Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Phil Carter]

Phil
It might help you if you read the book - Edwards explains that he favoured Deeming because of the Liverpool connection. As for Aaron Kosminski, before he bought the "shawl" he spoke to the curator of the Crime Museum who told him that the police had always known that the identity of Jack the Ripper was Aaron Kosminski.

First of all, wild horses won't get me to buy this book... IF I get sent it as a freebie from someone, I MIGHT read it then. But not one penny of my money walks into Edwards' or his publisher's pockets.

Now.. to address the comment.

So the "personal interest" because of "his home town (note Liverpool) " and because "Deeming stayed there" as professed in the talk with Napper... all goes out of the window pdq once a little chat with the curator of the Crime Museum tells him that AK was Jack the Ripper... (note... not that the Crime museum has been pushing this suspect ad nauseum for many many years to all and sundry...)

Easily influenced? Sudden lack of personal interest? Or.... a chance to make something out of it if he switches from Deeming to Kosminski? (I know... cynical person that I am... the possibility of the third has crossed many people's minds here as well...not just me... the man's behaviour, his little shop of horrors that sells the cheapest and most disrespectful form of junk imanginable and the way he changes his goalposts every so often and avoids being tied down to kjnowledgable questions...says it all)


To many...this fellow is clearly stringing everybody along. His publisher must be well happy.
He is in desperate need though of a decent PR man who should have told him to say as little as possible and NOT to keep changing the story... which he has. Listen to his radio and tv interviews. It'd like watching Tommy Cooper all over again... "Glass-bottle---bottle glass..." becomes "Shawl-skirt, skirt Shawl... Kosminski's, Eddowes', Eddowes', Kosminski's."

Tommy Cooper was at least convincing. This isn't even in the least bit funny.


But this shawl business is a joke and like Stewart Evans has repeatedly said... always has been seen as a fake. For people like Neil (a fine example I will use) and many others it is an affront to seriously researched Ripperology.

However I fully expect this Edwards fellow will find support from within the same publisher's authors lists. That would not surprise me one iota.

I wonder why exactly?




Phil

[Theagenes]

Yes Theagenes, the blokes would have it too. So if Karen Miller has a brother, he should show the same reading as her.

Now that might be interesting.

Yes, I mentioned this earlier and asked if anyone knew the family tree from Kate to Karen. We might be able to list exactly how many matrilineal descendants of Kate could be candidates that could have possibly contaminated the shawl since it became public in 1990.

I know there are people who probably know this information. From a bit of googling I saw that Kate's lone daughter Annie had three daughters, but it looks like only one survived to adulthood maybe (Karen's grandmother?). So there might not be that many.

Of course there are other people out there, distant cousins for example, that would carry it, but I would think it would be direct descendants of Kate that would be most likely to have come into contact the shawl at a Ripper event.

[PaulB]

First of all, wild horses won't get me to buy this book... IF I get sent it as a freebie from someone, I MIGHT read it then. But not one penny of my money walks into Edwards' or his publisher's pockets.

Now.. to address the comment.

So the "personal interest" because of "his home town (note Liverpool) " and because "Deeming stayed there" as professed in the talk with Napper... all goes out of the window pdq once a little chat with the curator of the Crime Museum tells him that AK was Jack the Ripper... (note... not that the Crime museum has been pushing this suspect ad nauseum for many many years to all and sundry...)

Easily influenced? Sudden lack of personal interest? Or.... a chance to make something out of it if he switches from Deeming to Kosminski? (I know... cynical person that I am... the possibility of the third has crossed many people's minds here as well...not just me... the man's behaviour, his little shop of horrors that sells the cheapest and most disrespectful form of junk imanginable and the way he changes his goalposts every so often and avoids being tied down to kjnowledgable questions...says it all)


To many...this fellow is clearly stringing everybody along. His publisher must be well happy.
He is in desperate need though of a decent PR man who should have told him to say as little as possible and NOT to keep changing the story... which he has. Listen to his radio and tv interviews. It'd like watching Tommy Cooper all over again... "Glass-bottle---bottle glass..." becomes "Shawl-skirt, skirt Shawl... Kosminski's, Eddowes', Eddowes', Kosminski's."

Tommy Cooper was at least convincing. This isn't even in the least bit funny.


But this shawl business is a joke and like Stewart Evans has repeatedly said... always has been seen as a fake. For people like Neil (a fine example I will use) and many others it is an affront to seriously researched Ripperology.

However I fully expect this Edwards fellow will find support from within the same publisher's authors lists. That would not surprise me one iota.

I wonder why exactly?




