Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Roy Corduroy]

So far as what is in the public domain, we don't know anything about his movements that night. Neil and Ed might know more.

Mick, that's great Ed and Monty are checking. I would imagine officer Simpson was checked out years ago and since nothing came up nothing was mentioned. After all, why confirm nothing.

The shawl's provenance is extremely poor, and its contamination factor is beyond bad, it's hilarious. Stewart Evans kindly explained all this in detail thousands of posts ago.

Roy

[mickreed]

Mick, that's great Ed and Monty are checking. I would imagine officer Simpson was checked out years ago and since nothing came up nothing was mentioned. After all, why confirm nothing.

The shawl's provenance is extremely poor, and its contamination factor is beyond bad, it's hilarious. Stewart Evans kindly explained all this in detail thousands of posts ago.

Roy

Yep, and I see no cause to argue with Stewart.

[RockySullivan]

Anybody else think wolfie1 is Edwards?

[Tom_Wescott]

Anybody else think wolfie1 is Edwards?

No, I don't. I think we should hold back on unwarranted accusations.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hey Tom

I didn't name Paul, but I do agree about fraud claims, and I've argued against them several times in this forum. Fraud is a foolish claim to make. It's as wrong to claim fraud without evidence, as it is to claim anything else without evidence.

The real problem here is in the aggressive marketing of the book, in which the author appears all to keen to participate. Now anyone would want their publisher to market aggressively, but not on the basis of falsehoods or partial truths.

There seems to me to be various strands of Ripperology - and here I use UK comparisons.

1. There's the Independent, Guardian, Telegraph (and once upon a time, the Times) approach of Begg, Skinner, Evans, and many more. They try to present the truth as they see it, argue their case from evidence, and, whilst they will sometimes be wrong, the reader can feel assured that they've given it their best shot.

2. Then there's the well-meaning local rag. Under-resourced, unable to afford top journos, etc. Great for reporting a Council meeting or the local cricket, but without the skills, or resources generally, to get to the bottom of a complex story. This may well be RE.

3. Finally there's the Sun, the Mirror, the Mail approach. Who cares whether it's true or not? Sales are everything and if people buy our papers then that's all that counts. Some people may think that RE's book is being sold like that.

Well, I don't think that's the right way to do things. And so, I repeat, we shouldn't be bandying claims like fraud about. But on the other hand, we shouldn't go easy, just because somebody may truly believe in their own unsubstantiated claims.

There's an old saying about heat and kitchens.

Hi Mick. Begg's literally the only person who fit the description you gave. LOL. Unlike Ripper witnesses.

Newspapers. I remember those. That's a pretty good analogy.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[RockySullivan]

No, I don't. I think we should hold back on unwarranted accusations.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Fair enough it was only a question... I'm not accusing Wolfie of anything. It's interesting that someone names after Koz bro first post is drop the bomb about the shawl...smells like part of the pr stunt to me

[wolfie1]

Fair enough it was only a question... I'm not accusing Wolfie of anything. It's interesting that someone names after Koz bro first post is drop the bomb about the shawl...smells like part of the pr stunt to me

Not sure why I can be bothered to respond, but for the record, I am not RE, nor am I linked in anyway to the book.
It was posted by me first as I am in Australia and the story broke early hours here, before the UK and US public viewed the story in the media.
I posted it as I have an interest in the Kosminski link .

[RockySullivan]

Not sure why I can be bothered to respond, but for the record, I am not RE, nor am I linked in anyway to the book.
It was posted by me first as I am in Australia and the story broke early hours here, before the UK and US public viewed the story in the media.
I posted it as I have an interest in the Kosminski link .

Ok cool I'm sure you can't bother to blame me for wondering right. I apologize I missed the fact that you joined four years ago. For some reason I thought that was your introductory post...what do you think about the whole thing Wolfie?

[wolfie1]

Ok cool I'm sure you can't bother to blame me for wondering right. I apologize I missed the fact that you joined four years ago. For some reason I thought that was your introductory post...what do you think about the whole thing Wolfie?

Thank you Rocky.
I believe that
Dr A is a credible professional, who is rightly cautious about his findings, but Edwards has rushed into publication and using strong language about solving the case.
Edwards will have his 15 mins of fame, bank his money, and may or may not prove correct in time.
The DNA evidence regarding Eddowes is strong for me, but needs retesting in another lab, with subsequent peer reviewed published results.
the DNA re Kosmisnki is not so strong for me, as it could be from many individuals at the time, not even sure it is from semen as I understand the cells could have come from lining of other major organs off the body

Only way for exact cross testing with suspect and item is exhumation. But even then other non related individuals to Kosmisnki must be tested by independent means and peer reviewed, so Edwards to me is very premature to claim case solved. At a long shot he has linked Eddowes and a suspect unknown, on the same item.
The item also looks Russian to me, the colours in the shawl remind me of traditional color of grandmother dolls, the gold, yellow, green and red. The flowers are pansies,, not Michaelmas daisies, but could be described as thus dueto poor botanical knowledge of scribes.

The style and shape was certainly in vogue Georgian times, but I am not an expert in dating weave, materials of clothing.
The cost at the time if it was newish, would not be affordable for Eddowes, but she was a known cleaner in Jewish homes and could have stolen it to pawn or sell on the street as she was known to be a hawker.
The Kosminski family were also tailors and made Mantles/Shawls but would also make items from left over materials to wholesale.

I have no idea how Amos had possession of the shawl, I leave that to the other thread to debate. As a women I would not accept a dirty, bloody, rag, no matter how expensive it was, unless someone else laundered and then put it on display.

I would rather not comment on the boards on my interest in Kosminski.

