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

[John Wheat]

The Shawls provenance is provably false. I highly doubt Kosminski was the Ripper.

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

The Shawls provenance is provably false. I highly doubt Kosminski was the Ripper.

I feel the same; Kosminski, at that point in time, was too far gone mentally to have the wherewithal to be the Ripper. This is a man whose mental illness was painfully evident. He had auditory (and possibly visible) hallucinations, was quite unkempt, and would only eat food from the street. I highly doubt he would have the charm to convince street-smart-yet-drunken prostitutes that he was an earnest punter. From what I have read, his actions and demeanor remind me of the crazed homeless people I would often see in the streets of New York City and Philadelphia back in the 1990s. They would often walk the streets screaming profanities, having long conversations with themselves, and intentionally scaring the bejeesus out of passersby. Anyone with a lick of sense would have avoided Kosminski like the plague.

[Geddy2112]

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

Sushhhhhhh it won't I promise. My twisted sense of humour just saw a golden opportunity... apologies.

[Geddy2112]

Was their any record of Catherine's belongings when she was in the clink earlier that night? Was the shawl listed?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Was their any record of Catherine's belongings when she was in the clink earlier that night? Was the shawl listed?

No, they didn’t bother listing her clothing Geddy. All that we got is Hutt saying that she was wearing a white apron.

[richardh]

I wonder what the result would be if they used familial DNA testing for one of Walter Sickert relatives?

[The Rookie Detective]

The frustrating thing is that anyone with any care for the truth; or with any understanding of the case, knows that the shawl has nothing whatsoever to do with Catherine Eddowes.

At least the fake diary had an immense amount of time and effort put into it.

It makes those involved with the diary seem like saints in comparison to this DNA shawl tosh.

This shawl nonsense is a shameful piece of propoganda that has been allowed to gather traction because of charlatans who aren't challenged for the gibberish that comes out of their mouth.

The problem is that the public with buy it because the truth doesn't matter to most people.

Ironically, Kosminski may have been the Ripper, but whether he was or not is beside the point.

Demoralising to those of us who genuinely want to seek and know the truth and maintain their integrity in doing so.


Shameful Shawl of S**t

[Trevor Marriott]

No, they didn’t bother listing her clothing Geddy. All that we got is Hutt saying that she was wearing a white apron.

Thats not quite true !!

It seems Hutt at the inquest was either shown the apron piece minus the piece missing, or he was shown the piece found in Goulston St and when shown whatever piece, he was asked by the[Coroner] "In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing?" - and he replies "To the best of my belief it is"

The point was that it was nothing more than a piece of white apron which was a common item of clothing worn by Victorian women what was so identifiable to make him reply in the way he did. There appears to have been no evidential continuity in the handling of both the mortuary piece and the piece found in Goulston Sreet.

In reality, he could have been shown any piece of white apron and he would have replied in the same way.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thats not quite true !!

It seems Hutt at the inquest was either shown the apron piece minus the piece missing, or he was shown the piece found in Goulston St and when shown whatever piece, he was asked by the[Coroner] "In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing?" - and he replies "To the best of my belief it is"

The point was that it was nothing more than a piece of white apron which was a common item of clothing worn by Victorian women what was so identifiable to make him reply in the way he did. There appears to have been no evidential continuity in the handling of both the mortuary piece and the piece found in Goulston Sreet.

In reality, he could have been shown any piece of white apron and he would have replied in the same way.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Because Hutt naturally assumed that his colleagues hadn’t substituted the actual apron piece for some random piece of cloth. He just naturally assumed that the one that was produced was the same one. And why wouldn’t he?

He was also under no doubt that she was wearing a white apron. What he should actually have said if he was being totally accurate was “yes she was wearing a white apron and, as far as I know, that piece is a part of the same one because my colleague has it.”

[Trevor Marriott]

Because Hutt naturally assumed that his colleagues hadn’t substituted the actual apron piece for some random piece of cloth. He just naturally assumed that the one that was produced was the same one. And why wouldn’t he?

He was also under no doubt that she was wearing a white apron. What he should actually have said if he was being totally accurate was “yes she was wearing a white apron and, as far as I know, that piece is a part of the same one because my colleague has it.”

But my point is if he had said she was wearing a white apron, how would he know that what was produced in court was a piece of that same apron?

Furthermore, we have no evidence as to whether what was produced was the apron piece from the body or the piece found in GS

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But my point is if he had said she was wearing a white apron, how would he know that what was produced in court was a piece of that same apron?

Furthermore, we have no evidence as to whether what was produced was the apron piece from the body or the piece found in GS

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Coroner] In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing? - To the best of my belief it is.

So what Hutt was saying was - I assume that it’s the same one that was removed from the body at the mortuary.

[Sam Flynn]

[Coroner] In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing? - To the best of my belief it is.

So what Hutt was saying was - I assume that it’s the same one that was removed from the body at the mortuary.

I'd go a little further, Herlock. What Hutt said wasn't so much that he "assumed" it was the same, but that he believed that it was. Belief is stronger than assumption.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'd go a little further, Herlock. What Hutt said wasn't so much that he "assumed" it was the same, but that he believed that it was. Belief is stronger than assumption.

Good point Sam. He had absolutely no reason to believe otherwise unless he considered that his colleagues might have brought an entirely random piece of cloth to the inquest and tried to pass it off as belonging to Eddowes.

