Kosminskical Thoughts

[clark2710]

Here's my issue with Aaron being the Ripper. The Devil is in the details. If you are to take the eye witnesses, at least some of them, as having caught a glimpse of the Ripper here's the thing...The Ripper was viewed as neat and well put together, where Kosminski was described as unkept and dirty, wouldn't be washed, and so on....The Ripper was thought to have a somewhat rich anatomical knowledge and Kosminski, while I've read in some places that he had some anatomical knowledge, none of them seem to fit the description of how versed the Ripper would've been. These were just a few things dancing around my head before bed here I want to believe Kosminski could be the Ripper because it'd be nice and neat with the shawl stuff. But there are all these little things that bug me...
I personally like Chapman for the Ripper but that's just me

[JeffHamm]

Hi clark2710,

Forget the shawl, it's bogus. Even the paper indicates that the mDNA they found differs by 2 places from Kosminski and states that is enough to rule him out (yet oddly, the paper doesn't do that, so they contradict their own statements). Also, the provenance of the shawl is lacking, and there's nothing in Kate's list of possessions and clothing that matches it (and it's probably a table runner, not a shawl).

Anyway, I'm not a Kosminski expert, but I seem to recall it being mentioned that in 1888 he was not in the state of dishevelment he later descended into. I think someone even found where he had defended himself in some sort of court (not criminal as I recall). So, while he later ends up eating food out of the gutters type thing, I have a recollection that he was much more presentable at the time of the murders. I'm sure you'll get a more definite and informed response, but thought I would pass that along. If nothing else, it gives you something to look for on the boards as that's where I recall seeing such things. Sorry I can't be more helpful in suggesting what threads to look at, though, as in all likelihood it came up as an off topic sideline.

- Jeff

[Ms Diddles]

Hi clark2710,

Forget the shawl, it's bogus. Even the paper indicates that the mDNA they found differs by 2 places from Kosminski and states that is enough to rule him out (yet oddly, the paper doesn't do that, so they contradict their own statements). Also, the provenance of the shawl is lacking, and there's nothing in Kate's list of possessions and clothing that matches it (and it's probably a table runner, not a shawl).

Anyway, I'm not a Kosminski expert, but I seem to recall it being mentioned that in 1888 he was not in the state of dishevelment he later descended into. I think someone even found where he had defended himself in some sort of court (not criminal as I recall). So, while he later ends up eating food out of the gutters type thing, I have a recollection that he was much more presentable at the time of the murders. I'm sure you'll get a more definite and informed response, but thought I would pass that along. If nothing else, it gives you something to look for on the boards as that's where I recall seeing such things. Sorry I can't be more helpful in suggesting what threads to look at, though, as in all likelihood it came up as an off topic sideline.

- Jeff

I second that!

Step away from the shawl (table runner?)!!!!

The provenance is utterly dubious and it's been handled by the world and it's mother over the years.

Any DNA "evidence" would be completely compromised.

Koz appeared in court in December 1889 for being out in public with an unmuzzled dog.

From what I have seen, the notes on this are brief and one can't really ascertain anything regarding his mental state from them, but the fact that he turned up and explained himself, would perhaps imply that he was lucid and rational enough.

In July 1890 He was placed in Mile End Workhouse (before being admitted to Colney Hatch and later transferred to Leavesden Asylum where he died).

IIRC on admission to the workhouse, his family reported that he had been suffering from mental health issues for either five or six years, although whether these symptoms were apparent only to those closest to him, or would have been immediately evident to anyone who encountered him, who knows?!

[erobitha]

By as much as I can tell, Kosminski was a paranoid schizophrenic. He would have lucid moments and often he would not. For him to have committed these murders he would have had to have been in some kind of manic state. The women were far too street smart to walk off with a man in a frenzied state. Psychologically I just don’t see it with Koz.

As for the shawl we now have the owner claiming it wasn’t Eddowes who owned it but Kosminski himself and he left it there. Provenance is all over the place.

The female mDNA is definitely from the maternal line of Eddowes or even Eddowes herself and that does need to be acknowledged. The mDNA simply cannot have that level of accuracy on the paternal line, no matter how many relatives of his were tested.