Phil

Phil,
Okay, don't read the book. But stop asking questions about it. Why on earth do you expect other people to use their money and waste their time answering questions you could answer for yourself if you just did a little reading. Do the work yourself, don't expect others to do it for you.

I don't know why Russell Edwards switched from one suspect to another, but you can make nasty insinuations if you want to. You are a paranoid conspiracist, so we all expect such things of you, however I doubt it has any substance in reality. I do think you would be wise to tone yourself down as you are sailing very close to being libellous. There are no grounds for calling the shawl a "joke" or a "fake", and as you haven't met Russell Edwards, haven't read his book, haven't visited his shop... you are just spluttering opinion based on hearsay.

And I believe Stephen has already warned you about making vague insinuations and told you and other posters to have the balls to name names, so which Sidgwick and Jackson authors do you imagine will support Mr Edwards. Do you have the balls to name names?

[John G]

Hi Lynn,

Thanks for your reply, it is much appreciated.

I guess I have been interested in Ripperology for about 15 years and have read numerous books on the subject by writers such as Philip Sugden, Stewart Evans, MJ Trow, Trevor Marriott, Shirley Harrison and more recently the excellent CSI Whitechapel. However, it is a while since I read anything on the subject so I probably seem a little rusty!

However, my favorite book on the subject is still the first one that I read: Paul Begg's Jack the Ripper: The Facts. I still believe that he made the best case for Kosminski that I have read, both as Anderson's/ Swanson's suspect and as a candidate for JTR generally, although his argument relies on accepting Schwartz's as Anderson's witness and Stride as a JTR victim- I believe she probably was but accept the fact that there is a significant element of doubt.

Paul's argument also gets round the tricky problem of Lawende as the witness: from memory, didn't he say he doubted he would recognize the man he saw again- hardly surprising considering it was a casual observation in poor light- and then supposedly identified Kosminski in a direct confrontation years later? And according to Paul B he also subsequently identified Grainger as the man, which if true largely discredits him in my opinion.

Kind regards,

John

[Caligo Umbrator]

First of all, wild horses won't get me to buy this book... IF I get sent it as a freebie from someone, I MIGHT read it then. But not one penny of my money walks into Edwards' or his publisher's pockets.

Now.. to address the comment.

So the "personal interest" because of "his home town (note Liverpool) " and because "Deeming stayed there" as professed in the talk with Napper... all goes out of the window pdq once a little chat with the curator of the Crime Museum tells him that AK was Jack the Ripper... (note... not that the Crime museum has been pushing this suspect ad nauseum for many many years to all and sundry...)

Easily influenced? Sudden lack of personal interest? Or.... a chance to make something out of it if he switches from Deeming to Kosminski? (I know... cynical person that I am... the possibility of the third has crossed many people's minds here as well...not just me... the man's behaviour, his little shop of horrors that sells the cheapest and most disrespectful form of junk imanginable and the way he changes his goalposts every so often and avoids being tied down to kjnowledgable questions...says it all)


To many...this fellow is clearly stringing everybody along. His publisher must be well happy.
He is in desperate need though of a decent PR man who should have told him to say as little as possible and NOT to keep changing the story... which he has. Listen to his radio and tv interviews. It'd like watching Tommy Cooper all over again... "Glass-bottle---bottle glass..." becomes "Shawl-skirt, skirt Shawl... Kosminski's, Eddowes', Eddowes', Kosminski's."

Tommy Cooper was at least convincing. This isn't even in the least bit funny.


But this shawl business is a joke and like Stewart Evans has repeatedly said... always has been seen as a fake. For people like Neil (a fine example I will use) and many others it is an affront to seriously researched Ripperology.

However I fully expect this Edwards fellow will find support from within the same publisher's authors lists. That would not surprise me one iota.

I wonder why exactly?




Phil

Interesting comments and perhaps not far from the truth, I suspect.
Its seems that the comparison to Cooper was well chosen.
In the 70's I was at a bar with my mother and met Tommy Cooper (I suspect he was more interested in her than me). I believe he'd had a few drinks by then but by way of impressing my mum (and me), turned a couple of tricks. It happened to be that he was a brilliant and skilled magician.
A consummate professional who put on an act and seemed, to all who saw him on stage, to be a bumbling rank amateur.
One might think that nearly the opposite could appear to be the case with the Other fellow.

[John G]

Hello John

We discussed that article a week or so ago - or rather aspects of it. That site is usually pretty good but there are always problems with these kinds of predictive approaches.

