- #1
Thread Owner
"Aaron Kosminski" The Demon Barbar aka 'Jack the Ripper'
- Thread starter jeff of pa
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2019
- Messages
- 6,095
- Reaction score
- 19,634
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- Surrey, UK
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
While there is significant circumstantial evidence for Kosminski being the Ripper, and many authors would dearly love to be the one who finally proved it, the DNA “evidence” has been manipulated to fit the theory rather than the other way round.
The first genetic tests on samples from “the shawl” were conducted by Jari Louhelainen of Liverpool John Moores University. Ripper author Russell Edwards had bought the main piece of it in 2007 and commissioned the DNA testing. Louhelainen wanted to wait for the fuss to die down before publishing but Edwards used the unpublished results to identify Kosminski as the serial killer in his 2014 book “Naming Jack the Ripper.” It was impossible to assess the claims because few technical details about the analyses were provided. Even after Louhelainen et al. published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences in 2019, key details on the specific genetic variants identified and compared between DNA samples were not included in the paper. It was cited that the UK Data Protection Act prevented the publication of genetic sequences for the living relatives of Eddowes and Kosminski. The journal subsequently published an “expression of concern” after the study was criticised and the authors were unable to produce the original data.
As things stand, the published data does not support the claim for two DNA strands showing “99.2 percent and 100 percent matches” to a descendant of Kosminski (the so-called "match" applies to thousands of people in London at the same time), nor the claims that there was a match to descendants of Eddowes. The genetic sequence variation described as “314.1C” and “rare” is actually an error in nomenclature for the common sequence variation “315.1C”, which is present in more than 99% of people of European descent.
The “match” to Kosminski was not from semen, as is sometimes wrongly claimed, but via DNA extracted from epithelial cells of a type that coats organs. It was claimed the cells had come from the urethra during ejaculation, but it cannot be proven that they didn’t come from another tissue source. The comparative DNA was from a descendant of Kosminski's sister.
The "match” to Eddowes's DNA was said to be from what are believed to be blood stains (but cannot be confirmed as such) compared to that of her great, great, great granddaughter. However, other descendants of Eddowes are known to have been in the same room as “the shawl” for three days in 2007, and it has been openly handled over time by a multitude of people who potentially share the same mitochondrial DNA profile.
It can’t be established when the two samples were deposited on “the shawl”, nor if they were deposited at the same time.
The provenance and provenience of “the shawl” are also extremely questionable. It’s alleged to have been taken from the murder scene by Police Constable (acting Seargeant) Amos Simpson, who wanted it as a present for his wife. So, we are supposed to believe that a blood and semen stained shawl from a brutally murdered woman was deemed to be an appropriate gift for a loved one. The family folklore claims Mrs. Simpson didn’t want it in the house, but that PC Simpson hid it in a cupboard and it then was passed through generations of the family, with the accompanying story that it had belonged to Eddowes.
It first came to the attention of the “Ripper community” around 1988 when two pieces of it, framed together, turned up in the possession of John and Janice Dowler, the owners of a video rental shop in Essex. They had obtained the frame from David Melville Hayes, the great, great nephew of Amos Simpson, in exchange for a rare collectible magazine. The Dowlers sold the frame to an antique dealer in the 1990s and it was then purchased by ‘Ripper enthusiasts’ Andy and Sue Parlour.
Hayes had cut these two framed pieces from a larger parent piece which originally measured about 8 feet long and 2 feet wide. The main piece of “the shawl” was temporarily loaned to the Metropolitan Police's Black Museum (who had it verified as “from the 1900s”, but not otherwise attributed) around 1993 and then bought at auction in 2007 by the aforementioned author Russell Edwards.
Critics have pointed out that there are numerous instances of family folklore “fireside tales” relating to the Ripper murders, with fabricated stories of various relatives in the police coming close to catching the Ripper or being the first to find one of the bodies. The Simpson family’s story doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
There is zero evidence for P.C. Simpson finding Eddowes’ body or even being anywhere near the scene of the crime. In fact, there’s not even any evidence that Simpson himself made any such claims. Simpson was a Metropolitan Police Officer, and Eddowes’ murder (unlike the others) took place in the City of London, which would have been outside his beat. The family claim is that he was one of a number of officers drafted in from other divisions for heightened policing and public reassurance at the height of the Ripper murders. However, he’s not mentioned in any newspaper or police accounts and wasn't called as a witness at the inquest. If he was present at all, the only probability is that he was called upon to supplement the Metropolitan officers maintaining order and keeping the public away from Mitre Square where the body was found, while they gathered evidence. After that, he would likely have returned to his beat, so we are expected to believe that a trustworthy officer with 20 years of experience risked his career by stealing evidence (that would have had little financial value at the time), and departed carrying a bulky 8 feet by 2 feet piece of fabric without being noticed or challenged by any of the officers at the scene.
The Metropolitan Police were meticulous in securing the crime scene and gathering evidence. There is an extremely detailed inventory of Eddowes’ clothing, possessions, and items found nearby but “the shawl” is not mentioned at all. In short, zero evidence that it was ever present at the scene of crime, or that it belonged to Eddowes.
At 8 feet by two feet it’s probably not even a shawl and there’s a strong suspicion that it’s a table-runner, completely unrelated to Eddowes or the murder. Eddowes was broke and desperate for money to pay for lodgings and food, so it’s really unlikely she would have hung onto something that would have fetched her a few shillings in a pawn shop. Nothing of any value was found with Eddowes, but near the body was a small mustard tin containing two tickets for items she had already pawned.
