Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[pinkmoon]

Yes, I like to be thorough! However, when I try to imagine PC Amos parachuting into Mitre Square it does seem a little unlikely, even to me! Nonetheless, as Ripperologists we have a duty to investigate all possibilities however implausible!

Even if we place dear Amos in mitre square are we then going to take a giant leap of faith and have him removing evidence from a crime scene taking it home with blood semen and God knows what else on it wife saying thanks Amos for the lovely present and never washing it.I think that all stories passed down through families have a small amount of truth to them perhaps Amos came across this shawl during some other crime investigation and of course the time the tale was passed down it mutates into jack the ripper .

[John G]

Thanks for this, John G - it cannot be emphasized enough!

The best,
Fisherman

Thanks Fisherman. And doesn't the British study in particular suggest that JTR was far more likely to have been a substance abuser or alcohol dependent than a psychotic, if that was what Kosminksi was? This seems even more likely when you consider how many Whitechapel residences, leading wretched lives, were dependent on alcohol. And, as incredible and tragic as it might seem today, hard drugs were so readily available in Victorian times that even babies were given opium coated sweets, see: http://greatwen.com/2012/10/24/peter...ng-victorians/

[lynn cates]

point

Hello Jeff.

"when the most simple solution is that Swanson made a simple mistake or was told Kosminski died"

Perhaps part of Jonathan's point is that IF Swanson were told, then he were relying on second hand information. And maybe Mac investigated for himself?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

books

Hello Jeff. Thanks. My pleasure.

Yes, many books to read.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

running

Hello Jason.

"Even if we place dear Amos in Mitre square are we then going to take a giant leap of faith and have him removing evidence from a crime scene"

Not to mention scooping it up and running ahead of poor old Ed Watkins.

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

Oh my I seem to have made a mistake with a name that before Archaic kindly pointed it out- nobody worried about.

You mean it wasn't Edward III?

I hope you realise you've just ruined my day ...

[Archaic]

G'day Archaic

If the shawl is really "of Eastern European origin, c. 1820-1840s" that means it would have been between approximately 40 and 68 years old before the year 1888, and could have passed through many hands in "Eastern Europe". How many of those hands might have been of Polish Jewish origin like Kosminski? It's a relatively small genetic pool.

A shawl date of "1820-1840s" introduces several entire generations of Eastern European DNA contamination before the murder of Catherine Eddowes...surely a significant concern to the DNA expert?

And that is a brilliant point.

Hi Mick, thank you.
And thanks for your help in answering some of my questions, I appreciate it.

Hi Lynn, how are you? Meant to say hello earlier.

As for the Amazon book review, that's what it is, a public book review. As I said, I don't know the reviewer, and I haven't read the book because it isn't available yet, but I thought the review raised some interesting points.

I was also interested to note (which someone pointed out here, but forgive me I don't recall who) that Dr. Sutton gave the book '5 stars'. To me that says it's a "good read" whether or not you accept its ultimate conclusion.

I love books and reading, and I love History. I don't believe in censoring the reading choices of others.

I don't believe adults need to be somehow "protected" from exposure to differing points of view. The Nazis tried that method, remember? Enforcing the cult of CrimeThink didn't do them much good in the long run. I think it's cool that the Art they banned as "Degenerate" drew the biggest crowds, and today sells for the highest prices.

I think it's good and healthy to sometimes read books whose ultimate conclusions one might not necessarily agree with, because it aids in the development of critical reading and thinking skills. If we only read books whose conclusions we're sure we already agree with we risk closing our minds to new ideas and perspectives.

I've read many books whose ultimate thesis might not have persuaded me, yet I still enjoyed the read, gleaned interesting information from it, and educated myself regarding the basis for different points of view. (And let's face it, in life there are always different points of view!)

If Mr. Edwards' book brings more readers and researchers to the fields of Ripperology and Victorian History, or to History in general, I think that's a very good thing. Perhaps after reading his book they will go on to read other books, become involved in research, and make their own contributions to this field of study.

I think it would be a better world if more people would turn off the TV and read a book! Mental passivity isn't healthy.
The brain is like a muscle; to develop it you have to be willing to flex it.

Best regards,
Archaic

[lynn cates]

input

Hello Bunny. Thanks. Hope you are well.

