Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Amanda]

Be Careful

Hi Henry,
I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly.

Other writers should be very careful to dismiss Mr.Edwards claims when they have neither been disproved nor verified yet.

It is important for us all to try to keep an open mind until further testing is completed by the correct authorities.
Some writers are much more thorough in their research than others and Mr. Marriott would do well to remember that.

Amanda

[robhouse]

Personally, (and this is just my theory) I don't believe Simpson was anywhere near Mitre Sq--he probably made that up to explain how he got the artifact and sound important.

However, my gut feeling is that he (and perhaps his wife) wanted a ghoulish souvenir and someone--perhaps one of his friends on the force who owed him a favor--provided them with their prize (perhaps genuine--perhaps not)

This was something I was going to post myself... I think we all agree that these types of family stories, passed down over the years, tend to mutate, usually becoming more dramatic. Given that that is the case, why are we so hung up on whether or not Simpson was actually in Mitre Square himself? Somehow the article ended up in his possession. Is it not possible simply, that someone took the shawl from the crime scene, and ended up giving it to Simpson?

RH

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, the guy has apparently spent a hell of a lot of his personal money buying and analysing the shawl.

You want to pay for carbon dating tests, give him a ring!

Or do you think that some ill-defined "they" are always behind these things?

I have to say, Trevor, your responses to having been called-out wrongly accusing a writer of a 'serious failing' in a book you haven't read - (a) it wasn't publicised so how should I have known! and (b) ok so he does cover that area in his book, but why should people naively believe his findings, why don't 'they' get it carbon dated!? - don't look particularly classy from the outside.

So has the shawl conclusively been proved to be victorian from the 1888 period or anywhere near that ?

Perhaps he will spend a bit more of his book sales in confirming the date of the material then, Catch 22 is it not if he does and it is from that time period he may sell more books if its not he might have to pay out on a lot of refunds

[Henry Flower]

Hi Pombo

Welcome. I hope you enjoy yourself here.

On your penultimate point, the police were satisfied that the victims were murdered where they were found.

Hi Pombo. I also think that the fabric is too thin and too light to be of any practical use in transporting corpses, and - though I haven't of course examined it personally - the material doesn't seem to be the kind of absorbent surface you'd want for cleaning a blood-stained knife.

Hence the apron, I guess.

[Phil Carter]

This was something I was going to post myself... I think we all agree that these types of family stories, passed down over the years, tend to mutate, usually becoming more dramatic. Given that that is the case, why are we so hung up on whether or not Simpson was actually in Mitre Square himself? Somehow the article ended up in his possession. Is it not possible simply, that someone took the shawl from the crime scene, and ended up giving it to Simpson?

RH

Hello Rob,

For once we are in agreement.

My grandmother told me very clearly when referring to these murders that

".....there are people in the East End that have woven themselves into the whole thing, one way or another. The actual truth is that it frightened the life out of many many people, and most people just wanted to forget it because it caused nightmares reliving it...excepting those of course who knew how to make a penny or two from it with their stories..."



Phil

[Bridewell]

Yes. The author suggests that the chintz "dress" mentioned by the press was taken by Amos Simpson before the official inventory was compiled, but that the reporters had either seen it in Mitre Square or had been told about it by police officers.

However, the official inventory does include "Chintz Skirt 3 flounces, brown button on waistband, Jagged cut 6 1/2 inches long from waistband, left side of front, Edges slightly Bloodstained, also Blood on bottom, back & front of skirt." [Evans and Skinner, Ultimate Sourcebook, pp. 226, 227]

Am I understanding you correctly here? Is the author claiming that the shawl is synonymous with Eddowes' skirt - that the item belonged to Kosminski but was being worn by Eddowes? Forgive me if I have misunderstood but that's what it looks like.

[Henry Flower]

Perhaps he will spend a bit more of his book sales in confirming the date of the material then, Catch 22 is it not if he does and it is from that time period he may sell more books if its not he might have to pay out on a lot of refunds

Hehe - refunds - that would be a first in Ripper publishing history! I like the idea Trevor

[Phil Carter]

Am I understanding you correctly here? Is the author claiming that the shawl is synonymous with Eddowes' skirt - that the item belonged to Kosminski but was being worn by Eddowes? Forgive me if I have misunderstood but that's what it looks like.

