
Furthermore the SOPS (standard operating procedures) that must be adhered to at all times.
Now I know it has been stated that the tests were done in the guys spare time but if the above standards were adhered too , then there may be more credence given to the tests and claims.
The whole article is interesting and quotes how a certain London rapist was identified via the secondary dna.
While I am not saying that this points to kominsky or not but what I am now beginning to understand is the point I made earlier in this thread.
The scientist has put his reputation on the line here and has opportunities to retract or back peddle and counter claim , but to date he has not.
He will of been aware maybe not of the interst in the case but he would of certainly been aware that his work and findings will be examined at very close quarters and by his peers.
Either he us a rabbit in headlights or he stands by his findings and procedures.

The scientific world will be the ones to say where all our thoughts go on the shawl, Eddowes and kominsky.

[GUT]

G'day Mick

My view is what it's always been. This theory is quite unsubstantiated at the moment. It has zero supporting evidence and is not much more than flying a kite. But, until Jari's work comes out I reserve judgement on his side of things. If it demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Kate and Aaron came into contact with the shawl, then we will need to explore how that could be. The crime scene idea would be one, but only one, hypothesis. The journey has only just begun.

Possibly the most sensible paragraph on this 2500 post thread.

[robhouse]

The joke is a male serial killer walking around the East End in an 8ft. shawl.

Everyone should put the DNA nonsense out of their heads for a moment and focus on the theory itself.

A male serial killer walking around the East End in an 8ft. shawl.

Let that sink in, because that's the theory being endorsed by the Koz camp.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

What "Koz camp"? You might be more specific and just say "Edwards". I do not believe at all that the shawl belonged to Kozminski. I am a bit surprised at your opposition to "moving the goal posts", as I assume it is being done by people who disagree with Edwards anyway. You seem to be saying, "let us have our straw man, so we can argue effectively against it."

Moreover... why all this going on about "an 8-foot shawl"? What difference does it make that it was 8 feet? Are you an expert in vintage clothing? From what I gather, this thing is more properly called a "stole" and items like this were commonly LONGER than 8 feet.

Can you give me the name of one person on these boards who endorses the idea that the "shawl" was owned by Kozminski?

RH

[GUT]

G'day Paul

He will of been aware maybe not of the interst in the case but he would of certainly been aware that his work and findings will be examined at very close quarters and by his peers.

Not sure that I agree with this.

If as he says he did not expect all this attention, why would his findings be examined, at very close quarters or otherwise, by his peers. Millions of DNA tests are conducted every year, very few are ever examined by the scientists peers.

Until he writes it up there is little for his peers to review.

[mickreed]

G'day Paul

Not sure that I agree with this.

If as he says he did not expect all this attention, why would his findings be examined, at very close quarters or otherwise, by his peers. Millions of DNA tests are conducted every year, very few are ever examined by the scientists peers.

Until he writes it up there is little for his peers to review.

G'day Mate

Agreed. I suspect Jari now finds himself in a glare of publicity he neither expected nor sought. Now he has to back it up. Since there is no reason to doubt his integrity or expertise, I'm sure he will make a good fist of it. The peer review will start when he submits his manuscript.

[Phil Carter]

To Tom Wescott,

Yes Tom I can well see your point...

just WHEN exactly did the well known 'Eddowes shawl' become, from the originally told story, 'Kosminski's shawl'? It hasnt as far as I am aware, EVER been Korminski's shawl.
So- to all Kosminski suspect backers... WHERE is the all important evidence that it was Kosminski's that has been discovered?
(pssst-a hint- calling it of Eastern European Origin wont help)

Also- dear Kosminski suspect followers- WHEN exactly did 'Eddowes' shawl' turn into a skirt? (Pssst-a hint-having michelmas daisys on it wont help- its 8ft long- 2ft wide- not green and not chintz either)- so WHERE is the evidence to change the garment into something PREVIOUSLY , for 20 odd years, was a shawl?

Those two points are embarrassingly awkward.

You see Tom- IMHO this malarky has given Kosminski suspect followers one heck of a problem. The spokerman and author has changed known lore TO SUIT the story.

That means 2 things. IMHO If all this goes up in smoke the Kosminski candidate as a serious suspect goes with it. People wont BELIEVE anything to do with him anymore. So the best they can hope for is the DNA part- which- is under intense scrutiny already.

And the other thing?

IMHO- Like the Diary, a stalemate is the best that can be hoped for now - and this will become-like the Diary- a thorn in the side of the field for years to come.

Not an ideal scenario for most of us- but imho a dream ticket for a publishers and tv producers to milk with follow up books and documentaries etc etc- JUST like the Diary.

