Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eddowes' Shawl

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I think 100% wrong would have done it, GUT.
    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
      It might be what's called a table runner.

      I've seen it myself, by the way.
      And an expert on shawls did not spot it but you did. Come now

      As if it matters if it was a shawl. It had blood on it and was said to be a ripper victims.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by GUT View Post
        Said ,supposedly by DNA which was proven to be 110% wrong
        The dna that was called into question, as far as I know, was the dna of the killers not the victims.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by albie View Post
          And an expert on shawls did not spot it but you did.
          What expert on shawls was called in to conduct this analysis? Besides, it wasn't me who said it might have been a table runner; others have suggested that and, having seen it close up and in photographs, I can see where they're coming from.
          As if it matters if it was a shawl. It had blood on it and was said to be a ripper victims.
          By the family of a police officer who, as far as we know, didn't attend the scene of the crime, and who wasn't even a member of the City Constabulary. Furthermore no shawl or anything like it was ever mentioned as being in Eddowes' possession, despite detailed inventories being preserved on the record.
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

          Comment


          • #20
            According to Russell Edwards, Alan McCormick told him that Sotheby's looked at the "shawl" and decided it was early 20th century.

            Remember that the fabric owned by the Simpson family was in two pieces that when put together measure 8 feet long and two feet wide. I also believe origin of calling it a shawl began with them. Here's the backing of the frame they kept it in and I think that's Amos Simpson's great-grand nephew David M. Hayes' signature.



            JM

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by albie View Post
              The dna that was called into question, as far as I know, was the dna of the killers not the victims.
              The DNA called into question was that of Eddowes indicating that the blood on the shawl did not match the DNA of her descendant.

              https://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...o-9804325.html

              c.d.

              Comment


              • #22
                As with any Ripper related 'evidence,' nothing is ever clear cut but this shawl shinanigan is riddled with problems, inconsistencies and scientific plot-holes that generally revolve around hearsay, totally broken (none-existant) provenance and a businessman's urge to make a name and thus a lot of money. Ingredients that make for a truly dubious outcome.

                This shawl story, for me, is and has always been, standing on a wobbly foundation.
                ---------------------------------------------------
                JtR3D.com JtR 3D Blog
                ---------------------------------------------------
                HHAP

                Comment


                • #23
                  The chain of evidence for the so-called "Eddowes" shawl is non-existent. Its claimed provenance is that it came from the scene via a Metropolitan Police 'A' Division acting sergeant who had no business visiting Mitre Square - and almost certainly didn't. If he had visited the scene how could he justify the theft of the property of a murdered woman? He couldn't - and didn't. The DNA is just another red herring. Mitochondrial DNA is useful for eliminating suspects but has next to no value in convicting them. The shawl (if that's what it is) has been handled by countless individuals down the years including, in all probability, those descendants of both Eddowes and Kosminski to whom it has been shown. Given that contamination the presence of mitochondrial DNA is wholly unremarkable. Kosminski may or may not have killed Eddowes but the 'shawl' is evidentially worthless either way.
                  "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    The best bet of DNA recovery is behind the stamp of a possible ripper letter envelope. Even then you won't know for sure it was his letter or his saliva on the stamp, but it could tell us something through familial DNA testing. Could possibly be used to prove the letter a hoax of an enterprising journalist by again familial DNA testing.
                    Bona fide canonical and then some.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Batman View Post
                      The best bet of DNA recovery is behind the stamp of a possible ripper letter envelope. Even then you won't know for sure it was his letter or his saliva on the stamp, but it could tell us something through familial DNA testing. Could possibly be used to prove the letter a hoax of an enterprising journalist by again familial DNA testing.
                      Cornwell tried this and failed miserably

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                        Cornwell tried this and failed miserably

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Ah yeah, I seem recall vaguely she may done it.

                        No full profile.

                        Still worth checking out to see who wrote the letter.
                        Bona fide canonical and then some.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                          The DNA called into question was that of Eddowes indicating that the blood on the shawl did not match the DNA of her descendant.

                          https://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...o-9804325.html

                          c.d.
                          Ah but then that means the dna link between Kosminski and the dna on the shawl still stand. That's even better. I'm betting the shawl was actually Kelly's. I seem to recall she was seen wearing a shawl and that it wasn't listed in her belongings.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by albie View Post
                            Ah but then that means the dna link between Kosminski and the dna on the shawl still stand. That's even better. I'm betting the shawl was actually Kelly's. I seem to recall she was seen wearing a shawl and that it wasn't listed in her belongings.
                            No the link to Kosinski was completely totally and thouroughly debunked.

                            There’s a long thread here showing it pulled apart.
                            G U T

                            There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              You debunked genetic evidence? Where is this thread? I cannot find it with a search.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Tracy I'anson and Chris Philips discovered the mistake in the DNA evidence.
                                Their work was widely reported in the press.

                                See this link for starters.

                                forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8370

                                JM

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X