Jack the Ripper

[debbiediablo]

Here's what I understand about Jack from reading the latest news:

Jack the Ripper has been identified through mitochondrial DNA. Catherine Eddowes was the fourth of the Five Canonical victims. She had been fired as a domestic for stealing, and likely she stole a shawl decorated with Michelmas daisies that was found next to her body...it was too fancy for a Whitechapel prostitute to own. One of the policemen stole it from the crime scene for his wife who refused to wear it. (No sh*t, Sherlock,) It was never cleaned and passed down through the family until being sold to a wealthy Londoner in 2007. He engaged a world renown forensic geneticist to examine it. The shawl contained blood identified via MtDNA as being Catherine Eddowes and semen identified via MtDNA as belonging to Aaron Kosminski, one of leading suspects of the day. Kosminski was eyewitness IDed by the only person to ever see The Ripper - a Jew named Israel Scwartz - who refused to testify in court. Schwartz didn't want to be responsible for sending a fellow Jew to the gallows and maybe didn't want to start an ethnic cleansing purge in East London. Most of the the East End Jews had fled from Russian or Poland during the pogroms. Kosminski was Polish and left his native country during the 1881+ pogrom. Kosminski is thought to have been a paranoid schizophrenic with a hatred for women (an understatement...he slit their throats, carved out their intestines and draped them over the left shoulder...then removed the uterus, cervix and kidneys and once a heart which he purportedly cooked and ate). Kosminski ended up in a workhouse and from there spent the remainder of his life in an lunatic asylum where he died in 1919 from gangrene in his leg. The Ripper murders took place in 1888. This will end a lot of Ripperology writing and engender at least one definitive Kosminski biography.

My oldest daughter has a PhD in genetics from MIT, so she's sort of an expert although she does not work in forensics. Her opinion, if the research hasn't been tweaked, is that the chances of a match between Eddowes blood on the same garment containing Kosminski's semen, regardless of provenance, is pretty much irrefutable. IF everything being claimed is true. Even if it's MtDNA...and especially since the only person to ID the Ripper insisted he was Kosminski.

Now we need the hatchet. If the killer didn't wear gloves then there's a remote possibility of her/his DNA being on the handle along with the blood of both Abby and Andrew. The problem would be separating, for sure, the DNA of Emma, Lizzie and John from one another.

[irina]

How can East European Jewish mtDNA plus British mtDNA = Kosminski and Kate Eddowes? Beside problems with provenance on the shawl, don't we at best just have the two kinds of DNA on one garment? There were lots of Jewish immigrants in the East End.

There are major problems with provenance. There is also a different bit of fabric~nothing like the one pictured in the 'Daily Mail' article~also claiming to be the shawl with a similar provenance. The Black Museum in the UK wouldn't even display the shawl because of the shaky history so it was retrieved and sold.

I also have a problem with Kate's skirt having a pattern of Michaelmas daisies and lilies (as you also mentioned elsewhere) and this 'shawl', that some call a 'table runner', also having a Michaelmas daisy pattern. Too much coincidence?

I will need to know a lot more before I am comfortable with the findings.

[debbiediablo]

Jack The Ripper Breakthrough: Identified as Aaron Kosminski
Posted on September 7, 2014 by Stephen Liddell
http://stephenliddell.co.uk/2014/09/07/ ... kosminski/

It seems slightly unreal to be updating a historical blog post I wrote just a week ago on Jack The Ripper. Jack being the legendary serial killer in Victorian London for whom police identified over 100 suspects.

However, several British newspapers have printed a story that his identity has finally been proven, again. This time if true happens to have convincing scientific evidence and just as luck would have it, I have a local connection to him. His name is Aaron Kosminski, a Jewish, Polish immigrant.

The breakthrough comes from a shawl found with the body of Catherine Eddowes. It had been in unwashed for 126 years and in the private possession of a family whose ancestor was one of the police officers who found her body. (my note: Sergeant Amos Simpson)

The shawl had previously been DNA tested nearly 10 years ago but the results were inconclusive. However technology has moved on and a private investigator purchased the shawl and contacted world renowned Finnish DNA specialist, Dr Jari Louhelainen. (my note: Dr Jari Louhelainen who also works on cold cases for Interpol...)

A long and intensive study was made of the shawl and a cell of Catherine’s kidney was discovered, you may remember from last weeks blog that Jack removed her kidney, fried half of it for his dinner and posted the remains to the authorities with a letter.

The DNA matched perfectly with that of the three times great-Granddaughter of the victim, Karen Miller. This alone was a startling breakthrough as previously though the police thought it was related to the murders, they had no firm evidence that it was.

Next up was to see if they could find any DNA from Jack himself. At this point it is interesting to note that the shawl itself is an expensive item of clothing and that Catherine was so poor she had been forced to sell her shoes the day before her murder.

The shawl though contains a pattern related to the old saints day of Michaelmass which whilst rather forgotten about today was in Victorian times as important as Christmas or Easter. Interestingly the Church of England celebrates Michaelmass on 29th September whilst the eastern Orthodox church remembers it on the 8th of November. Anyone interested in Jack will find these dates familiar as they were the final murder dates of the canonical five victims.

Was it possible that Jack was using this expensive and still beautiful piece of clothing to lure his impoverished but religiously aware victims? My note: Catherine was fired from a job as a domestic for stealing...makes me wonder if the shawl was part of what got her the sack.

Next, the investigation found the cells of bodily fluid from a man. It was immediately identified as belonging to haplogroup T1a1 which is broadly speaking, dark haired Russian descended Jews. The team tracked down a descendant of Aaron Kosminski and the DNA matched perfectly though understandably that person isn’t yet ready to inform the world they are descended from Jack.

Aaron Kosminski was always a police suspect and he later fell under 24 hour police surveillance before being put into an asylum for the insane. Kosminski has always been one of the three most credible suspects. He is often described as having been a hairdresser in Whitechapel, the occupation written on his admission papers to the workhouse in 1890. What is certain is he was seriously mentally ill, probably a paranoid schizophrenic who suffered auditory hallucinations and described as a misogynist.

Aaron Kosminski was 23 when the murders took place, and living with his two brothers and a sister in Greenfield Street, just 200 yards from where the third victim, Elizabeth Stride, was killed.

Kosminski features prominently in police records and memoirs of senior investigators (my note: Anderson and Swanson) and some thought him highly likely to be the Ripper and one remarked that he “had a great hatred of women … with strong homicidal tendencies”but there was never enough evidence and there were rumours that due to his ethnicity, an important witness was unwilling to formally identify him as Jack.

Far from being a surgeon or a member of the Royal Family, Kosminski was rather sad and scrawny individual and just a year or so after the murders was sent to Leavesden Asylum where he lived until his death aged just 54 in March 1919. He is buried in East Ham Jewish cemetery.

I walk through the old Leavesden Asylum several times a week, now I am more sure than ever that I am walking in the footsteps of Jack The Ripper.

From http://metro.co.uk/2014/09/07/identity- ... e-4859504/

Dr Louhelainen is quoted as saying: ‘It has taken a great deal of hard work, using cutting-edge scientific techniques which would not have been possible five years ago.

‘Once I had the profile, I could compare it to that of the female descendant of Kosminski’s sister, who had given us a sample of her DNA swabbed from inside her mouth.

‘The first strand of DNA showed a 99.2 per cent match, as the analysis instrument could not determine the sequence of the missing 0.8 per cent fragment of DNA. On testing the second strand, we achieved a perfect 100 per cent match.’

My note: I went back to The Cases That Haunt Us by John Douglas, et al, and it's Kosminski who was Douglas's first choice for JtR. He states that "Jack the Ripper would either be Aaron Kosminski or someone like (him)." Later he changes his mind and chooses David Cohen "or someone like him." However, in studying Kosminski v Cohen it's readily apparent they are the same man. For whatever reason, British police want both of them dead for the record. The murders stopped when Kominski was taken out of circulation in East End London. An important question is why Swanson and Anderson chose to cover up the apprehension and incarceration of the man they both thought to be Jack the Ripper....perhaps to avoid widespread vengeance against the "Jews (Juwes) who will not be blamed for nothing."

