A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Pcdunn]

Hi, Rosella, thanks for the info! I do think there is a lot of "cachet" about the JtR murders, and some people think there is possibly money to make if they claim a relationship to the killer. Or claim to have the evidence, such as "Jack's!" ties, gloves, boots, diary, or an important possession of the victim.
I know it is just psychology at the root of all this, but it seems very obnoxious, all the same.

[PaulB]

I'm sorry but a bit of cloth, shawl, table runner whatever, with a chunk cut out of it is nothing but a rag.

No it isn't. But have it your way, I can't be bothered to argue.

[lynn cates]

fashion

Hello CD. Because Kosminski is the current fashion.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello CD. Because Kosminski is the current fashion.

Cheers.
LC

Thank you, Sir.

c.d.

[PaulB]

I can't remember. Why did they choose to test Kosminski's DNA and not one of the other suspects?

c.d.

It was because a former curator of the crime museum at Scotland Yard told Russell Edwards that Kosminski was Jack the Ripper.

[richardh]

Well, as far as the MoS is concerned it's case closed...

LINK

"It was the discovery that finally provided an answer to the greatest murder mystery of all time – the identity of Jack the Ripper.

Last year, The Mail on Sunday revealed the DNA evidence that proved beyond reasonable doubt that the serial killer was Polish immigrant Aaron Kosminski.

Now, exclusive photographs of the murderer’s family offer the strongest clues yet to what he looked like.

He was unmasked as the Ripper following an investigation by businessman Russell Edwards."


"Dr Louhelainen was able to extract 126-year-old DNA from the material. He compared it to DNA from a British descendant of Matilda, as well as DNA from a descendant of Eddowes, and both proved a perfect match."

[Panderoona]

He was unmasked as the Ripper following an investigation by businessman Russell Edwards."


"Dr Louhelainen was able to extract 126-year-old DNA from the material. He compared it to DNA from a British descendant of Matilda, as well as DNA from a descendant of Eddowes, and both proved a perfect match." [/QUOTE]

I AM the Queen of Sheba.

[Archaic]

Daily Mail Article with Dubious Photographs of "Kosminskis"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3149686/The-Ripper-s-family-Pictures-Victorian-respectability-brother-sister-Britain-s-notorious-killer.html

Judging by the clothing and jewelry (particularly the woman's) the photo of Isaac Kosminski & family was taken c.1919-1924, approximately 31-36 years after the Ripper murders.

I assume the young man and young woman in the photo are his son & daughter. There's a family resemblance. The absence of the mother suggests she has passed away. The man labeled "Isaac" is wearing a large gold ring on his right hand.

The young lady is beautifully dressed. This dress style of a sheer silk chiffon with embroidered lower neckline, loose mid-length sleeves, loose dropped waist and horizontal flounces was fashionable after WWI and before the Flapper era. Note that her dress is still pretty long. The dress is sheer and has a solid color silk chemise or lining. (I have dresses from this era that have the silk lining sewn into the sheer silk chiffon dress.) Her hair is long, soft, and pinned up, not bobbed.

The young woman and the photo labelled "Matilda Kosminski" are fairly well-to-do, as they are both dressed fashionably and wearing pearl necklaces. The jewelry is "real" (real pearls, real gold), not costume jewelry.

The 'Matilda' photo was taken years before the group photo. Her clothing, hair and jewelry date to the Late Victorian, possibly early Edwardian era. (Approximately late 1890s to early 1900s.)

This lady is fairly wealthy. She's wearing a long gold watch-chain looped double and pinned; it's the type that would hold a fashionable ladies watch or lorgnette. It's a rather thick & heavy gold chain. She seems to have pinned it to her collar with the gold hook end so the entire chain shows in portrait. She has pierced ears. Her earrings are real gemstones set in gold, possibly something like Amethysts.

This lady was a middle aged adult c.1900, approximately in her late 40s.

If the man in the group photo taken approximately 20-25 years later is her sibling there is quite a large age disparity. She is old enough to be his mother.

The man identified as "Isaac Kosminski" looks to be in his mid-40s, approximately age 45. If the group photo was taken in 1920, then 32 years earlier in 1888 he would have been a teenager, approximately 12 years old.

If the man is younger than 45, or if the photo was taken a few years later c.1922 then he would have been just a kid in 1888.

> Wasn't Isaac Kosminski an adult in 1888?

The Henry Shaw Artistic Photography studio was located at 76-78 Commercial Road. http://www.stgite.org.uk/media/commercialroad1921.html

Best regards,
Archaic

[Sam Flynn]

The Henry Shaw Artistic Photography studio was located at 76-78 Commercial Road. http://www.stgite.org.uk/media/commercialroad1921.html

Indeed, Archaic. He seems to have been in business there sometime between 1900 and 1910. Shaw, real name Chaim Sochaczewski (credit to Debra Arif) was born in 1880, which fits in with someone in their mid/late 20s having made enough money to get a shop of their own.

[Robert]

Henry died in Hove, 1945, his wife Marie following him seven years later.

One of his sons, Sebag, became a famous barrister and judge.

[Archaic]

Hi Sam, how are you?

Henry Shaw's photography studio was located at 76-78 Commercial Road in 1921 per the London Street Listings Index.

http://pubshistory.com/streets/CommercialRoadeast-S1.shtml

Best regards,
Archaic

PS: Hi Robert!

[Archaic]

Henry Shaw Photography Studio in 1922

Henry Shaw's photographic studio was at the same location on Commercial Road in 1922.
A dated photo of the Silver family is in the Manchester Archives.

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/rd/258f060a-7f92-4045-a10e-a7e6244893ef

Archaic

[Archaic]

Hi Sam. There's a postcard in the National Archives by Henry Shaw that is dated 1893. I can't view the photo online.
Info says it's a photo postcard of donor's father who was born in 1893 and photo is dated 1893, so presumably it's a baby photo? Maybe you in the UK can view it.

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/rd/678f2637-3144-4134-8665-9224ec9c7449

The National Archives dates the photo & therefore Henry Shaw studio to 1893.
Not sure if that's correct. If Henry (Chaim) was born in 1880 he'd only be 13 years old in 1893. Did his father operate the studio before him?

Shaw seems to have been a successful and well-known photographer.

Thanks,
Archaic

[Robert]

Hi Bunny

Impressive stuff re the clothes and jewellery, even if I didn't understand a word.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam. There's a postcard in the National Archives by Henry Shaw that is dated 1893. I can't view the photo online.
Info says it's a photo postcard of donor's father who was born in 1893 and photo is dated 1893, so presumably it's a baby photo? Maybe you in the UK can view it.

I'm sure that it should just mean that the donor's father was born in 1893, Arch. I can't see the photograph, but I'd suggest that dating it to 1893 must be down to a clerical error. If not, then Shaw must have been a mightily precocious 12 year-old

Besides, the photograph taken in Shaw's studio of the "Kozminskis" must date well after 1910, simply judging by their clothes and the age of the (alleged) Matilda.