Okay, Ripperologists, prove it's NOT him :)

[richardh]

Since the world seems to have accepted Russell Edwards' claim that he has solved the case — going so far as to declare, 'It's 100% him'—I challenge Casebook, the leading resource for Ripper investigations, to present proof, facts, and reasons that categorically refute this conclusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWOYNMQj888&ab_channel=NewsNation

[Wickerman]

The so-called shawl was shown to be a Victorian Table Runner when it first surfaced, and no shawl is listed among Eddowes possessions. The whole idea was just a fabrication right from the start.

[richardh]

DNA expert casts doubt on Jack the Ripper claim: 'Not enough information'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j42AwpCecU8&ab_channel=NewsNation

[rjpalmer]

The so-called shawl was shown to be a Victorian Table Runner when it first surfaced, and no shawl is listed among Eddowes possessions. The whole idea was just a fabrication right from the start.

I, of course, agree that the whole thing is a fake, but for the sake of accuracy the "table runner" theory was just a throw-away suggestion made by someone who was visiting the Black Museum. It was not an expert opinion but has taken on quite a life of its own.

Debrah Arif has convinced me that, as strange as it may sound, there were fancy dress shawls of this same dimension and general description in the Victorian era.

Post #132 at the link below if you want to see one.


New edition of Russell Edwards, "Naming Jack the Ripper" (2024) - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century

I don't want to imply that this helps Edwards' claims, but it could, in the end, be a shawl.

Anyway, I believe Edwards has now changed his theory to imply or suggest this was some ceremonial object carried by Aaron Kozminski, so he has side-stepped its non-appearance in the City of London inventory list.

[Wickerman]

I, of course, agree that the whole thing is a fake, but for the sake of accuracy the "table runner" theory was just a throw-away suggestion made by someone who was visiting the Black Museum.
...

Hi RJ.
This has been a central topic for decades, back in 2013/14 the boards were calling it a Table runner, in fact Jeff Leahy back then posted Deb's opinion that it was a Table runner.

Just to add to that and reminded by Debera Ariff… The Shawl isn't actually a Shawl at all, its an Edwardian Table Runner, hence the stange dimensions.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/kosminski-aaron/8608-kosminski-and-victim-dna-match-on-shawl?p=429629#post429629

When it first surfaced, on the Diary thread I think, several pictures were posted and we could see sections had been cut out of it, and tassels were clearly visible across the end, as were typical on Table Runners of the period.

[Trevor Marriott]

Since the world seems to have accepted Russell Edwards' claim that he has solved the case — going so far as to declare, 'It's 100% him'—I challenge Casebook, the leading resource for Ripper investigations, to present proof, facts, and reasons that categorically refute this conclusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWOYNMQj888&ab_channel=NewsNation

The sketch taken at the crime scene before the body was moved does not show anything resembling a shawl

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[rjpalmer]

in fact Jeff Leahy back then posted Deb's opinion

From my personal experience, I would suggest caution when relying on what Jeff Leahy states was someone else's opinion. He admits that he is dyslexic, and he also has a tendency to rely on memory.

Debra herself wrote this on JTR Forums:

"Thanks, Jeff.
I thought the table runner description was just a joke because of the dimensions. I didn't know the museum had suggested it.
I've never had a problem believing it to be a shawl. The dimensions are large but I have read that at certain periods in time, shawls were very long to accommodate dress styles, like the 1870s bustles for example. Regency shawls were also long and narrow. I haven't come across any close up photographs online showing the details of the colour and pattern...."

--

I traced the original table runner suggestion and, despite what Jeff Leahy was claiming, the Black Museum did not make the suggestion. It was someone who was visiting the Black Museum along with Sue and Andy Parlor. I believe it was Stewart Evans who first reported it.

The trouble with the tassels is that scarf's have them, too.

I would love it to be a table runner, and used to accept that it was, but it appears to be an open question. The plain pattern in the center seems more in line with a table runner to me, but I'm no expert.

[Geddy2112]

The sketch taken at the crime scene before the body was moved does not show anything resembling a shawl

It does not show the organs either that apparently were not taken out till later

[Lewis C]

It does not show the organs either that apparently were not taken out till later

I hope that that doesn't become the central discussion of the next few pages.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why do they keep calling him an historian and why do they never bring up that disgraceful episode on Saddleworth Moor?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It seems a case of hype over reason to me.

“As Hansi Weissensteiner, a mitochondrial DNA expert, points out, mitochondrial DNA can’t be used to positively ID a suspect, it can only rule one out since thousands of other people could have had the same mitochondrial DNA.“

I never thought that I’d say this but I agree with Haille Rubenhold:

“[T]here is no historical evidence, no documentation that links this shawl at all to Kate Eddowes. This is history at its worst,”

Of course, this certainly doesn’t mean that Kosminski couldn’t have been the ripper but we would prefer to get the answer by fair means.

[drstrange169]

I must admit, I've called it a table runner in the past, however ...

[Tom_Wescott]

Since the world seems to have accepted Russell Edwards' claim that he has solved the case — going so far as to declare, 'It's 100% him'—I challenge Casebook, the leading resource for Ripper investigations, to present proof, facts, and reasons that categorically refute this conclusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWOYNMQj888&ab_channel=NewsNation

This would be two separate arguments - arguing that the DNA is bogus is not the same as proving Kosminski was not the Ripper. It's only proving that the DNA claims are unfounded, which they are. There need also be true historical provenance for the shawl being in Kosminski's possession in 1888, and in Amos Simpson's possession in October, 1888, and no matter what fake data 'for-hire' labs spit out, they can never fake provenance. Proving (or disproving) the DNA would be as simple as getting the shawl into a reputable lab for proven and accepted testing methods. That would show Kosminski's and Eddowes' DNA are not on the the shawl. Most likely, it would produce a result of 'inconclusive', which amounts to the same thing. It might even produce the result that the blood on the shawl is not human. I wouldn't be surprised if it did. Once all this was done and the shawl was shown to the world to have no connection to the Ripper case, you'd be back to square one with Kosminski - do you accept Anderson's Victorian wisdom that the Ripper must have been an insane Jew or do you accept that what we know today about serial killers all but exonerates the demonstrably insane? And since there was never a tittle of evidence against Aaron Kosminski (who may or may not be Anderson's 'Kosminski') it remains a question of individual perspective as to whether he was the Ripper or not.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fiver]

The provenance of the shawl is provably false. Amos Simpson was not the first to find the body, he wasn't even in the right Police to be there.

That's all you need to prove the shawl is not evidence of anything.

Kosminski might have be the Ripper, but Edwards has no evidence to prove it.

[Barnaby]

This is similar to prosecutorial overreach or misconduct. People who dig deeper and see all the problems with the shawl and the DNA might be tempted to dismiss Kosminski. If Kosminski is the Ripper, he may ultimately get off the hook in the court of public opinion because of this.