[irina]

William Henry Bury was in custody in Scotland by February 1889, a fact known to Scotland Yard. In March of that year a Whitechapel vigilance ommittee asked a policeman why there were fewer officers in the district and the answer was that the Ripper was dead or something similar. Of course Montague Druitt's body had been fished out of the Thames by that time so that fuels yet another direction. I think I may see a pattern of the authorities of the time making sure suspects were accounted for though no one knew who the actual perpetrator was. Thus I feel pressure was brought to make sure Bury was hanged, Kosminski/Cohen entered an asylum, Tumblete was followed to America where they lost track of him it seems. I wonder how many others were watched until they were neutralized by age, infirmity or the criminal justice system. I do not suggest the authorities did anything even immoral in such a pursuit if it happened that way. I feel a great deal of respect for the police of the time who could so easily have snagged a "foreigner" aka Jewish socialist, tried him, hanged him and declared case closed. They did not and that is very commendable.

[debbiediablo]

I totally agree. East London was a powder keg at the time due to poverty, immigrants from destabilized Eastern European countries , vice, crime, overpopulation, overcrowdedness, squalor, filth...would've been easy to blow it sky high by either settling for the first possible suspect and have the murders continue, or, better yet, the first possible suspect who was not native born. Thus far, Kosminzki makes more sense to me than any of the others including Barnett...after rereading Douglas I've decided Mary Jane Kelly wasn't a copycat killing...Douglas is unequivocal that Barnett could not have butchered Kelly as The Ripper did following their fairly normal man-woman relationship. I think you are correct when you surmise that if they couldn't catch and convict with absolute surety the killer then taking the main suspects out of the picture was the only smart and safe action.

[Curryong]

All this, including the tests, will have to be verified by independent authorities. It's true that the shawl has a terrible provenance, that the DNA technique used is not the greatest, (though I believe a similar sequencing was undertaken on the bones of King Richard III and that has been accepted) and I have problems with a police officer being allowed to take such an item home, for a start. Kosminski too presents several problems as a viable Jack, (though he was at least a local.) I would certainly be happier if the Daily Fail wasn't involved and there wasn't a book in the offing. Yet another Final Solution!

All the same,

I have mixed feelings. If this proves to be the real deal, what a break-through! Arguably the world's most infamous serial killer identified at last! So many books, so many debates, films, forums journals, TV programmes, magazines devoted to finding out 'Who's Jack,' and IF this is authentic, it will all (or almost all) come to a screaming halt.

I was thirteen when I first became intrigued by the Ripper, well over 50 years ago. As one of the posters on the Jack the Ripper forum said ruefully yesterday "After nearly fifty years, maybe it will be time for a new hobby!" The trouble is, that a lot of Ripperologists and fellow travellers don't want a new hobby. The anonymous killer in the grimy shadows of the East End was enough! The idea that there might be no more speculation about 'who Jack is' is really quite sad. He has been an enduring mystery for over 125 years.

[irina]

It isn't ended. There are too many problems with the story of the shawl. Even if the author is 100% honest and truthful, at best we have a good story. There seems at this time to be NO WAY to link the shawl/table runner to Catherine Eddowes, Mitre Square or even definitively to Eddowes and Kosminski. There is some Polish/Jewish mtDNA and some from a British person. That one sample is semen, we can assume that came from a man. I haven't heard the blood portion has definitely been found to be female although that shouldn't be hard to do so I assume it is known to be female blood. I also think Patricia Cornwell has a new book coming out. At least that has been a rumor for a long time. That ought to shake things up!

[Franz]

Could anyone give me the Ripperology forum link? Thanks!

[debbiediablo]

It isn't ended. There are too many problems with the story of the shawl. Even if the author is 100% honest and truthful, at best we have a good story. There seems at this time to be NO WAY to link the shawl/table runner to Catherine Eddowes, Mitre Square or even definitively to Eddowes and Kosminski. There is some Polish/Jewish mtDNA and some from a British person. That one sample is semen, we can assume that came from a man. I haven't heard the blood portion has definitely been found to be female although that shouldn't be hard to do so I assume it is known to be female blood. I also think Patricia Cornwell has a new book coming out. At least that has been a rumor for a long time. That ought to shake things up!

My understanding is the shawl has a bloodstain that appears to be from arterial blood. I wouldn't be so excited except the geneticist who did the DNA work has a stellar reputation in both the scientific community and in the criminal forensics community.

[irina]

Franz: www.JTRForums.com . I am a member and post under Anna Morris which is my name. Irina is a middle name.

I don't fault the scientist's work. What's out there so far is a slick book introduction that has the world's ears.

T1a1 mtDNA, the "Kosminski" portion from semen, therefore presumably male, is found in about 8% of European people. According to some sources this line evolved about 45,000 years ago in the Near East. During the ice age people hunkered down wherever they were and about 15,000 years ago they began migrating to other areas. Some make a Viking connexion, some to Tuscany, some to the Baltic region. There seems to be no discussion of what is supposedly Kate's DNA. Could that be so common that half the UK residents have it? Something just doesn't feel right including variations of and various unmatching scraps of Eddowe's supposed shawl also being in existence.

[Franz]

Thank you Irina!

[Curryong]

I love a comment on the JTR Forum 'The Shawl don't fit, You must Acquit!'

[debbiediablo]

I love a comment on the JTR Forum 'The Shawl don't fit, You must Acquit!'

[Curryong]

I'm getting a bit frustrated about not getting a decent image of this shawl (or length of material.) I saw a photo of a person holding up a large piece of fabric on the day the story broke. It was presumably Russell Edwards, the author of this book which is due to come out shortly, 'Naming Jack the Ripper'. What I saw was what looked like a silk-lined shawl with Michaelmas daisies on it as a pattern.

Check-- Michaelmas daisies and lilies were a favourite pattern of William Morris in his wallpapers in the 1860's and of the Aesthetic movement of the 1880's in their Liberty patterns for textiles. Admittedly, the design maintained its popularity until the end of the century.

However, there is now speculation that this might be a length of material that was tested by the Victoria and Albert Museum and found, according to various posters on the JTR Forum, to be an Edwardian table runner. I've also read various estimates as to its width and length. IF this material WAS tested by the V and A, there's an end of it. An Edwardian table runner of 1902 cannot be a shawl from the late 1880's.

However, some of the estimates of the material's width and length, (admittedly I've only been reading guesses), would make it an extremely big table runner, unless they mean a table cover. Also, by 1902 Art Nouveau was coming in, rather different to the Arts and Crafts designs of twenty years earlier. Of course, it could be an old fashioned design. We shan't know until the owner, Mr Edwards, submits it for testing, at the V. and A. or a similar museum.

I share many concerns about this latest claim to have solved the mystery with posters on JTR Forum and here. I am not scientifically trained, so,apart from observing that Dr Louhelainen (assisted by Dr David Miller) is a very well-respected scientist in his field, I'm leaving that alone.

However, I do not concur with Edward's' ridiculous theory that the shawl design has a link to the dates of the murders.
I also wonder why a poor barber would be carrying such an object about with him and where he would have obtained it.
The provenance of the shawl is shocking and I don't know what a Met police officer would be doing in City territory anyway so that he could take it home to the wife. There was rivalry between the City and the Met Police forces and I just can't see it. (Of course, that doesn't mean that Sergeant Simpson or his wife didn't acquire the 'shawl' somewhere else. In a second-hand clothes shop for example.)

I am going to have to get this book on Kindle at the end of the month when it is released in Australia. At the moment I have a thousand questions about it all, but I had better stop now or this will end up like a three volume novel!

[irina]

Gee, how did I miss the part about, "If the shawl doesn't fit..." I've been hanging out at Forums.

British posters on Forum call the thing a table runner. What it reminds me of is cloths that used to go across the top of upright pianos that I saw sometimes when I was a kid. A long, thin runner went over the top & nick-naks were then put there.

If I can used some of the computer skills Debbie & Twins have been teaching me, I would love to post a couple things that really scramble my mind on this thing.

