I think 100% wrong would have done it, GUT.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Eddowes' Shawl
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by albie View PostAnd an expert on shawls did not spot it but you did.As if it matters if it was a shawl. It had blood on it and was said to be a ripper victims.Kind regards, Sam Flynn
"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Comment
-
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
-
Originally posted by albie View PostThe dna that was called into question, as far as I know, was the dna of the killers not the victims.
'Error of nomenclature' undermines case against Polish immigrant barber accused of carrying out the atrocities in 1888
c.d.
Comment
-
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.JtRmap.com<< JtR Interactive Map
JtRmap FORM << Use this form to make suggestions for map annotations
---------------------------------------------------
JtR3d.com << JtR 3D & #VR Website
---------------------------------------------------
Comment
-
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.I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.
Comment
-
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
-
Originally posted by Batman View PostThe 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
No full profile.
Still worth checking out to see who wrote the letter.Bona fide canonical and then some.
Comment
-
Originally posted by c.d. View Post
Comment
-
Originally posted by albie View PostAh 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.
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
Comment