[JeffHamm]

By as much as I can tell, Kosminski was a paranoid schizophrenic. He would have lucid moments and often he would not. For him to have committed these murders he would have had to have been in some kind of manic state. The women were far too street smart to walk off with a man in a frenzied state. Psychologically I just don’t see it with Koz.

As for the shawl we now have the owner claiming it wasn’t Eddowes who owned it but Kosminski himself and he left it there. Provenance is all over the place.

The female mDNA is definitely from the maternal line of Eddowes or even Eddowes herself and that does need to be acknowledged. The mDNA simply cannot have that level of accuracy on the paternal line, no matter how many relatives of his were tested.

Hi erobitha,

I don't think there's any reason why mDNA would not be accurate for a male? While mDNA only tracks the maternal line, it can't track the paternal line at all because all of our mitochondria comes from our mothers (the paternal line is tracked through the Y-chromosome), but that just means a male suspect (Kosminiski) can be "tracked" by tracking the female decedents of his mother, as he would have his mother's mDNA, and the female decedents would also pass it along generation to generation. The source doner could even be a male, provided his mother is one of the line of female descendants from Kosminski's mother. If he had no sister, but his mother did, then they could be used as it would follow the female line back to the common grandmother. The problem is that mDNA is not unique so it doesn't identify an individual the way nuclear DNA does.

- Jeff

[erobitha]

Hi erobitha,

I don't think there's any reason why mDNA would not be accurate for a male? While mDNA only tracks the maternal line, it can't track the paternal line at all because all of our mitochondria comes from our mothers (the paternal line is tracked through the Y-chromosome), but that just means a male suspect (Kosminiski) can be "tracked" by tracking the female decedents of his mother, as he would have his mother's mDNA, and the female decedents would also pass it along generation to generation. The source doner could even be a male, provided his mother is one of the line of female descendants from Kosminski's mother. If he had no sister, but his mother did, then they could be used as it would follow the female line back to the common grandmother. The problem is that mDNA is not unique so it doesn't identify an individual the way nuclear DNA does.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

The point I was trying to make, albeit a simplfied one - is that mDNA generally speaking is far more reliable when the descendants can be be followed from the maternal ancestry line with no deviance. Of course it can also be followed with paternal line deviance if you have the maternal line tracked. The mDNA can only be passed via the maternal line. I believe Russell Edwards claims he has the mDNA of a direct descendant of Kosminski's maternal line - but due to 'data protection' we cannot be sure that is true and accurate. It is believed it is from his sister's line, but unless we can see that line how do we know there was no deviance? We have no proper data to judge, just coloured boxes. The fact we know it ends in a male shows the risk of that data being invalid.

The data the mDNA of "Eddowes" is an absolute 100% match to that relative tested. This is as good as it gets for mDNA. The other stains on the shawl has at the very least provided us data that it came from a man with brown eyes and brown hair, and maybe of Russian-Jewish descent. The difference with "Eddowes" is that we know who provided the mDNA, and they are a 100% match for the blood on the shawl. As for Koz it is more dubious...

From the 2019 published results:
“Figure 7 of the same paper shows two differences between the suspect candidate's mtDNA sequence and the sequence obtained from the shawl, and in their conclusion the authors state that "According to the SWGDAM 2013 guidelines, if samples have two or more nucleotide position differences, they can be excluded as coming from the same source or maternal lineage, except when heteroplasmy is encountered." There is no suggestion that heteroplasmy is present.”

Richard III was identified using the mDNA method, and I am not critical of its use when used correctly. I am simply saying when the direct maternal line can be tracked without deviance you are less likely to encounter issues like above.

I simplified the process to make it easier to read. Apologies if you feel I was not accurate enough.

Ero

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

The point I was trying to make, albeit a simplfied one - is that mDNA generally speaking is far more reliable when the descendants can be be followed from the maternal ancestry line with no deviance. Of course it can also be followed with paternal line deviance if you have the maternal line tracked. The mDNA can only be passed via the maternal line. I believe Russell Edwards claims he has the mDNA of a direct descendant of Kosminski's maternal line - but due to 'data protection' we cannot be sure that is true and accurate. It is believed it is from his sister's line, but unless we can see that line how do we know there was no deviance? We have no proper data to judge, just coloured boxes. The fact we know it ends in a male shows the risk of that data being invalid.