[Curryong]

In a really weird development in the same week as the Jack the Ripper breakthrough, the Canadian government has announced today that one of the two British ships that formed the Arctic Franklin Expedition of 1845 (to try and find the North West Passage) has been found at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean. The two ships and their crews' fate has been an enduring mystery since that time, and I have followed it for thirty years. The Canadian government has tried to find these ships for years. As I said, how strange! Two such famous and intriguing mysteries coming into focus this week!

[debbiediablo]

This makes me wonder how many hundreds of years before Flight 370 is found...or if some of the Bermuda Triangle disappearances will ever be solved.

[irina]

Actually, Curryong, "If the shawl doesn't fit..." is on Casebook. I searched it out and used it for a signature of Forum, with credit to the original poster on Casebook. Hope it's OK. So far I'm getting away with it. Thank you so much for pointing it out. My twisted little mind really appreciates it.

Now I have a smilie pear for an avi thanks to Debbie and a funny signature thanks to you Curryong. (It helped a lot once I learned that "signature" didn't mean writing my name on the screen with my finger.)

[debbiediablo]

John, Have you read the book yet? Have you actually seen and handled the shawl to determine that it has been laundered many times? Or do you know someone who has? How do you know that is has no blood stains? Or semen?

[John Watson]

The story about the bloody shawl is based on conjecture, nothing more. First of all, it's not a shawl at all, but some sort of tablecloth. It's been around for years, handled by who knows how many people; it's obviously been laundered and ironed, who knows how many times. The DNA evidence linking it to a living relative of Catherine Eddowes is questionable; even if it's believable, it only shows the cloth could have belonged to any blood relative of the test subject, not necessarily Catherine Eddowes. Trying to tie the cloth to Aaron Kosminski is even more far fetched. For openers, the author doesn't even name the so-called relative of Kosminski whose DNA supposedly links the shawl to Kosminski. Second, he admits his "expert" could find no DNA in suspected semen stains (no semen was found at the scene of any of the Ripper murders), but says he did find traces in epithelial cells he said came from a penis, and these matched Kosminski's unidentified relative. Beginning to get the picture? Now consider this: Eddowes body was found on her back in a pool of blood with her entire abdomen ripped open, her intestines pulled out and spread beside her. A bloody piece of her apron had been ripped off, and this was subsequently found by police in a doorway several blocks away; written in chalk on the black brick wall above the cloth were the words, "The juwes are the men That Will not be Blamed for nothing." None of the police reports or news stories mention anything about the victim's shawl, although she may have been wearing one. If she was, it would have been soaked in blood and disposed of when her body was washed at the mortuary. The shawl claimed to have belonged to Eddowes shows no evidence of any bloodstains, certainly not the kind that would have soaked deeply into the material; in fact, the author's shawl looks clean and pressed, in surprisingly good condition for an 1888 article of clothing - or table cloth - or whatever it really is. Finally, Aaron Kosminski was never mentioned in any police reports of the time; the last name "Kosminski" was mentioned by a retired officer as a possible suspect long after the fact, and modern researchers have identified his first name as Aaron. He was a young man, likely affected by schizophrenia in his late teens. He was known to mumble to himself and eat what he could find in the gutters. The only violence ever attributed to him was a single occasion when he threatened to cut his sister with a knife. That did not stand in the way of his living at home with his family, more lately with his brother's family. He could hardly have been the nattily dressed sailor seen talking amicably with Eddowes at the entrance to Mitre Square 10 minutes before her body was found. I've debunked this story at http://www.casebook.org, an excellent discussion board dedicated to Jack the Ripper, however the author and his friends have done their best to sell conjecture as fact and the discussion still rages. I suggest you check it out yourself, and also do a little backgrounder on the author.

John Watson

[debbiediablo]

There seems to be no discussion of what is supposedly Kate's DNA. Could that be so common that half the UK residents have it? Something just doesn't feel right including variations of and various unmatching scraps of Eddowe's supposed shawl also being in existence.

Possibly the most compelling piece of this other than Louhelainen finding evidence of medium velocity arterial spray, body splitting (meaning body fluids only found internally) and one cell that is yet unexamined but looks like a kidney cell...other than this...the most compelling piece is the MtDNA on the shawl and the MtDNA of Kate Eddowes' ancestor are a 100% match, and the MtDNA is a rare genetic variation found in only 1 in 290,000 people. This means from a pure statistical point of view that the descendant is 1 out of approximately 223 people in the UK to carry this variation, and Catherine Eddowes would have been 1 of 136 in 1892. In present day London that would be 1 out of 25; in 1888 London it would be 1 out of 15. So this narrows the field decidedly. The evidence for being a match to Kosminski is far more tenuous but entirely possible.

[John Watson]

John, Have you read the book yet? Have you actually seen and handled the shawl to determine that it has been laundered many times? Or do you know someone who has? How do you know that is has no blood stains? Or semen?

Debbie, no I haven't read the book and unfortunately never been to England. I wasn't aware that you have actually seen and handled the shawl - did it appear clean to you? Did you notice dirt or smudges or any heavily stained sections? It's looked quite clean from the photo I saw, but of course you've seen it up close so you'd be the better judge on that. Several JTR researchers tell me the shawl they saw appeared laundered and pressed, with only slight, nearly invisible staining on portions of it, so I was relying on that. I've only been studying the Ripper case for 30 years, was an early member of the original Casebook board, so I'm still a novice compared to you.

John

[Curryong]

It still might be a good idea, John, to read what Edwards has to say before pronouncing it nonsense.

I come from England originally and have actually walked round what little is left of the JTR sites, incuding taking a look at the old Board School and Essex Wharf, many years ago now. Does that and my over 50 year interest in Jack bring me up to the same level of expertise on the Ripper as say, Martin Fido or Philip Sugden? Of course not!
BUT
We are all on this forum because we are intrigued by the mystery of Lizzie Borden. That includes new members who don't post unfortunately, but probably joined because they wanted to learn, to older members who've been here for years, to debbie and I who haven't been here so long but have learned and posted and contributed. Some of us have medical and scientific knowledge and experience in counselling others. We all bring something to the forum, and sometimes like discussing other mysteries.

And it is exactly the same with Jack the Ripper and the forums devoted to him. Everybody there, and here, is just working together to try and contribute and discuss and exchange knowledge, in a cordial manner, about an historic mystery.

[debbiediablo]

John, Have you read the book yet? Have you actually seen and handled the shawl to determine that it has been laundered many times? Or do you know someone who has? How do you know that is has no blood stains? Or semen?

Debbie, no I haven't read the book and unfortunately never been to England. I wasn't aware that you have actually seen and handled the shawl - did it appear clean to you? Did you notice dirt or smudges or any heavily stained sections? It's looked quite clean from the photo I saw, but of course you've seen it up close so you'd be the better judge on that. Several JTR researchers tell me the shawl they saw appeared laundered and pressed, with only slight, nearly invisible staining on portions of it, so I was relying on that. I've only been studying the Ripper case for 30 years, was an early member of the original Casebook board, so I'm still a novice compared to you.

John

Hi John Watson - Since you haven't yet had the opportunity to read the book, here's a quick primer on the book's contents so you will have the facts for reference instead of some of the "conjecture" you're picking up off the Casebook site, not to say that everything that's said over there is wrong, but, thus far, you have been misinformed about a number of facts. And no, of course I haven't seen or handled the shawl as it's been in the hands of the author since 2007 and prior to that it was on loan to the Black Museum from the Simpson family. I'm really amazed at how many people over on Casebook have had the opportunity to observe (or better yet handle) the shawl given that it was never displayed for the public while at The Black.

1) First of all, I'll comment on one of your posts in another thread regarding the author Russell Edwards paying the scientist(s). Dr. Louhelainen did all of the research on this shawl free gratis with the only caveat being he could write a paper should something come of it. I would remind you that Louhelainen received his PhD from Karolinska Institute in Sweden which is world renown for both its science and for being one of the Nobel Prize-awarding bodies. He is a Senior Molecular Biologist with lines of research in forensic genetics and medical genetics. With regard to the forensic side of his research, he works on unsolved cold cases for Interpol, Western Australia Police and Merseyside Police, and he is one of the supervisors for a Roman dig in Chester, the site where the Cistercian Poulton Abbey once stood. He is also involved in a research project analyzing remains from the Mary Rose, the warship from the reign of Henry VIII. Louhelainen gave up a post at Oxford to work closer to his home. The other scientist involved is Dr. David Miller who is the Reader in Molecular Andrology at the Reproduction and Early Development Group at the University of Leeds Institute of Genetics, Health and Therapeutics. He is, and I quote, ‘a world class expert in sperm head analysis’, one of very few in Britain. Miller did part of the analysis of the semen stains and epithelial cells. My oldest daughter who has her PhD in Human Biogenetics from MIT and works in Cambridge, MA, says quite adamantly that she cannot see either one of these men being for sale to any bidder, no matter how much money or how much fame.