IMHO The bandwagon HAS to keep rolling Tom. It doesnt matter if your book is good or even great- THIS stuff puts worldwide Ripper interest back into the control of its creators and helpers and backers and those with enough savvy to jump onto the rolling bandwagon. However-some are hanging on for dear life because Mr Edwards has already shot himself in the already worked out storyline foot. IMHO

Just wait. IMHO A mentor will emerge.
Just like the Diary.

best wishes

Phil

[paul g]

G'day Paul



Not sure that I agree with this.

If as he says he did not expect all this attention, why would his findings be examined, at very close quarters or otherwise, by his peers. Millions of DNA tests are conducted every year, very few are ever examined by the scientists peers.

Until he writes it up there is little for his peers to review.

Morning.
A good point. I am of the view that as the supporting evidence they have provided for the shawl would come into the public domain, he would of at least kept to the pare meters and procedures to say the required industry standard.
He may not of expected the level of interest from the ripper community but I am sure that he would of expected reviews from his peers to some degree.

[paul g]

The day has just begun here in sunny Oz so I'm off out. But first …

Tom, the DNA stuff, whatever it proves to be, won't be nonsense, although what people will make of it might be. There are so many assertions made by those of both camps. Jeff (I think, if what wasn't you Jeff, I'm sorry) said the science places the shawl at the crime scene. Does it buggery!

Even if we really knew what the DNA says about the identity of those who came into contact with it (and we won't until Jari publishes his findings) it wouldn't place it in Mitre Square. It might lend support to a hypothesis that it was there, but that's all.

Others are saying. It's all bollocks, the shawl was never there, or Kosminski could never have done it, or Kosminski definitely did it, and so on ad nauseam.

My view is what it's always been. This theory is quite unsubstantiated at the moment. It has zero supporting evidence and is not much more than flying a kite. But, until Jari's work comes out I reserve judgement on his side of things. If it demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Kate and Aaron came into contact with the shawl, then we will need to explore how that could be. The crime scene idea would be one, but only one, hypothesis. The journey has only just begun.

Me, I'm not taking the first step until I know where we're going.

I have been trying to write a post like that for a week, and your post echo,s my thoughts.
A big can of worms is just waiting to be opened.

Don't worry authors there is a book in all of it for you.

[SextonBloke]

A couple of thoughts

Apologies is any of this is old hat - it's a big thread and I haven't read it all.

Edwards' forensic research is big news because it appears to provide an independent new piece of evidence to advance the case against a man already strongly suspected of being JtR. A problem here though is that we don't know quite know how Kosminski originally came to be a suspect. Apparently an eye witness put him in the frame but it is exceedingly unlikely that he was seen killing anyone. Presumably rather he was seen with one of the victims close to the time of her murder.

One would imagine that the police would be particularly interested in identifying any man who was known to have been a client of any of the victims. Supposing Kosminski was one of Eddowes' and came to the attention of the investigation solely for that reason. That would provide a (sort of) innocent explanation for the presence of his DNA. It wouldn't actually reinforce the case against him as it would have simply confirmed something that the police already knew, namely that Kosminski had had sex with her.

Thought two is quite different, because I think that the “shawl” is an out and out hoax.

The two things are well known about Eddowes' apparel is that her skirt was decorated with Michaelmas daisies and her apron was cut by her killer. I think that someone has acquired this shawl/table runner because of its pattern and hoped to pass it off as her apron. They have confused the two garments and thought that the apron ought to have the daisy pattern and be missing a portion.

Having eventually reread the case files, our hoaxer realises that the thing cannot in fact be passed off as her apron, but has already hacked a piece off. Not to worry – the little piece could still fetch a few quid and be nicely framed. He also realises that the remaining cloth cannot be a skirt or an apron. The only way it could possibly be worn by Eddowes is by draping it over her shoulders. So therefore it becomes a shawl.

[Dave O]

In the book, Edwards theorizes that Kosminski didn't wear the shawl, but left it as a deliberate clue. He believes this particular pattern of Michaelmas daisies wasn't an English design, but rather Russian. According to him the symbolism is supposedly representing the celebration of the Feast day of St Michael in England (Sept 29) as well as in Russia (Nov 8). He also writes that in medieval times, and up to the end of the 19th century, Michaelmas was a time for business to be concluded.

So from what I gather from the book, the theory is that by leaving the shawl in Mitre Square, Kosminski is telling the police that he's collecting a debt that night, that he'll collect another on Nov 8 (which he was late for), and that his background is Eastern European.

One of the reasons he rules out Eddowes as the owner is that when they did the absorption tests, they found that the blue dye on the fabric was especially soluble in water, and came off samples pretty dramatically. Since Eddowes, tramping around outside much of the time and carrying all her belongings with her, would've been exposed to rain, it's expected that more of the blue dye would have come off had it been hers for any length of time.

Someone correct me if I've got the theory wrong.

Dave