You're right - 7200 is unusual rather than rare, and it's the case that only about 50% of those would be male, so down to 3600, and quite a few of them would be kids, or very old, so maybe down to - I dunno - 2000??

I use the FTDNA database, that she refers to, a lot. It's extremely good. But is it typical of the world's population overall? I doubt it. It costs money to join. London was a major migrant centre and a seaport. Who knows who would have been there at any given time

This site has a map showing the distribution of T1 (T1a1 is a subset) here:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_T_mtDNA.shtml

The key thing that's said in your article, is that in the databases, 'not one' Jew has T1a1. Anne Turner, one of the leading genetic genealogists in the world says the same thing. The site I just linked to says no Jews have T1. In fact that's not right, but it is very uncommon amongst Jews.

There's also the great furphy amongst family historians, that just because a piece of paper says you're related proves that you are.

The problem is much greater with the male line. No one can be sure that the recorded father is really the father. I call it the milkman effect. Who knows what bloke stopped when hubby was out?

It's usually easier to be a bit confident that the mother is the mother, because it tends to show. But does that work for long-dead people? It was common in the nineteenth century for what you might call, 'informal adoption'. A couple might 'adopt' the child of a neighbour, a relative, or whatever, and record it as their own.

So, there are always problems.

Hi Mick,

Thanks once again for a highly informative and knowledgeable reply. As regards problems I guess the provenance of the shawl is also an issue:without good provenance it's surely difficult to even estimate, within any degree of certainty, where and when the genetic material may have been deposited.

Best wishes,

John

[Caligo Umbrator]

With all the talk about the relatives and mDNA of Eddowes, I was wondering has anyone given any thought to Kozminski and his relatives?
My understanding is that the relative of his who was tested has elected to remain anonymous, which obviously puts us all at some disadvantage in verifying any claims made about the continuity of the bloodline.
Unfortunately I don't have the resources to do this myself but was wondering if he even had any living, verifiable relatives.
I ask that because I read this thread a couple of days ago about that -
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4140
Does anyone have any new information about this line of enquiry?

[tji]

Hi Amanda

[QUOTE]

Hi, Tracy

You can now add genetics to your endless talents!
Pardon me, if I say it's all gobbly gook to me.

Glad somebody understands this stuff! :-)

That's so nice of you to say Amanda thank you

However I can't agree lol, I am struggling to wade through it all myself, my eyes keep trying to cross.

Tracy

[Peter F Young]

Was that pub The Abbey Arms in Chiswick, his local in the 60s when
I last saw him and his wife?

[pinkmoon]

plan b

why didn't they get hold of the descendants of other well known suspects Druitt ,chapman,ect and then ask them all to give a d.n.a samples surely if Mr Edwards had an open mind he would have done this or was it pure chance his first choice sample (Kosminski) was right.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

When attempting to make sense of evidence beyond your particular sphere of knowledge, it is always a wise move to remember the 3B rule.

Regards,

Simon

[Caligo Umbrator]

Was that pub The Abbey Arms in Chiswick, his local in the 60s when
I last saw him and his wife?

Hi Peter.
I suspect that question was directed towards myself.
I'll be brief as I don't want to wander too far off topic.
It was in Skegness in either '73 or '74.
If he was with his wife, she was somewhere else at the time.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caligo Umbrator,

What a stupid nom de plume. It sounds like a Roman sex-toy.

Would the words "Daily" and "Express" mean anything to you?

Just a hunch.

Regards,

Simon

[sleekviper]

As far as DNA goes, aren't two factors being overlooked? First, it is not a mandatory test of all mankind, so what is rare or common applies to the sample size of those that have supplied DNA. Second, there were two world wars between 1888 and 2014. Before 1888, it was line of sight and shoot; women and kids had a chance to live depending on who was pointing a gun, arrow, or club, after it was bombs that take out anything within a blast radius. So even if it were possible to have an exact record of everyone's DNA today, dropping bombs on England, and having death camps is going to alter any type comparison to what the DNA landscape to 1888 would have been, especially to those in question.

[Patrick S]

why didn't they get hold of the descendants of other well known suspects Druitt ,chapman,ect and then ask them all to give a d.n.a samples surely if Mr Edwards had an open mind he would have done this or was it pure chance his first choice sample (Kosminski) was right.

It's been stated before here and it's stated in the book (which I've finally received and will begin soon). Edwards was told (by a police official?) that the top brass at the time of murders knew who Jack the Ripper was: Aaron Kozminski. That's his story anyway. While it seems a stretch to me, it might well be the route a neophyte with no real insight into the case might take upon being told such a thing.

Not saying a buy it. Just saying......