2) The shawl not being a 'tablecloth' is addressed in the other thread. However, another interesting point about the shawl itself is that it is dated by experts to have been made between 1810 and 1830. Non-organic dyes were not developed until later in the 19th century which means this item of clothing was dyed organically. Organic dyes are not nearly so stable when placed in water (much less soap or detergent!) than non-organics. This means if the shawl had "obviously been laundered and ironed, who knows how many times" the dyes would have run together leaving a blur of mottled colors and no Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies. Actually, just laundering it once would've destroyed much of the design. Shawls like this from the early 1800s were not washed; they were brushed and aired. The non-washing and non-wearing of the shawl is why is "looks clean and pressed, in surprisingly good condition for an 1888 article of clothing."

3) I have previously addressed the rarity of the Eddowes' DNA and also the evidence of medium velocity arterial spray (meaning from stabbing or beating), stains indicative of body splitting (feces or intestinal spillage) and a cell that looks like its origin was from a kidney but as yet unexamined . If we agree that this shawl belongs to someone directly related to Kate Eddowes (quoting you: "it only shows the cloth could have belonged to any blood relative of the test subject, not necessarily Catherine Eddowes") then it either belonged to Kate herself or the Eddowes women have major familial bad luck when it comes to being slashed and eviscerated. (Only Ripperologists or Bordenites would post a string of Smilies with regard to evisceration!)

4) You have made my point for me regarding "The juwes are the men That Will not be Blamed for nothing". The police made the decision to erase this, one of the only probable pieces of Ripper evidence, rather than cover it and wait for police photographers. With regard to the shawl, why wouldn't these same 'evidence erasing' police allow an Acting Sergeant to take home a shawl destined for destruction? People ask why, and I say why not? The clothing would've been burned anyway, and this item was made from silk and wool. Would it be soaked in blood? Maybe or maybe not, depending in where it landed in relationship to the body and whether she was wearing it or he was holding it or he was wearing it (Just a thought..."There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact," as the real John Watson's boss would've said....:-).

5) The bloodiest piece in the middle was supposedly cut out by a Simpson family ancestor which seems a bit odd but people can be decidedly odd, especially with a blood soaked garment purportedly from a rash of serial killings. My argument against this has less to do with official assent and more to do with why on earth would anyone want the damn thing? Yet, from photos it is beautiful and finely made of silk and wool with a lovely pattern. The dwellers of Whitechapel in 1888 were wallowing in abject poverty where even a piece of mirror, a simple comb or a scrap of soap was valued. I wonder how Kate came by this shawl if it was hers (Edwards says Kosminski brought it with him as bait, and I don't think it belonged to the victim) or where did Kosminski get it and why did he leave it behind? Perhaps he was frightened away...yet he may have stopped long enough to scrawl a message. For sure, the provenance is somewhat unbelievable. Then again, someone could find the actual Ripper knife and the provenance would be somewhat unbelievable at this late date. All of this requires willingness to read the document in question and a smattering of open-mindedness... but, as Possum says, not so open that your brain falls out!

5) The Black Museum curator is the person who told the author that the police have always known that Kosminski was The Ripper, that the evidence is all there in the museum. This is why Edwards became obsessed with connecting the shawl to Kosminski. Initially he was only obsessed with connecting it to Eddowes. The Black Museum is really the Scotland Yard Training Museum, so not everything there is on public display. Including the shawl when it was on loan to the museum for many years for precisely the reason that it couldn't be proven as connected to the crime. Or proven to be not connected either. However, the Simpson family clearly believes it to be real. They loaned it to the museum and made no effort to profit from it for around 120 years. The story told in the family is that Amos Simpson brought it home from the murder site, that he was the first person to find the body. (Family legend can exaggerate or be total bullshit. In this case we know he wasn't #1 to the site.) However, think about this: how likely is it for a family to own an item said to be connected to a crime, loan it to a museum, finally sell it after 120 years, and then the buyer engages a scientist above reproach who pro bono finds MtDNA on it that matches the murder victim's sister's great-great-great granddaughter? The statistical improbability is astounding.

6) Please refer to my posts on the rarity of the genetic variation of the Eddowes MtDNA.

7) If I were distantly related to Jack the Ripper, I'm fairly sure I wouldn't want my name publicized.

8) Fresh DNA amplifies much more rapidly than old DNA. The longer the amplification time, the older the DNA. This is one way to determine what's been deposited 25 years ago versus 125 years ago.

9) One must read the book before commenting on the science which is utterly amazing. My daughter works on the cutting edge of research in a different branch of this field, and I find much of what she talks about beyond understanding. Her take on this (with me telling her about it) is that the statistical probability points to the shawl belonging to Catherine Eddowes, but she hedges exactly as Louhelainen does when he says, "Hence the analysis strongly suggests that the shawl could contain the DNA of the Jack the Ripper victim Catherine Eddowes."

10) As for Kosminski, that's a more tenuous connection. For your reference, Irina has some background in this field, and her posts are well-considered. Edwards makes a case that Kosminski could be The Ripper. Compared to all the other major suspects, the second MtDNA sample on the shawl comes closer to an Eastern European Jew than to the other top prospects. Does this prove Kosminski is The Ripper? No, not definitively to me, but it may narrow the field or at least point research toward determining exactly where the shawl came from and how The Ripper might have used it and where Amos Simpson was on the night of the murders. (According to the family "on loan watching for Fenian terrorists".) Did Jack use it as bait or did he wear it himself? <<< This is not my theory of the day but rather an interesting option.

I much prefer discussing a book with someone who has actually read it!!! No matter what a person's credentials may be, fact over factoid is always preferable!!! You can buy it on Kindle for $20 plus change. http://www.amazon.com/Naming-Jack-Rippe ... roduct_top

[John Watson]

Debbie, I like your style! You've written an intelligent and well-documented argument for your position, repeating much of what you've found in the book, along with your own conclusions. I try to keep an open mind, but your well-reasoned arguments don't change anything. I've had many years experience working with expert witnesses, enough to know that only those supporting your case are ever produced at trial. Which is why I would still demand independent analysis of any staining on the cloth in question by impartial experts with vitae equal or superior to the ones quoted in the book. The history of the cloth is interesting but not conclusive of anything. There's no real "chain of evidence" tracing the cloth from victim to possessor. I might remind you here, that for many years a broken surgical knife, belonging to acknowledged Ripper expert and author Donald Rumbelow, has been exhibited as being the knife used by Jack the Ripper. It seemed to have excellent provenance until later studies proved otherwise. (Police did find a knife in a doorway near Berner Street, but the description did not match the knife in question.) I repeat, if I may, that any clothing worn by Catherine Eddowes at the time of her murder was likely soaked with blood, despite your suggesting otherwise. A detailed sketch of the body before it was removed to the morgue, and a description of the horrendous wounds inflicted on her body, leave no doubt of the bloody mess that surrounded it. Even if we can believe the "evidence" put forth in the book concerning the provenance of the cloth and/or the DNA analysis, it really proves nothing. You'd have to ignore the complete lack of any evidence that the subject cloth/shawl was ever at the scene of Eddowes murder, and accept without question the theory that Aaron Kosminski was the Ripper, again despite evidence showing he was only one of many suspects, some of whom were far more believable killers than Kosminski. In short, Debbie, the book offers - at best - only possibilities, not probabilities. I do admire your staunch defense of the book and/or theory, and agree that discussions like we see on this board and Casebook are interesting and keep the juices flowing. I'm still keeping an open mind, but until corroborative evidence is offered connecting the cloth/shawl in question with the bloody body of Catherine Eddowes and/or the person of Aaron Kosminski, I'm afraid those claims must remain pure conjecture on the part of the author.