Hello Colin,

Ummm.. this thing is 2ft wide... exactly how would Eddowes have worn this "dress" then? Because being 8ft long and 2ft wide the only way I can see it being worn is like a multi-wrap-around mini-skirt.

I'm sorry... this story is so so so so wrong and silly.

Mr.Edwards..please...IF you are reading this thread.. which doesn't surpise me.. give it until 9th November.. then come clean with a retraction?

It would save you an awful lot of face. IMHO.



Phil

[Gene Lewis]

I always had doubts about the victims having been murdered in the places they were found, assuming Kosminki committed the murder anywhere else and moved the body to the location where it was later found

El pombo: there was a pool of blood next to the body: she was murdered right there...
"Her head was inclined to the left side, her left leg being extended, whilst the right was bent. Both arms were extended. The throat was cut half-way round, revealing a dreadful wound, from which blood had flowed in great quantity, staining the pavement for some distance round. "
Daily News
United Kingdom
1 October 1888

http://www.casebook.org/victims/eddowes.html

[robhouse]

Hello Colin,

Ummm.. this thing is 2ft wide... exactly how would Eddowes have worn this "dress" then? Because being 8ft long and 2ft wide the only way I can see it being worn is like a multi-wrap-around mini-skirt.

It would be worn the way shawls were worn then, around the neck hanging down. How long do you supposed this shawl/stole is? 8 feet?

RH

[Jeff Leahy]

There is no way Aaron Kosminski was involved in any of these murders

I don't wish to bore everyone with a ner nicky ner ner debate.. Rather futile

But what is different about this event is we have a suspect named at the time, probably forwarded by Sir Robert Anderson and named by the deceptive in charge of the case..'Kosminski was the suspect'

This is no crack pot solution like so many before but something that could finally solve a 126 year old mystery should the results prove correct and the Shawl be established to contain Eddows DNA.

There a few who suggest that Eddows wasn't a ripper victim after all?

But more importantly Aaron Kosminkski has slowly become the leading suspect since his discovery by Martin Fido. Its been a long investigative road. With the tenacious work by Paul Begg and tireless research by Rob House. And many others.This is gonna run and run.

Yours Jeff

[Chris]

Am I understanding you correctly here? Is the author claiming that the shawl is synonymous with Eddowes' skirt - that the item belonged to Kosminski but was being worn by Eddowes? Forgive me if I have misunderstood but that's what it looks like.

Not quite. He's suggesting the "shawl" is the "chintz dress" mentioned in the press reports. It's not very clear where exactly it's supposed to have been in relation to the body.

But I'm suggesting - on the contrary - that the "chintz dress" of the press reports is identical with the "chintz skirt" of the police list of Eddowes's clothes.

[Gene Lewis]

Am I understanding you correctly here? Is the author claiming that the shawl is synonymous with Eddowes' skirt - that the item belonged to Kosminski but was being worn by Eddowes? Forgive me if I have misunderstood but that's what it looks like.

YES, that's what I tried to say this morning;
"Hence author claim that Eddowes dress, as described in this article, is actually in fact the shawl/table runner now in his possession"

So what ? Is the shawl indeed Kate's dress, and came with her in Mitre Square, or was brought there by killer, for further purpose ? I lost my way…

What I meant is : how the author may pretend all at once that the so-called shawl was indeed Kate's dress (or skirt) and so actually been present on the inventory, and THE shawl brought by the killer to announce further crime ? Or did I misunderstood the claims ?

[Amanda]

Reputation and retraction

Hi All,
I'm new on here so may be a little behind with the conversation.

Can anyone fill me in on the following:

1. Why would Dr.Louhelainen risk ruining his reputation (and possibly university funding) unless he was 100% sure that the results were foolproof?

2. Has anyone considered that given the dimensions of the shawl/table runner, it might actually be a church altar cloth, the likes of which were used in Edwardian times for Catholic Mass etc?

3. Has there been any reaction from Scotland Yard/ Cold Case detectives as to whether investigation into Mr.Edwards' claims will be undertaken?

Thanks,
Amanda

[Henry Flower]

Why is that mannequin wearing a table runner?

Just what the hell is going on around here?