For suspect, victim, police discussions I leave that to other researchers with an interest in the case.

Will review the book end of Septemver when it is released here, but unless there is additional information not yet disclosed on this board, it is still case unsolved for me.

[mickreed]

Hi Mick. Begg's literally the only person who fit the description you gave. LOL. Unlike Ripper witnesses.

Newspapers. I remember those. That's a pretty good analogy.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Who am I to argue with the bloke who wrote a bloody good book, that I am re-reading at this moment.

Cheers, mate.

[mickreed]

Will review the book end of Septemver when it is released here, but unless there is additional information not yet disclosed on this board, it is still case unsolved for me.

Yep, me too. End of September gets closer

[Fantasio]

Hi all.
And yes, I'm yet another long-time-lurker, first-time poster and so on. I'm especially interested in dissertations, but I also like some forum debate.

My wife is a geneticist, I'm a IT engineer. I've read the 4000- posts and told her what's happening. She explained to me a lot of things. So, long before the excellent review posted by Theagenes, I found myself convinced there's indeed Eddowes' DNA on the "shawl" - not 100% but almost, unless there's fraud somewhere. Kosminksy's, that's another matter. I'd like to see many other suspects tested, starting with the notorious David Cohen (but if I remember well, he had no relatives known, unless he really was Kaminsky).
After reading Theagenes' review, I found myself completely in agree with him, and afterwards with Alice.

So, what about the "shawl" provenance? I trust people who investigated the matter, and I believe it could not have been in Mitre Square. Also, I believe neither Simpson was. But it's quite obvious his story is made up: the thing about "asking for permission, permission was given" strongly reminds me of children caught in doing something wrong: "mummy gave me permission, so what?".

What I think is the "shawl" was owned by Jack. Who - never forget that! - took away one of Eddowes' kidney. If he took the kidney home, and the "shawl" was there, a contact could have occurred (if the "shawl" was a table runner, for example, just putting the kidney on it for a moment). And that's more than enough to justify both Eddowes' DNA and Jack's DNA without theorizing strange ways to place the "shawl" in Mitre Square without everyone noticing. And there's no need to speculate on Jack's masturbation habits and if/when/where/how fast he did it.

The Simpson story is a puzzle. There are tenths of possibilities. He could have bought/stolen/found/was given the "shawl" by a lot of people (fellow policemen, Jack/Cohen/Kosminsky's relatives, through his wife). He likely knew the "shawl" belonged to a suspect, and thought that in time could be worth a lot of money. But could not link the object to a murder, despite the bloodstain. Without DNA fingerprinting and even blood types, that was not possibile. So - perhaps - that's the reason he made up his story: only claiming to have found himself the "shawl" near the body of Eddowes a link was possible. At the time many people knew the story was untrue and nor he neither the "shawl" had been there. But would have been the same after 10-20 years or more? How could he know that even after 126 years (!) researchers would still be able to prove his story untrue?

I don't think well'ever know the truth about the "shawl", so further studied will be needed, but until dr. JariLou's work will have been peer reviewed, there's little we can do...

[anna]

I think Edwards has been lurking on just about every JTR site a while before his book was released.

That's if he's got time between taking snaps for the tourists posing with the dummy outside his tacky little shop of horrors,or nipping inside to hear the tills ring. Then off he goes taking tours around and about,after they've eaten their dinner in the Ten Bells.

Maybe Jeff knows,he seems pally with him.

Personally,I'd like to dangle Mr Edwards upside down by his ankles,over the side of Tower Bridge..

Trouble is...nobody bothered to answer Mr Titchmarsh just after the Edwards interview,when he said..anyone want to challenge this ? Which was the golden opportunity to trash the so called "shawl"...but nobody did.

So...now,everyone thinks he's solved it,because he had the cheek to say so.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi, Jeff. Can you elaborate on "One to One diagnosis"?

I've never had an investigator or profiler tell me they were surprised by what kind of person the killer was. These guys can be pretty arrogant, yeah. But, I tend to believe them. Another great quote I have here: "They pretty much are what they do.".

Yeah, I was referring to the psychiatrists I've spoken to, talking about a specific analysis and treatment of someones medical condition. They seemed to believe that this could often take many consultations to come to an actuate diagnosis.

I think thats something rather different to a Profiler. To be honest my only experience of profilers is watching Robbie Coltrain play Cracker. Although I guess I site Bond as an early profiler and I've picked stuff up from reading about various cases over the year.

I also got involved researching cases for many years while working for a TV production company and my job was reconstructing murders. Hence how I know the Sally Anne Bowman case so well.

Let me know about the Druitt walk. I'm going to be in London soon and need a diverson or two.

Best to drop a PM to Trevor Bond. He's recreating the walk taken by Druit which coincidently takes in two of the Hammersmith Nude murder Sites

Trust this helps

Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

How would you categorize Anthony Hardy, the Camden Ripper? The police believe he may have murdered 10 or more women, despite the fact he seemed to lead a highly dysfunctional lifestyle. He was homeless for a period, living in hostels, and had a number of mental health and substance abuse problems- not unlike Kosminski, really.

Just a minute, I seem to be making a case for Kosminski...what's going on! All this analysis of Edwards' arguments must be sending me mad!

Hardy was a manic depressive who became 'psychotic' due to substance and alcohol abuse. I believe he was released at some point before committing the serial killings, so it goes to show even the experts get it wrong.

If I remember correctly he blocked the drains with body parts. Killed largely prostitutes. Some elements of organisation. but delusional in his attempt to dispose of the bodies.

He had a long history of violence towards woman. But much older than Kosminski.

Yours Jeff