John

[John Watson]

It still might be a good idea, John, to read what Edwards has to say before pronouncing it nonsense.

I come from England originally and have actually walked round what little is left of the JTR sites, incuding taking a look at the old Board School and Essex Wharf, many years ago now. Does that and my over 50 year interest in Jack bring me up to the same level of expertise on the Ripper as say, Martin Fido or Philip Sugden? Of course not!
BUT
We are all on this forum because we are intrigued by the mystery of Lizzie Borden. That includes new members who don't post unfortunately, but probably joined because they wanted to learn, to older members who've been here for years, to debbie and I who haven't been here so long but have learned and posted and contributed. Some of us have medical and scientific knowledge and experience in counselling others. We all bring something to the forum, and sometimes like discussing other mysteries.

And it is exactly the same with Jack the Ripper and the forums devoted to him. Everybody there, and here, is just working together to try and contribute and discuss and exchange knowledge, in a cordial manner, about an historic mystery.

Curryong, the fact that many who visit our forum are perhaps not as steeped in knowledge as others, and who want to learn more, is the very reason I posted a rebuttal to those supporting the new book on the Eddowes cloth/shawl. The claims I read here seemed to me to be rather one-sided and misleading to the point of lending some sort of educated acceptance of the theories put forth by the book's author. I wanted to provide a more objective view, setting forth the evidence against the shawl being worn by Catherine Eddowes when she was killed, and add the fact that Kosminski was never named as a suspect during the Ripper investigations. He was first mentioned years later as one of several likely suspects by a retired official who wasn't even on the force at the time of the ripper killings. The only other mention came years after that, in penciled notes in the margins of a book, by retired Inspector Donald Swanson, in which Swanson tells of a lineup at a police convalescent home in which a witness identified a man as the killer. The witness's name was not given, but the suspect was identified by Swanson simply as "Kosminski." Later Ripper researchers came up with a first name, Aaron. Swanson does not claim to have been at the lineup, and no record of any such lineup or identification has been found. It's true, I haven't read the book and don't intend to, any more than I'd eat something that smells bad or has given others a stomach ache. So no apologies for my postings, but I do promise to keep an open mind if either you or Debbie come up with anything new on the cloth (oops, shawl).

Cordially, John

[debbiediablo]

John Watson -

You mislabel my 'staunch defense of discussing what the author actually claims' as a "staunch defense of the book" although I do see the statistical probability of the shawl being present at somewhere that Catherine Eddowes or one her early descendants was stabbed and eviscerated. Louhelainen stated, "This would be very difficult to forge," and yes, I am smart enough to understand the difference between 'difficult' and 'impossible'.

At little bit about me: I've been fascinated by Jack since age 12...and that was over 50 years ago!! My Masters was in Information Science (read librarian with tech skills) and later I went back for an Ed.D. in education leadership and certification as an administrative law judge in the field of special education services. I've never heard one case; after all that education I decided the one thing I didn't want to do is make 'all or nothing' decisions that would have lifelong impact on families and children. Then I trained as a mediator and practiced as an administrative law advocate within a tertiary educational system until retirement. A year later I was recruited to return to work as administrator of a federal grant for the provision of mental health services to children living in rural poverty areas where there is a dearth of properly qualified doctors and therapists. So I now work for a renown university system that I like to call 'The University of Dilbert'....

Three of my kids grew up; one was killed at age 8 by a drunk driver. My second daughter died from leukemia in her early 20s. My youngest is on the autism spectrum with a number of co-morbid diagnoses. She keeps me laughing!!! The oldest has one husband and two adopted children, one bird and one horse and lives across the country. (The horse lives with us!) They keep me laughing, too. Throughout all of this I've kept my fascination with Jack; Lizzie, however, is a relative latecomer in my vicarious world of murder and mayhem. My latest love is the Villisca Axe Murders.

I hope you choose to read the new Ripper book so we can discuss the author's claims exactly as he makes them. However, the next time you put words in my mouth and then demand that I defend them, I'll come down on you like a rash on a hot Fall River day....

[debbiediablo]

This is a review from Amazon by HerbM for the new Ripper book. I immediately checked to see if this is HerbM's only review ever... and it's not. What I find of interest is he echoes exactly what Russell Edwards claims in his book about information provided to each of them by The Black Museum.

Ripper Review.png

[Curryong]

Yes, it is a very favourable review. Why oh why does Australia have to wait! I am so looking forward to reading this on the 30th.

I have to say though, that I'm not so sure that Kosminski was a feldscher-barber. George Chapman, another Polish suspect, certainly was, and in Eastern Europe the tradition was that barbers were given some primitive saw-bones training. However, Kosminski doesn't ever seem to have been described as a barber. (That red/white pole business is very ancient. In Britain barbers ceased being bone-setters etc in the 18th century.)

Kosminski always appears to have been called a 'hairdresser', that is, dealing with artificial hair, human hair made into plaits and switches (Hello, Abby) and wigs, including wigs worn in the ultra-orthodox tradition by married women. There was some belief that in his youth Kosminski may have been in a hospital in Polish Russia as an orderly, but it's very shadowy.

[debbiediablo]

Interesting. In this part of the US, barbers are for men; 'hairdresser', 'beautician' and 'cosmetologist' are used interchangeably as serving women, except there's now a crisscrossing as my husband goes to the 'beauty shop' for a haircut. Meaning I had no idea Kosminski wasn't a barber.

[irina]

That's interesting about hair dressers dealing with wigs. I can see the niche in a very orthodox Jewish community.

Coincidentally there is a new member at JTRForums.com named Curryong. We're actually posting on the same thread... Hmmmm.....

[Curryong]

I was inspired, in a spirit of inquiry....! Actually, I thought it looks fun! Let's try it! I post at so many different forums now (not just mystery ones) it feels like a full time job!

[irina]

The Forum is good people. You can find me with the signature that you pointed out and I adopted.

[Curryong]

Yes, they seem very friendly. I knew it was you as you once told me your real first name! All my old JTR books that have been on my bookshelves for so long (I haven't read some of them for years) are coming out again and I'm taking a crash course in speed reading! It's amazing how much of the detail you forget.
I remain loyal to Lizzie, though!

As far as Kosminski is concerned, I have to say he was never a favourite of mine as a suspect, because of his mental condition (possible schizophrenia). I've always believed JTR was an anonymous local, someone never identified, certainly not anyone famous a la Prince Eddy. According to a family friend's statement in Feb 1891 Kos hadn't attempted any kind of work in years, so I don't believe he was regularly employed as a hairdresser only a couple of years or so before. What's more, rather like John Morse, he seems to have had a longterm aversion to soap, water and toothbrush! However, maybe new evidence will come forth on him. We'll see!

[debbiediablo]

With regard to Kosminski's eating out of the gutter and likely suffering from schizophrenia: keep in mind Richard Trenton Chase who killed and disemboweled rabbits and then ate the blended entrails. He was schizophrenic exacerbated by drug abuse. Read the description of the one of his crimes below:

(She) lay just inside the door, on her back. Her sweater was pulled up over her breasts and her pants and underwear down around her ankles. Her knees were splayed open in the position of a sexual assault. Her left nipple was carved off, her torso cut open below the sternum, and her spleen and intestines pulled out. Chase had stabbed her repeatedly in the lung, liver, diaphragm, and left breast. He also had cut out her kidneys and severed her pancreas in two. He placed the kidneys together back inside her.

Chase's other crimes against women sound very Ripper-like.

[Curryong]

It isn't so much that I don't believe that a schizophrenic person would not have been capable of inflicting terrible mutilations. Obviously they can, as youve pointed out with the Chase example. There's a lot about Kosminski we don't know, and one of the things we don't know is when and how severely he had deteriorated to the state I mentioned in my last post.

For instance, IF Kos had mental issues for the first time in 1890, fair enough. Mary Kelly's murder happened in November 1888. (Although anyone looking at Mary's photographs at Miller's Court would surely come to the conclusion that her killer was not exactly a well person!) However, according to asylum records Kos might have had some mental illness as far back as 1885.

