Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[Monty]

And that sounds much more likely, Chris. That's what I'd expect.

So it's more than likely that RE's recollections are not quite accurate.

Edwards is clearly embellishing with the aim of seeking supposed Scotland Yard endorsement of his theory.

He is very unaware that we are aware of McCormicks opinion, and that it is just that, his opinion and NOT Scotland Yards.

Monty

[Monty]

I think the evidence ge promised to show Russell Edwards was almost certainly the Swanson marginalia which was probably on loan to the museum at the time.

Absolutely Paul.

Monty

[Monty]

Absolutely. Those comments are very similar in tenor to what Alan McCormick said to me when I visited the Crime Museum a few years ago. He didn't think there was any doubt the Ripper was Aaron Kozminski, but there wasn't any suggestion that there were secret documents to prove it.

McCormicks opinions are common knowledge Chris, they were discussed on these very boards some years back.

This is not a new revelation.

Monty

[PaulB]

I think the evidence ge promised to show Russell Edwards was almost certainly the Swanson marginalia which was probably on loan to the museum at the time.

[mickreed]

Absolutely. Those comments are very similar in tenor to what Alan McCormick said to me when I visited the Crime Museum a few years ago. He didn't think there was any doubt the Ripper was Aaron Kozminski, but there wasn't any suggestion that there were secret documents to prove it.

And that sounds much more likely, Chris. That's what I'd expect.

So it's more than likely that RE's recollections are not quite accurate.

[Chris]

Some are putting two and two together, and coming up with cospiracy theory.

Absolutely. Those comments are very similar in tenor to what Alan McCormick said to me when I visited the Crime Museum a few years ago. He didn't think there was any doubt the Ripper was Aaron Kozminski, but there wasn't any suggestion that there were secret documents to prove it.

[mickreed]

It is clear Edwards is confusing personal opinion with official line.

Some are putting two and two together, and coming up with cospiracy theory.

G'day Neil,

I very much doubt a conspiracy. I think the problem is that almost all the evidence (such as it is) is mediated through RE's thoughts and recollections and, I think, preconceived ideas about where the evidence should lead. There is virtually nothing that is, what you might call, original, independent and unmediated evidence. And that applies even to the DNA I think - or at least to the presentation of it.

I've just received - and have begun - Rob House's book on Kosminski. So far that seems to me to be much closer to how these problems should be approached.

[Monty]

It is clear Edwards is confusing personal opinion with official line.

Some are putting two and two together, and coming up with cospiracy theory.


They must be bored.

Monty

[mickreed]

Hello Mick,

Thank you. I was hoping you or another would mention this. Two things.

1) All this happened BEFORE the shawl was even bought.

2) That sounds like someone paraphrasing with the 'get out of jail free card'....

I only mention the following to bear in mind. In the book the additions to the original story seem to derive from Mr Edwards himself (I may be wrong)- CERTAINLY afterwards when he changes it. (shawl to skirt et al)

Thoughts, Mick?

best regards

Phil

1. Yes, Phil. It seems to have happened before the shawl was purchased. Kosminski was in the frame before the money was spent, and the DNA done. Hence the need for a 'blind' DNA test where the tester doesn't know who the possible subject is so as to avoid possible unwitting prejudice. Standard practice normally. In my opinion, it should have happened something like this:

JL, or someone, looks for DNA in the shawl, extracts it, and stores it without any knowledge of possible subjects. The data could then be fed into various databases looking for comparisons. RE could then looks for descendants if he wanted to. Perfectly okay to look for Kosminski and Eddowes rellies. Gets DNA analysed independently and then goes back to the JL samples to see if they match. Of course that is very over-simplified.

2. The fact that the conversation is paraphrased from memory, possibly long after the event, means we can't take it as literally true. If it really was as RE says, then I think it's a bit iffy. But of course we don't know what the other party to the chat would say. He might recall it very differently.

[Phil Carter]

Every possibility for a misquote, Phil. Russell Edwards quotes Alan MacCormack, the museum curator as follows, but note his preamble which reads:

",,,, cannot recall the exact conversation, but paraphrased, it went something like this...."

Hello Mick,

Thank you. I was hoping you or another would mention this. Two things.

1) All this happened BEFORE the shawl was even bought.

2) That sounds like someone paraphrasing with the 'get out of jail free card'....

