Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[Observer]

Hey Obs

Hutt used slightly different words at the inquest than those of the inventory.

At the inquest he found a red handkerchief on the neck. The inventory refers to a piece of red silk on the neck.

At the inquest he refers to a white wrapper. The inventory refers to a large white handkerchief. Could this be the wrapper? After all according to Hutt, Kate wore a red handkerchief around her neck.

The inventory also refers to a white chemise defined by the SOED as:

A garment for the upper body ; esp. a woman's loose - fitting undergarment or dress hanging straight from the shoulders .

A wrapper is also defined as:

A shawl, cloak, etc., for wrapping round the shoulders or head.
A loose outer garment, esp. for informal indoor wear or for use in household work; esp. a woman's loose gown or negligee.

There are two other issues I reckon:

1. We all assume that Eddowes wore the clothing the way we would wear it. She was very poor. Maybe she wrapped the chemise around her neck as a scarf. We've no idea.

2. According to Edwards, Kosminski brought the shawl to Mitre Square. Are we to assume that he had time to dress Eddowes as well as kill her - all in about 5 minutes?

Hi Mick

I considered the white handkerchief as a possible for the wrapper, but Hutt I feel would have specified a handkerchief had he saw the white handkerchief tied around her neck.

She could have worn the chemise as a scarf, unlikely though in my opinion.

The only likely owner of the shawl in my opinion was Eddowes. Mr Edwards believes that Kosminski owned the "shawl", I very much doudt that he did.

Regards

Observer

[Phil Carter]

If the reports about the way the Crime Museum is promoting Kosminski are true, then all I can say is that they need a few real museum curators and historians in there.

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

[Tom_Wescott]

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

I don't know, it was someone at Scotland Yard who told Patricia Cornwell she should look at Sickert. At least Edwards was encouraged to follow an actual suspect. So I'd say we're making progress.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Hercule Poirot]

Opinion of the Crime Museum's curator

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

[Phil Carter]

I don't know, it was someone at Scotland Yard who told Patricia Cornwell she should look at Sickert. At least Edwards was encouraged to follow an actual suspect. So I'd say we're making progress.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom,

Thanks for the comment and the observation! Someone at the Yard also pointed Stephen Knight in Joseph Sickert's direction too if memory serves?
Then we have Swanson, MacNagthen, Abberline, and other ex-Yard policemen all pointing us in directions too.

What a source we have eh? A seemingly never ending supply of generous inside informants willing to show us the true way every so often. Most encouraging! ;-)

kind regards

Phil

[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

[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.

[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.

[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".

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.