If Kosminski had long term incoherence, dishevelment, inability to work, let alone aural hallucinations, it doesn't really gel with the figure seen with Mary by Hutchinson shortly before her death, who accompanied her to her room.

IF we believe Hutchinson, this man was well-dressed (astrakhan trimmed coat, gold horseshoe tiepin etc) capable of joking with Mary (he tapped her on the shoulder, said something and they both laughed) making a deal with her "You will be alright for what I have told you!" kissing her, etc, etc., and speaking without a trace of an accent. Good for someone who had only lived in England for about seven years.

Even if Hutchinson was a complete fantasist or this man wasn't Jack, it's hard to imagine any tart, however hard up, however drunk, accompanying a person who behaved strangely to a dark or lonely spot, especially at the height of the panic in the East End.

There are lots of other things that don't seem to point to Kosminski being the Ripper, but I'd better stop!

[irina]

There has been quite a discussion on JtR Casebook about Hutchinson being discredited~not like he lied but like he may have gotten the wrong night. I really believe Jack got himself into Mary's room while she was sleeping. Her head was in the uppermost corner of the bed by the wall. I doubt she slept that way and think she tried to scoot away the only way she could, up and against the wall.

I don't accept the idea of a severely schizophrenic Jack either. Unless he was a neighborhood character, you know, considered strange but harmless. Maybe he paid good or gave out handkerchiefs or something. I personally am not convinced the women were soliciting at the time they were killed and I don't think the women led Jack to a place where they were comfortable to service a client. Serial killing is about control and I think Jack lured them to his favourite spots or got them to go with him for some other reason. I think Liz Stride refused to go, he tried to pull her along with him and she resisted. Then he had to kill her. Anyway nobody knows and those are some of my theories.

I have an idea Jack was known in the neighbourhood and he wasn't considered a threat. I have always wondered if he had other contacts with women. Some modern serial killers let some intended victims go or even have relationships with some women and/or prostitutes while they kill others. I always keep my eyes out for that kind of information.

[Curryong]

Yes, Hutchinson was believed by Abberline at the time he took his statement, (ten points for that) but it went downhill from then on seemingly, even if he did accompany two detectives around Whitechapel subsequently in a futile search. He has been disbelieved about his minute description of Jack from the reflection of one flickering gas light, and he wasn't called to the inquest, of course, due to his not bounding into the police station straight away to give his info.

When you say Stride resisted Jack, you mean the Israel Schwartz incident? As for Mary, well, the fellow tenant above Kelly's usually stuck a chair under the doorknob of her door, so these rooms werent exactly secure. What have your fellow posters on JTR Forums thought about your theory of an intruder?

[debbiediablo]

People with schizophrenia are not all drooling maniacs particularly at the onset of illness. It's perfectly possible that anyone (not necessarily Kosminski but including him) with schizophrenia, particularly with aspects of paranoia, could commit JtR's murders. The murders themselves speak of a perpetrator with disorganized personality but not someone so incapacitated by illness as to be dysfunctional. (Ressler and Douglas).

Most psychologists who look at this case think JtR's crimes indicate a level of paranoia, probably due to mental illness but very likely ALSO inclusive of some physically unattractive or differentiating feature. According to the MtDNA analysis, the donor thought to be Kosminski had acne which could certainly be an humiliating feature (Edwards / Ressler and Douglas).

Rumors that Jack was a doctor may have caused East End prostitutes to be less wary of men who seemed slightly odd or poorly dressed so long as they had the money. They would've been more leery of a professional with a medical bag or someone better dressed (Ressler and Douglas).

Kosminski meets a lot of the criteria laid out in psychological profile including unmarried, living almost at the center of the geographic profile for the murders, enough judgment to hunt for victims and know when and where the time is right rather than selecting the victim and then trying to make the crime happen (House). However, so do several others (Ressler and Douglas).

The likelihood of Jack's stopping on his own or de-escalating the violence or committing suicide is highly unlikely (Ressler and Douglas). Belief is that he was either incarcerated for another reason, died or moved his slaughter to another area where the crimes would not be connected. However, he would have continued the level of mutilation inflicted on Mary Kelly when given opportunity. There is no de-escalation of serial killing when circumstances present (Ressler and Douglas). This is why I find William Bury less than likely as Jack. He had all the opportunity in the world to literally destroy his wife as per Kelly, and he didn't.

The expenditures of manpower and money dropped off much more quickly after the murder of Mary Kelly (which was by far the most horrific and one would think more likely to generate more manpower and more money) which would indicate the police had their man either in custody SOMEPLACE or under constant surveillance (House / Ressler and Douglas).

I'm pretty doggone convinced of the connection between Eddowes and the shawl due to the rare genetic variation within the MtDNA and Louhelainen's skills in identifying unique factors (evidence of arterial spray plus body splitting and possible kidney MtDNA that would never be found on a shawl unless a body were ripped open) plus his ability to amplify and identify the oldest MtDNA versus recent.

The non-scientific community fails to understand the complexity of present-day analysis (nor would I were it not for my daughter) and thus critique without knowledge. I'm not so convinced regarding Kosminksi as per the MtDNA. Notice that Louhelainen states ‘Hence the analysis strongly suggests that the shawl could contain the DNA of the Jack the Ripper victim Catherine Eddowes.’ He does not make the same statement regarding Kosminski.

As for the shawl itself, the style and dye date it between 1810-1830. Provenance becomes irrelevant if the shawl contains evidence of arterial spray plus body splitting and possible kidney MtDNA that is linked to Eddowes' MtDNA which would have been common to 1 out 12 persons in London in 1888 if the ratio then is the same as now. This narrows the field substantially! The concept that more than one ancestral Eddowes female deposited MtDNA on the shawl from arterial spray and having her body ripped open is pretty much beyond statistical calculation.

Kosminski never registered for me until after reading Jack the Ripper and the Case for Scotland Yard's Prime Suspect which is a thoroughly researched, carefully cited, critical look at Kosminksi. Robert House has caused me to move Aaron to the Very Top of my suspect list.

Edited major typos once, then missed one and edited again!!! Misspelled Ressler and then cut and pasted the mistake repeatedly!!!

[Curryong]

No, deb, I don't regard Kosminski as being a drooling maniac, just a person who, if he had the same symptoms in 1888 as he had later, would be unlikely to be able to operate in the way that we know JTR did. A certain amount of cunning was needed to escape from Dutfield Yard, for example, which someone with say, hallucinations, would not be able to muster. I agree about Bury. I don't rate Bury highly.

I have got to come back to this later. Forgive me. It's Monday morning here. Gotta rush off to work at the bureau!

[debbiediablo]

The onset (prodromal) period of schizophrenia is usually late teens extending to early or even late 20s which supports the idea that Kosminski would be still be functional enough to commit such crimes; however, without any type of medical intervention he would be moving into the drooling maniac category by his 30s, give or take. No two persons are the same. (Initially I typed "No one person is the same," which is sort of true in this case...maybe a Freudian... . )

I've known three women over my lifetime who have children with schizophrenia. One is my closest friend. Very little is sadder. Her wonderfully loving son was and is sometimes intent on killing his favorite high school teacher because he's absolutely convinced she wants to kill him. This particular psychosis started five years after he graduated! No one has a clue; he loved this teacher right up until he came to fear and hate her.

These young adults go from being normal children (usually) to being entirely without function at times, but not all the time, and this is with every pharmaceutical intervention that modern medicine can offer. One of my daughter's acquaintances is also schizophrenic. So was her father's sister. This sister and the sister's mother died together in a house fire when my father was a young man. The schizophrenic sister refused to leave because she never, ever left the house, even when it was in full blaze. Her mother died trying to drag her daughter from the flames.