I appreciate your shawl input. Some of us were waiting for you to show up.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Thanks Fisherman. And doesn't the British study in particular suggest that JTR was far more likely to have been a substance abuser or alcohol dependent than a psychotic, if that was what Kosminksi was? This seems even more likely when you consider how many Whitechapel residences, leading wretched lives, were dependent on alcohol. And, as incredible and tragic as it might seem today, hard drugs were so readily available in Victorian times that even babies were given opium coated sweets, see: http://greatwen.com/2012/10/24/peter...ng-victorians/

Perhaps so - but what I find of importance is not so much to try and lay down what the killer was about, as to point to what he would not have been.

There are many possibilities in the first field, but psychotics are not very prevalent there. And the more slayings, the lesser that chance of a psychotic, I´d say.

All the best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

2

Hello Christer.

"And the more slayings, the lesser that chance of a psychotic, I'd say."

Right. No more than about two.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

When it all boils down to it, here is my issue.

The shawl is wrong. It's just wrong. The date range given does not match the style and the design, and in no way shape or form the circumstances. And even that I could get around to accepting, if it weren't for the fact that given two weeks, I could come out with a rival shawl and rival DNA that would match the circumstances better, and would date accurately. And really the only reason I need two weeks instead of 48 hours is that I have to fly to London and get some DNA samples, which I can't afford right now so I'd need to wait until Wednesday to buy a ticket.

[Chris]

... given two weeks, I could come out with a rival shawl and rival DNA that would match the circumstances better, and would date accurately. And really the only reason I need two weeks instead of 48 hours is that I have to fly to London and get some DNA samples, which I can't afford right now so I'd need to wait until Wednesday to buy a ticket.

Just to clarify, what exactly are you saying?

That if you were in London, within 48 hours you could obtain DNA samples from both a relation of a victim in the direct female line and a relation of a suspect in the direct female line, somehow induce them to keep quiet about the fact they had provided you with those samples throughout the ensuing whirlwind of global publicity, and then treat their samples in some undisclosed way so as to fool an experienced scientist into thinking they were 126 years old (including making samples from a female appear to be cells from a male where necessary)?

I think if people are going to suggest the "shawl" could have been faked, they are under an obligation to give details of how that could plausibly have been done. It's not enough just to say "I could do it in 48 hours".

[Jonathan H]

Self-serving, not simple

To Jeff


Macnaghten's initial source of 'private info' was MP Farquharson.

Is that a fact?

About as much as Schwartz being Anderson's witness identifying Kosminski, and refusing to testify.

It is not a 'simple' mistake for Swanson and Anderson to believe that their suspect was long deceased.

It is self-serving.

e.g. We identified him but the treacherous witness let us down. But it's o.k. because he expired from all that wanking shortly afterwards.

Anderson implies that this suspect was deceased by early 1889. I wonder who told him that?

Conspiracy? What conspiracy, Jeff?

That takes two people. It only took the Chief Constable, that is a single person, to mislead his superior--whom he despised--and his junior.

Both Macnaghten and Anderson believed they had found the fiend. Both claimed that their suspects were deceased.

But only one was actually dead.

The chief who knew his suspect was actually dead also knew that the other suspect was actually alive.

Therefore Macnaghten is the more reliable source. I realize this is heresy.

In 1907 Sims will write, on Mac's behalf, that the two main theories are the drowned, English doctor and an American medical figure--not the Polish Jew.

I did not expect a persuasive counter-argument to a theory that is remarkably fragile, and I did not get one.

The DNA hocus pocus based on an artifact with zero provenance--worse it's a ludicrous artifact for an 1888 prostitute, oh, I forgot it belonged to the murderer--is yet another attempt to make a discredited theory have wings.

At first you were against the 'shawl' then changed your mind. You have every right to, of course.

But why did you?

[Patrick S]

Maybe, but I doubt it. The simplest explanation is a misunderstanding of evidence so as to make claims, unsupported in any significant way, by that evidence. Okay, so some bits of evidence may be stronger than others, but overall...

I presently prefer the stuff up over the conspiracy.

Agreed. But I'd add that it's likely a willful misunderstanding of the evidence.

So....Just catching up on the thread after nice evening in the gym and a wonderful dinner out. I spent a beautiful day coaching baseball and doing some yard work. Just now relaxing with a few cold beers. I recommend everyone step away from their keyboards for a bit. Things seem a bit.....tense.

Cheers, folks (gulp)!

[mickreed]

Agreed. But I'd add that it's likely a willful misunderstanding of the evidence.!

I wouldn't be at all surprised.