The first genetic tests on samples from “the shawl” were conducted by Jari Louhelainen of Liverpool John Moores University. Ripper author Russell Edwards had bought the main piece of it in 2007 and commissioned the DNA testing. Louhelainen wanted to wait for the fuss to die down before publishing but Edwards used the unpublished results to identify Kosminski as the serial killer in his 2014 book “Naming Jack the Ripper.” It was impossible to assess the claims because few technical details about the analyses were provided. Even after Louhelainen et al. published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences in 2019, key details on the specific genetic variants identified and compared between DNA samples were not included in the paper. It was cited that the UK Data Protection Act prevented the publication of genetic sequences for the living relatives of Eddowes and Kosminski. The journal subsequently published an “expression of concern” after the study was criticised and the authors were unable to produce the original data.
As things stand, the published data does not support the claim for two DNA strands showing “99.2 percent and 100 percent matches” to a descendant of Kosminski (the so-called "match" applies to thousands of people in London at the same time), nor the claims that there was a match to descendants of Eddowes. The genetic sequence variation described as “314.1C” and “rare” is actually an error in nomenclature for the common sequence variation “315.1C”, which is present in more than 99% of people of European descent.
The “match” to Kosminski was not from semen, as is sometimes wrongly claimed, but via DNA extracted from epithelial cells of a type that coats organs. It was claimed the cells had come from the urethra during ejaculation, but it cannot be proven that they didn’t come from another tissue source. The comparative DNA was from a descendant of Kosminski's sister.
The "match” to Eddowes's DNA was said to be from what are believed to be blood stains (but cannot be confirmed as such) compared to that of her great, great, great granddaughter. However, other descendants of Eddowes are known to have been in the same room as “the shawl” for three days in 2007, and it has been openly handled over time by a multitude of people who potentially share the same mitochondrial DNA profile.
It can’t be established when the two samples were deposited on “the shawl”, nor if they were deposited at the same time.
The provenance and provenience of “the shawl” are also extremely questionable. It’s alleged to have been taken from the murder scene by Police Constable (acting Seargeant) Amos Simpson, who wanted it as a present for his wife. So, we are supposed to believe that a blood and semen stained shawl from a brutally murdered woman was deemed to be an appropriate gift for a loved one. The family folklore claims Mrs. Simpson didn’t want it in the house, but that PC Simpson hid it in a cupboard and it then was passed through generations of the family, with the accompanying story that it had belonged to Eddowes.
It first came to the attention of the “Ripper community” around 1988 when two pieces of it, framed together, turned up in the possession of John and Janice Dowler, the owners of a video rental shop in Essex. They had obtained the frame from David Melville Hayes, the great, great nephew of Amos Simpson, in exchange for a rare collectible magazine. The Dowlers sold the frame to an antique dealer in the 1990s and it was then purchased by ‘Ripper enthusiasts’ Andy and Sue Parlour.
Hayes had cut these two framed pieces from a larger parent piece which originally measured about 8 feet long and 2 feet wide. The main piece of “the shawl” was temporarily loaned to the Metropolitan Police's Black Museum (who had it verified as “from the 1900s”, but not otherwise attributed) around 1993 and then bought at auction in 2007 by the aforementioned author Russell Edwards.
Critics have pointed out that there are numerous instances of family folklore “fireside tales” relating to the Ripper murders, with fabricated stories of various relatives in the police coming close to catching the Ripper or being the first to find one of the bodies. The Simpson family’s story doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
There is zero evidence for P.C. Simpson finding Eddowes’ body or even being anywhere near the scene of the crime. In fact, there’s not even any evidence that Simpson himself made any such claims. Simpson was a Metropolitan Police Officer, and Eddowes’ murder (unlike the others) took place in the City of London, which would have been outside his beat. The family claim is that he was one of a number of officers drafted in from other divisions for heightened policing and public reassurance at the height of the Ripper murders. However, he’s not mentioned in any newspaper or police accounts and wasn't called as a witness at the inquest. If he was present at all, the only probability is that he was called upon to supplement the Metropolitan officers maintaining order and keeping the public away from Mitre Square where the body was found, while they gathered evidence. After that, he would likely have returned to his beat, so we are expected to believe that a trustworthy officer with 20 years of experience risked his career by stealing evidence (that would have had little financial value at the time), and departed carrying a bulky 8 feet by 2 feet piece of fabric without being noticed or challenged by any of the officers at the scene.
The Metropolitan Police were meticulous in securing the crime scene and gathering evidence. There is an extremely detailed inventory of Eddowes’ clothing, possessions, and items found nearby but “the shawl” is not mentioned at all. In short, zero evidence that it was ever present at the scene of crime, or that it belonged to Eddowes.
At 8 feet by two feet it’s probably not even a shawl and there’s a strong suspicion that it’s a table-runner, completely unrelated to Eddowes or the murder. Eddowes was broke and desperate for money to pay for lodgings and food, so it’s really unlikely she would have hung onto something that would have fetched her a few shillings in a pawn shop. Nothing of any value was found with Eddowes, but near the body was a small mustard tin containing two tickets for items she had already pawned.
Last edited:
- #5
Thread Owner
- #6
Thread Owner
Not an Insult by Any Means Red-Coat ...
Did You Type that Whole Thing ,
Or Cut & Paste
Considering I Hunt & Peck with a Pointer Finger I'd have Given Up First Paragraph 
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2019
- Messages
- 6,095
- Reaction score
- 19,634
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- Surrey, UK
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Not an Insult by Any Means Red-Coat ...
Did You Type that Whole Thing ,
Or Cut & Paste
Yes, I typed it, but it borrows quotes from a number of sources. I love a mystery, and crime mysteries are a particular interest of mine along with conspiracy theories, and the so called "unexplained".
I almost posted that.
Top Member Reactions
-
3073 -
1741 -
1495 -
1222 -
1221 -
1002 -
913 -
782 -
749 -
719 -
708 -
679 -
654 -
650 -
646
Similar threads