Linda thinks her landlord is poisoning her food. She spends far more than she can afford on food which gets thrown out far too often. She moves a lot, but nothing changes except the landlord's name. She and my daughter are not friends. No one with autism can cope with this, plus I've never been totally sure she isn't dangerous, and my daughter would never see it coming. (See below)

Aaron's only fate was death or institutionalization which is sad whether or not he was Jack. Death by hanging might have been preferable. There's an old psychiatric facility about 20 miles from where we live. It's now used for offices...really crummy offices. Behind it, in the limestone bluff, is a cave. And inside the cave, still bolted into the rock, are ancient wrist and ankle cuffs that were used to restrain patients who were acting out or dangerous. I saw them once many years ago, and the vision has never faded from my memory. Just like a Medieval dungeon.

To me, it's about Kosminksi's level of violence and whether he had positive or negative symptoms. This often, but not always, runs in families so likely those who knew him eventually recognized what was happening. Here's some interesting info from the National Institute of Mental Health...I worked for a pilot project grant funded by them for a few years. In case you don't want to read all of it, the salient parts (about ten sentences) are in red....

Onset

Schizophrenia affects men and women equally. It occurs at similar rates in all ethnic groups around the world. Symptoms such as hallucinations and delusions usually start between ages 16 and 30. Men tend to experience symptoms a little earlier than women. Most of the time, people do not get schizophrenia after age 45. Schizophrenia rarely occurs in children, but awareness of childhood-onset schizophrenia is increasing.

It can be difficult to diagnose schizophrenia in teens. This is because the first signs can include a change of friends, a drop in grades, sleep problems, and irritability—behaviors that are common among teens. A combination of factors can predict schizophrenia in up to 80% of youth who are at high risk of developing the illness. These factors include isolating oneself and withdrawing from others, an increase in unusual thoughts and suspicions, and a family history of psychosis. In young people who develop the disease, this stage of the disorder is called the "prodromal" period.

The symptoms of schizophrenia fall into three broad categories: positive symptoms, negative symptoms, and cognitive symptoms.

Positive symptoms This is Aaron

Positive symptoms are psychotic behaviors not seen in healthy people. People with positive symptoms often "lose touch" with reality. These symptoms can come and go. Sometimes they are severe and at other times hardly noticeable, depending on whether the individual is receiving treatment. They include the following:

Hallucinations are things a person sees, hears, smells, or feels that no one else can see, hear, smell, or feel. "Voices" are the most common type of hallucination in schizophrenia. Many people with the disorder hear voices. The voices may talk to the person about his or her behavior, order the person to do things, or warn the person of danger. Sometimes the voices talk to each other. People with schizophrenia may hear voices for a long time before family and friends notice the problem.

Other types of hallucinations include seeing people or objects that are not there, smelling odors that no one else detects, and feeling things like invisible fingers touching their bodies when no one is near.

Delusions are false beliefs that are not part of the person's culture and do not change. The person believes delusions even after other people prove that the beliefs are not true or logical. People with schizophrenia can have delusions that seem bizarre, such as believing that neighbors can control their behavior with magnetic waves. They may also believe that people on television are directing special messages to them, or that radio stations are broadcasting their thoughts aloud to others. Sometimes they believe they are someone else, such as a famous historical figure. They may have paranoid delusions and believe that others are trying to harm them, such as by cheating, harassing, poisoning, spying on, or plotting against them or the people they care about. These beliefs are called "delusions of persecution."

Thought disorders are unusual or dysfunctional ways of thinking. One form of thought disorder is called "disorganized thinking." This is when a person has trouble organizing his or her thoughts or connecting them logically. They may talk in a garbled way that is hard to understand. Another form is called "thought blocking." This is when a person stops speaking abruptly in the middle of a thought. When asked why he or she stopped talking, the person may say that it felt as if the thought had been taken out of his or her head. Finally, a person with a thought disorder might make up meaningless words, or "neologisms."

Movement disorders may appear as agitated body movements. A person with a movement disorder may repeat certain motions over and over. In the other extreme, a person may become catatonic. Catatonia is a state in which a person does not move and does not respond to others. Catatonia is rare today, but it was more common when treatment for schizophrenia was not available.

Negative symptoms

Negative symptoms are associated with disruptions to normal emotions and behaviors. These symptoms are harder to recognize as part of the disorder and can be mistaken for depression or other conditions. These symptoms include the following:

"Flat affect" (a person's face does not move or he or she talks in a dull or monotonous voice)
Lack of pleasure in everyday life
Lack of ability to begin and sustain planned activities
Speaking little, even when forced to interact.

People with negative symptoms need help with everyday tasks. They often neglect basic personal hygiene. This may make them seem lazy or unwilling to help themselves, but the problems are symptoms caused by the schizophrenia.

Cognitive symptoms

Cognitive symptoms are subtle. Like negative symptoms, cognitive symptoms may be difficult to recognize as part of the disorder. Often, they are detected only when other tests are performed. Cognitive symptoms include the following:

Poor "executive functioning" (the ability to understand information and use it to make decisions)
Trouble focusing or paying attention
Problems with "working memory" (the ability to use information immediately after learning it).

Cognitive symptoms often make it hard to lead a normal life and earn a living. They can cause great emotional distress.

Are people with schizophrenia violent?

People with schizophrenia are not usually violent. In fact, most violent crimes are not committed by people with schizophrenia. However, some symptoms are associated with violence, such as delusions of persecution. Substance abuse may also increase the chance a person will become violent. (This would include drinking in the Ten Bells Pub. Many persons with schizophrenia are given to self-medication via alcohol and street drugs, and this is in 2014 with the development of third generation anti-psychotics.) If a person with schizophrenia becomes violent, the violence is usually directed at family members and tends to take place at home.

The risk of violence among people with schizophrenia is small. But people with the illness attempt suicide much more often than others. About 10 percent (especially young adult males) die by suicide. It is hard to predict which people with schizophrenia are prone to suicide. If you know someone who talks about or attempts suicide, help him or her find professional help right away.

One more afterthought from me: my friend's son is far, far, far more cunning when both delusional and in the grip of paranoia than when he's not. I don't know why other than maybe his thinking is intensely focused on what the voices are telling him. Or maybe the voices are really smart. Maybe Possum knows. What I do know is this is pretty much common to the illness.

– Debbie

[Curryong]

Back to Kosminski, having come home! I still haven't read Edwards. It is released in Australia tomorrow. Hurrah!! so I am at a disadvantage as to what is written about Kosminski in Edwards' book. So please forgive me if I inadvertantly go over old territory that you've heard a hundred times. As I said in my previous posts it isn't really known when Kosmnski's deterioration in mental health became so obvious to his loving family that it was decided that he should be committed. (His birthdate seems to have been given as 1864-1865 by the way.)

The records of this poor man begin officially when he was admitted to Mile End Workhouse on July 12 1890. He was able-bodied but described as 'insane'. He was discharged three days later into a brother-in-law's care. (Obviously a bit of respite care for the family, there!) Then, on Feb 6th 1891, Aaron was back again, re-admitted from the home of another brother-in-law. He was examined at the workhouse by a doctor who concluded that he was of unsound mind and moves were then made to admit him to Colney Hatch mental asylum.

The committal order describes Kosminski thus ' He declares that he is guided and his movements altogether controlled by an instinct that controls his mind; he says that he knows the movements of all mankind; he refuses food from others because he is told to do so and eats out of the gutter for the same reason.'
A family friend informed the committing doctors that Kosminski 'goes about the streets and picks up bits of bread out of the gutter and eats them, he drinks water from the tap and refuses food at the hands of others. He took up a knife and threatened the life of his sister. He says that he is ill and his cure consists in refusing food. He is melancholic, practices self-abuse. He is very dirty and will not be washed. He has not attempted any kind of work for years.'

The records for Mile End state that none of Aaron's close relatives were known to have suffered from insanity, and the cause of his illness was unknown. This last was later changed to self-abuse! It was specifically stated that Aaron Kosminski was not believed to be a danger to himself or others. I won't inflict on you any more of the official records for the next twenty eight years, which were spent in various asylums, but the same words and expressions occur again and again over the years--morose, apathetic, objects to bathing, practises 'self-abuse, refuses to work, 'incoherent, quiet, unoccupied'. Except for one occasion when he attempted to seize a chair and menace an attendant and the supposed knife attack on his sister, this man showed no signs of violence whatsoever.