The data the mDNA of "Eddowes" is an absolute 100% match to that relative tested. This is as good as it gets for mDNA. The other stains on the shawl has at the very least provided us data that it came from a man with brown eyes and brown hair, and maybe of Russian-Jewish descent. The difference with "Eddowes" is that we know who provided the mDNA, and they are a 100% match for the blood on the shawl. As for Koz it is more dubious...

From the 2019 published results:
“Figure 7 of the same paper shows two differences between the suspect candidate's mtDNA sequence and the sequence obtained from the shawl, and in their conclusion the authors state that "According to the SWGDAM 2013 guidelines, if samples have two or more nucleotide position differences, they can be excluded as coming from the same source or maternal lineage, except when heteroplasmy is encountered." There is no suggestion that heteroplasmy is present.”

Richard III was identified using the mDNA method, and I am not critical of its use when used correctly. I am simply saying when the direct maternal line can be tracked without deviance you are less likely to encounter issues like above.

I simplified the process to make it easier to read. Apologies if you feel I was not accurate enough.

Ero

Hi erobitha,

No worries, I see what you're getting at now. Yes, while the last in the Kosminski line is male is not a problem, if there are any other males in the link, then the mDNA chain is broken and no longer connects to Kosminski.

The paragraphs you mention in the article are ones that I've noted as well, and that basically means that from their analysis Kosminski is not a match, even if we accept everything else at face value (which I don't think either of us recommend).

I've seen others mention that the Eddowes' descendants were able to handle the shawl, which if true, entirely invalidate the whole analysis of course.

- Jeff

[rjpalmer]

Provenance is all over the place.

Isn't the human mind fascinating?

[erobitha]

Isn't the human mind fascinating?

I see what you did there...

[caz]

So did I.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Isn't the human mind fascinating?

The exquisite taste of Palmer's Wit. Served extra dry. Nice.

[clark2710]

Hi erobitha,

No worries, I see what you're getting at now. Yes, while the last in the Kosminski line is male is not a problem, if there are any other males in the link, then the mDNA chain is broken and no longer connects to Kosminski.

The paragraphs you mention in the article are ones that I've noted as well, and that basically means that from their analysis Kosminski is not a match, even if we accept everything else at face value (which I don't think either of us recommend).

I've seen others mention that the Eddowes' descendants were able to handle the shawl, which if true, entirely invalidate the whole analysis of course.

- Jeff

I hate to be droll and forgive my ignorance here but couldn't we get dna from Kosminski himself? I mean it's not like we don't know where the man is buried. We could even penetrate the grave site, through the ground, and gather dna without digging him up. Could we not do that for the purposes of comparison? I'm sure someone in the family would grant say to clear his name.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I hate to be droll and forgive my ignorance here but couldn't we get dna from Kosminski himself? I mean it's not like we don't know where the man is buried. We could even penetrate the grave site, through the ground, and gather dna without digging him up. Could we not do that for the purposes of comparison? I'm sure someone in the family would grant say to clear his name.

No, distant descendents are generally against exhuming bodies to have a crack at solving ancient cases based on spurious evidence, hence Jeff Mudgett.....oh.

[clark2710]

No, distant descendents are generally against exhuming bodies to have a crack at solving ancient cases based on spurious evidence, hence Jeff Mudgett.....oh.

You only need one of the Elders, someone that tends to speak for the family as a whole, the Matriarch, someone of prominence within the modern family unit. Absent that you could get city officials to sign off on it. While either are long shots I mean you never know...never hurts to ask.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

You only need one of the Elders, someone that tends to speak for the family as a whole, the Matriarch, someone of prominence within the modern family unit. Absent that you could get city officials to sign off on it. While either are long shots I mean you never know...never hurts to ask.

Elders? Matriarch? I'm tossing up whether your Appalachian or Isle of Man...

DNA wise, and it may come as shock to some, I'm no expert, but tracing the Y chromosome DNA is tricky, since Aaron didn't pass on his Y chromosome. A brother would, but you'd need a direct male line from his brother.

More than that, you'd need good reason to put him forward, above the Mcnaughten memoranda, like actual evidence. Also, pauper graves aren't neatly laid out and left undisturbed, so I'd question just how identifiable his grave is today. Probably got a hipster coffee shop on it.