I only mention the following to bear in mind. In the book the additions to the original story seem to derive from Mr Edwards himself (I may be wrong)- CERTAINLY afterwards when he changes it. (shawl to skirt et al)


Thoughts, Mick?

best regards

Phil

[Phil Carter]

I should have also included the following from RE's book. RE asked AM to confirm what he had just told him, re: if the Ripper was really Kosminski. "Yes, we've got all the information right here but the museum isn't open to the public". He even invited RE to come back and see the documents if he ever wrote a book on the subject.

Hello Hercule,

Once again, thank you. No room for mis-quote at all, I believe.

best wishes

Phil

[Hercule Poirot]

...We have the goods here, people can't see them normally, but if you scratch our/my back, I'll scratch yours.

The Russians used to say "If you scratch my back, I'll shave yours".

[Hercule Poirot]

If this may help, this is was the book reveals:

The curator RE met was Alan McCormack. He began by telling RE that the shawl "had never been proven to be linked to the case because we've never done any DNA testing on it". He also added that they never said if it was genuine or not.

He mentioned to RE that Scotland Yard always knew "who he (the Ripper) was and that they had documentation to prove it".

Asked for the name by RE, AM said "I'll tell you. The murderer was and always has been Aaron Kosminski"

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

I should have also included the following from RE's book. RE asked AM to confirm what he had just told him, re: if the Ripper was really Kosminski. "Yes, we've got all the information right here but the museum isn't open to the public". He even invited RE to come back and see the documents if he ever wrote a book on the subject.

[mickreed]

Hello Mick,

Thanks for the comment, In light of your comment. may I ask your opinions on the references in the book specifically pertaining to what the Crime Museum have said to the author?

Trying to be objective-have we any reason to perhaps suspect the author to have somehow mis-quoted the Crime Museum's representative?

From what I have read, I can see no indication for the above having occurred. Can you?


regards

Phil

Every possibility for a misquote, Phil. Russell Edwards quotes Alan MacCormack, the museum curator as follows, but note his preamble which reads:

I cannot recall the exact conversation, but paraphrased, it went something like this:

Then follows a bit of conversation not really relevant to Kosminksi, then comes:

AM: Well I can tell you the name but you have to go and do the work. Considering you’ve told me the first bit of news that I didn’t know in years [This refers to the Michaelmas daisy bit MR], I’ll tell you: the murderer was and always has been Aaron Kosminski.

RE: Really? He’s always been one of the three publicized suspects.

AM: Yes, but they make too much money on programmes and books to actually give the real culprit!

RE: What do you think about the shawl now?

AM: Well, I don’t know now, it is very old. I know Sotheby’s examined it and found it could be very early twentieth century, but it could be older. If you feel you want to buy it let me know how you get on. You never know, it could be real after all.

RE: I will keep you posted. So Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper?

AM: Yes, we’ve got all the information right here, but the museum isn’t open to the public. Tell you what, if you buy the shawl, we would be interested in having it back. I’ll let you come and see the documents if you ever write a book on it and give me a signed copy.

RE: That would be amazing. Thank you ever so much, I’ll let you know how I get on.

Now, I reckon this is dodgy if it really happened this way. AM is alleged to have said he'll show RE the documents in return for a signed copy of the book - which, of course, could be for the Museum collection rather than a personal copy.

But this could be seen as a case of:

We have the goods here, people can't see them normally, but if you scratch our/my back, I'll scratch yours.

[Phil Carter]

If this may help, this is was the book reveals:

The curator RE met was Alan McCormack. He began by telling RE that the shawl "had never been proven to be linked to the case because we've never done any DNA testing on it". He also added that they never said if it was genuine or not.

He mentioned to RE that Scotland Yard always knew "who he (the Ripper) was and that they had documentation to prove it".

Asked for the name by RE, AM said "I'll tell you. The murderer was and always has been Aaron Kosminski"

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

Hello Hercule,

Yes- Thank you. That is what I read, too. Doesnt look like a mis-quote to me.

You see- I would naturally think that 'documentation to prove it' would be referring to the Swanson Marginalia and End page annotations.... except that it cannot be that.......

"Aaron" Kosminski was not mentioned in it. Only a 'Kosminski' was.
And the SM and EPA doesnt "prove" anything of the sort in any case.


best wishes

Phil