Now, as I have said earler this is all very sad, but was Kosminski violent, malicious and cunning in 1888? There is no statement anywhere that declares that he was. His form of mania, if we can use the 19th century term, appears to have centred around food, drink, self-abuse and a refusal to keep clean. If he had been, before he was committed, an individual who had showed violence, cunning, a hatred of women or a propensity to roam about at night, or a fascination with knives, then it is almost inevitable that such behaviour would get around the extended family, and the doctors at Mile End would have been informed.

The link between Kosminski and Jack the Ripper, if we can put aside the shawl business until I have read Edwards, is quite a weak one. It consists of Anderson (Assistant Commissioner at Scotland Yard) and his belief that 'a witness', probably Joseph Lawende, identified Kosminski as the man who was standing with a woman believed to be Eddowes at the entrance to Mitre Square on the night of the 'double event'. Lawende had come forward in September 1888 and said that he and two colleagues had seen a man and a woman there after they had left a Jewish Social Club nearby. Lawende had just glanced at the pair under a gaslight momentarily. Anderson declared his belief in later writings (in 1908 and 1910) that the Ripper was 'a low class Polish Jew' whom he declined to name but who was safely 'caged in an asylum' and against whom a 'co-religionist had refused to give evidence' (possibly Lawende) for reasons of conscience.'

We don't even know if it was Lawende to whom Chief Inspector Swanson (Anderson's deputy) was referring when he wrote, in some pencilled marginalia in a book (which was found years later and may or may not be authentic) that an identification of Kosminski was made at the Convalescent (Police) Seaside Home. Lawende had told the Eddowes Inquest in 1888 that he would not be able to identify the man again. Yet he apparently was able to do so in 1891. Anderson and his loyal deputy may have been sure that he had caught the Ripper. Other senior police nominated their own suspects. Indeed, Anderson himself in one interview in 1903 denied that the identity of the Ripper was known.

[debbiediablo]

According to Robert House, the man who positively identified Kosminski was really Israel Schwartz who then refused to formally do so because he didn't want responsibility for sending a fellow Jew to the gallows.

Not much is mentioned of Kosminski being violent; however, I rather doubt his family would've been totally frank about his condition to the intake personnel. To this day, many families are not (either by choice or they've simply become habituated to the chaos). Back then, an admission of life-threatening violence might've gotten him chained to a bed for the rest of his life.

Once within, chloral nitrite and hyoscyamine were used as heavy-hitting chemical restraints. The first is better known as a Mickey Finn. These were used freely and with limited knowledge as to side effects. Agitated behavior would've been put down almost immediately. Staff appears to have documented one line once every six months or more.

His condition both before and after admission isn't well enough documented to rule out violence. Persons with paranoid schizophrenia are beyond predictability most especially when fueled by substance abuse, and alcohol was abused in the East End.

Swanson's annotation was first ruled a forgery, then not, after being compared against his writing later in life. I tend to believe; there seems no good reason for someone to forge it.

Anderson's denial of the Ripper's identity seems logical even if they were 100% sure. Certainly they lacked evidence to convict or they would have; or, more likely he was insane as to meet criteria for the McNaughton Rule. It's odd though, that manpower and money were cut back relatively soon following Mary Kelly's death, a murder so heinous it would seem warranted to double both the dollars and the men!

Either way, admitting JtR was identified and alive could've resulted in major civil upset given 1903 is only 15 years after the crimes. I wouldn't have cared to be the keeper of the asylum gate.

The House book is an excellent read...very long on historical background which I always like.

I'm not convinced Kosminski is the Ripper, although I do like Catherine Eddowes for that shawl!!:smiliecolors:

[Curryong]

There have been arguments among Ripperologists about whether Anderson's witness was Lawende or Schwartz for a long time now. However, if Swanson intimates that a Jewish witness refused to give evidence against a Jewish suspect, then the 'Lipski' insult by Stride's assailant immediately after Stride was attacked at the entry to Dutfield Yard, is very odd.
'Lipski' was undoubtedly directed at the Jewish-looking Schwartz and had been an anti-Semitic insult all over the East End ever since a Jewish murderer of that name had hanged in 1887. I know that House and Paul Begg are Kosminski and Schwartz advocates, but I am a Sugdenite and take the middle road! Tomorrow I buy Edwards, which I'm looking forward to.

[debbiediablo]

I'll try to find, cut and paste the section where House explains the Lipski business...it wasn't his strongest argument. Catching up on medical documentation today...which is my very least favorite part of work. Totally hate it!

[Curryong]

I got House, debbie, after your recommendation, (I'd heard of him as a proponent of the Kosminski theory but never read him) and if anyone looked at my Kindle lately they would find it dominated by Jack! I agree that House does not do well with the Lipski explanation. However, I do like his style and grasp of the facts of the case. I also bought Edwards and I have to say I'm rather underwhelmed. I do pay tribute to his enthusiasm for the JTR case over many years and for his buying a very intriguing shawl (and I do think it is probably a shawl.) I galloped through his (necessary) account of the victims' deaths as I devoutly trust Sugden on those. Don't need another re-jig through old territory.

Maybe it's because I've always found Kosminski an unlikely suspect I approach theories regarding him with some caution. The details of his life are sparse in the extreme, as is natural; he was a poor hairdresser living in a slum. Poor House and Edwards!

I take on board that Kosminski appears to be behaving normally in 1888, taking a dog for a walk, appearing in court afterwards. He didn't appear to give a very coherent explanation to the court about the dog being unmuzzled. However, that may be simply that he had few words of English, speaking mostly German and Yiddish. His brother came to court and spoke up for him. Was he being protective because of blood ties or were there other reasons? You see where I'm going with this?

Also, Jewish leaders were worried about the growing number of immoral women, ie prostitutes, in their community. Would Kosminski have had the necessary chutzpah and language skills to have approached local prostitutes not in his community rather than Jewish women even if there were no traces of mental illness in 1888?

I find Edwards' explanation of michaelmas daisies on the shawl pointing to clues about the dates of the 'double-event' murders incredible. Plucked out of mid-air really! Why would a Jewish person be taking note of an important date in the calendars of the anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches? It would make more sense if he had killed twice on Jewish holidays if he wished to make a statement.

So really we are left with two imponderables. First of all, the important work on the shawl by Dr Louhelainen seems to link Catherine Eddowes and Aaron Kosminski. As I've said from the beginning this needs verification from independent sources. No-one is accusing this expert and respected man of anything underhand, but it's concerning that, by recent reports, Edwards seems to have become incommunicado. (Been through this before with the fraudulent Diary of JTR/Maybrick.)

This shawl is really a worry. There is not a scrap of evidence, apart from Simpson family history, that it was ever near Eddowes (who had no shawl listed among her possessions) let alone a poor Polish hairdresser who may or may not have been mentally ill in 1888. And yes, Kosminski lived nearby. So did thousands of other people. There is likewise no evidence, at all, that Sgt Simpson was near Mitre Square that September night apart from a family's story and a leap of faith by Edwards, whose speculation that Kosminski may have carried a shawl to the scene as a sort of lure is frankly ridiculous. Amos Simpson may or may not have been watching for Fenians nearby. However, his name does not appear in any of the lists/ reports for Met officers on City territory that night. Until any such evidence turns up and the shawl is verified as a shawl of pre-1890's vintage by the V and A. or similar respected museum and is independently tested, I remain a sceptic, I'm sorry to say.

[debbiediablo]

I'm reading Sudgen...just started.

[Curryong]

How are you going with Sugden, debbie? He's very preside, I think. Sticks to the facts!

[debbiediablo]

I've been sidetracked by my daughter with autism getting her first-ever pet, an 18 mo. old terrier, Shih Tzu and Pomeranian cross who was headed for homelessness. His name is Maynard and already he can sit, lay down, speak and dance to "We Can Dance" by Men Wearing Hats. Sudgen book is excellent but the dog has most of my attention. He's at her stair door waiting for my daughter to come down in the morning.... He has a new green, blue and white argyle collar coming in the mail...

[Curryong]

What a really cute dog! And so smart, with dancing skills! I hope Maynard is house-trained, but it is really exciting anyway when a new member joins the family! I suppose your daughter is over the moon!
I'm glad you enjoy Sugden! 'Smile'