[JeffHamm]

A while back I went through the Eddowes' inquest testimonies found under the official documents portion of Casebook and grabbed all the bits associated with her apron. She is reported to be wearing an apron when she left the lodging house, and there are multiple police statements indicating they clearly believed she was wearing one, and that the piece found at Goulston Street had been cut from the apron she was wearing at the crime scene.

The idea she wasn't flies in the face of multiple independent sources who give sworn testimony. Attempts at re-interpretations based upon possible alternative meanings focused upon a particular word choice ignores the forest for trees. There are few things we can be certain about in the JtR case, but the fact Eddowes was wearing an apron when she was killed is indeed one of those few things.

As for the shawl ... not so much as a mention.

- Jeff


Testimonies at the Eddowes’ inquest:
Day 1, Thursday, October 4, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, Friday, October 5, 1888, Page 3)
Frederick William Wilkinson deposed: I am deputy of the lodging-house at Flower and Dean-street. I have known the deceased and Kelly during the last seven years. …I believe on Saturday morning Kate was wearing an apron. Nothing unusual struck me about her dress. …
Inspector Collard, of the City Police, said: At five minutes before two o'clock on Sunday morning last I received information at Bishopsgate-street Police-station that a woman had been murdered in Mitre-square. …
[Coroner] Was there any money about her? - No; no money whatever was found. A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased. (** In other papers this is reported as …corresponding with the apron apparently worn by the deceased. **; or words to that effect, the key being the word apparently)
Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown was then called, and deposed: I am surgeon to the City of London Police. …
[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body. (**again, I believe this may be phrased differently in some papers **)
Day 2, Thursday, October 11, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, October 12, 1888, Page 2)
City-constable Lewis Robinson, 931, deposed: At half-past eight, on the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, while on duty in High-street, Aldgate, I saw a crowd of persons outside No. 29, surrounding a woman whom I have since recognised as the deceased. …
The apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood, the witness said that to the best of his knowledge it was the apron the deceased was wearing.
Constable George Henry Hutt, 968, City Police: I am gaoler at Bishopsgate station. On the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, at a quarter to ten o'clock, I took over our prisoners, among them the deceased. I visited her several times until five minutes to one on Sunday morning. …
[Coroner] In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing? - To the best of my belief it is.
While Constable Long doesn’t testify to Eddowes’ wearing the apron, I’m including his description of the discovery of the portion in Goulston-street for completeness:
Constable Alfred Long, 254 A, Metropolitan police: I was on duty in Goulston-street, Whitechapel, on Sunday morning, Sept. 30, and about five minutes to three o'clock I found a portion of a white apron (produced). There were recent stains of blood on it. The apron was lying in the passage leading to the staircase of Nos. 106 to 119, a model dwelling-house. Above on the wall was written in chalk, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." I at once searched the staircase and areas of the building, but did not find anything else. I took the apron to Commercial-road Police-station and reported to the inspector on duty.
[Coroner] Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron? - I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.
[Coroner] Are you able to say whether the apron was there then? - It was not.
Mr. Crawford: As to the writing on the wall, have you not put a "not" in the wrong place? Were not the words, "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing"? - I believe the words were as I have stated.
[Coroner] Was not the word "Jews" spelt "Juwes?" - It may have been.
[Coroner] Yet you did not tell us that in the first place. Did you make an entry of the words at the time? - Yes, in my pocket-book. Is it possible that you have put the "not" in the wrong place? - It is possible, but I do not think that I have.
[Coroner] Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall? - The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood. (** Some papers do not include “with blood” **)
[Coroner] How came you to observe the writing on the wall? - I saw it while trying to discover whether there were any marks of blood about.
[Coroner] Did the writing appear to have been recently done? - I could not form an opinion. …
Daniel Halse, detective officer, City police: On Saturday, Sept. 29, pursuant to instructions received at the central office in Old Jewry, I directed a number of police in plain clothes to patrol the streets of the City all night. …
I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two, and then returned to Mitre-square, subsequently going to the mortuary. I saw the deceased, and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing. I accompanied Major Smith back to Mitre-square, when we heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston-street. (** This implies that Halse saw Eddowes at the mortuary and noticed the missing piece of her apron before being aware that a portion was later found in Goulston Street. That in turn suggests that the apron was something she was wearing, as otherwise it would be unremarkable, although this series of inferences are not unquestionable **). …
By Mr. Crawford: At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron.
A Juror: It seems surprising that a policeman should have found the piece of apron in the passage of the buildings, and yet made no inquiries in the buildings themselves. There was a clue up to that point, and then it was altogether lost.
Mr. Crawford: As to the premises being searched, I have in court members of the City police who did make diligent search in every part of the tenements the moment the matter came to their knowledge. But unfortunately it did not come to their knowledge until two hours after. There was thus delay, and the man who discovered the piece of apron is a member of the Metropolitan police.
At this point Constable Long returned, and produced the pocket-book containing the entry which he made at the time concerning the discovery of the writing on the wall. …
[Coroner] What did you do when you found the piece of apron? - I at once searched the staircases leading to the buildings.
A Juror: Having examined the apron and the writing, did it not occur to you that it would be wise to search the dwelling? - I did what I thought was right under the circumstances.

[Enigma]

The claim that the case had been solved by the DNA on the shawl surfaced yesterday on a Facebook page devoted to a TV show about archaeology. The claim was quickly debunked by myself and several others.