Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Poch]

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

Right, I think I remember Edwards actually mentioning something like this vaguely in the book too. I got the impression to be honest, that although there are some leaps and occasionally Edwards' theory comes across as fairly flimsy, the whole book hinges enitirely on the science and Edwards knows this. If you accept the science and IF in time, that science was proven correct, you essentially have to accept the conclusion and then perhaps fluff out and postulate the "smaller" details of the theory.

If I could make a suggestion, I don't think it's a bad idea to make a new thread with some of the more common questions answered in the OP, becuase I still see people asking the same questions over and over and using certain elements to 'disprove' this theory which are not true and it seems to persist, examples being the ownership of the shawl, the dating, Amos etc. etc. It might help to keep the discussion on track at least?

[anna]

Oh dear.....

Not a very convincing interview on The Alan Titchmarsh Show ITV @ 3pm for those who want to catch it on catch up.. with Mr Edwards on his table runner/shawl just now..

I was annoyed that there was no established Ripperologist there to answer his claims..everything he said was taken as fact.

And not a table runner/shawl in sight...just some film of them testing it.

I would think those that cannot get this show,might find the interview on You Tube later on.

[robhouse]

Can someone clarify the basis for referring to this thing as a table runner? Is there any proof of this at all? Or is it just the size, because if that is it, I think it just shows that people do not know what they are talking about.

RH

[Henry Flower]

I was annoyed that there was no established Ripperologist there to answer his claims..everything he said was taken as fact.

Er, Anna..... it was Titchmarsh.

[Henry Flower]

Can someone clarify the basis for referring to this thing as a table runner? Is there any proof of this at all? Or is it just the size, because if that is it, I think it just shows that people do not know what they are talking about.

RH

Circling the bandwagons.

[eddie1]

Can someone clarify the basis for referring to this thing as a table runner? Is there any proof of this at all? Or is it just the size, because if that is it, I think it just shows that people do not know what they are talking about.

RH

Think its mainly the size but also that apparenlty it was said to be Edwardian because it was screen printed someone said think it was sotherbys. But according to research by Edwards its not screen printed. So its looking like that information was inaccurate

[Bridewell]

Everyone in the UK.....Edwards coming up on Alan Titchmarsh show on ITV now...talking about JTR/ "shawl"

Thanks, Anna. Not a long interview. Mr Edwards spoke in absolutes and sounds confident, "I'm saying it's definite. Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper".

His knowledge seemed a little lacking though but that could be nerves in fairness. Said the head of the investigation at the time named three suspects. Also alluded to the witness who saw the 3rd murder having been involved in the identification but refused to testify. That would be Schwartz, presumably, but the newspaper report alluded to Lavender (sic).

He seemed very sure of himself. He's going to emerge as either world famous or a laughing stock. I actually hope he's right, if only because upwards of 200 people who've previously been accused of the Eddowes murder would be exonerated.

[robhouse]

Think its mainly the size but also that apparenlty it was said to be Edwardian because it was screen printed someone said think it was sotherbys. But according to research by Edwards its not screen printed. So its looking like that information was inaccurate

Yeah, looks like the point about the size is wrong too, since shawls from earlier in the 19th century and later were frequently this size, or longer. I read one source that said 2 feed was a pretty standard width. I also noted a post that said an item like this wouldn't be particularly expensive, especially if it was an older, used piece.

RH

[Outlaw]

Yes i know but I thought pics might be easier for some to understand than the written word which some seem to having problems with understanding

An excellent analogy

[eddie1]

If the science all checks out OK the only thing that really is knocking this theory is putting the shawl at the crime scene.

[Mycroftacd]

reply

I think there would be a lot more practical difficulties than you're suggesting.

But in any case, according to the book Dr Louhelainen extracted the material from the region of the possible semen stains in Autumn 2012. That was the material that was later compared with the sample from Aaron Kozminski's relation. That sample wasn't obtained until the following year.

Similarly, the material that was compared with Karen Miller's DNA appears to have been extracted from the shawl before Russell Edwards contacted her (though the dates are not entirely clear from the book).

True and I am just speculating with the information that I've read here but given the nature of mDNA I don't believe it beyond the realm of possibility. Consider, it would require research in both their families and their matrinial dessent but this would be required in any case. Also the samples obtained from Kozminksi relation and Miss Miller do not have to be the ones deposited on the "shawl". Any of their families that meet the required DNA profile will do. After you have identified the relations of Kozminksi and Eddowes that do share their mDNA you have to get it but that could be done with or without their knowledge and consent. It could be done as simply as bashing the unknowing relative over the back of the head while he or she is out one evening quickly swabbing the inside of their cheek while he or she is unconsious pocketing their valuables for later disposal and walking away. It could have been gotten through a ruse of some kind or through knowing colution. After that again all that would be required would be a minite or two alone with the "shawl" before it was turned over to the good Dr. to be tested. Given the motive I don't think any of this is impossible.
The motive I think speaks for itself. The means, research, while I'll give you that it is a large research problem. Consider, any signifigate fraction of the 750,000 pounds he said he spent will get quite a lot of research. Consider also, the amount of research that went into the last piece of "new evidence" the Maybrick "diary". The amount of research put by whoever manufactured it into it is staggering. Period materials, ink, penmanship, the inter workings of the Maybrick family, addictions, the list. It makes the research problems of researching two families seem small IMO. Oppertunity, I don't know. I haven't seen how long he had it in his possession before he submitted it for testing. It wasn't clear to me if the earlier inconclusive DNA test was for him or former owner. But unless it can be shown he was never alone with the "shawl" between when he got it and when he gave it for testing, then the possibility remains. And he had and has a large motive for doing so.
Thanks for the reply Chris.

[Jeff Leahy]

Can someone clarify the basis for referring to this thing as a table runner? Is there any proof of this at all? Or is it just the size, because if that is it, I think it just shows that people do not know what they are talking about.

RH

Hi Rob

I believe Adam Wood did make a post some way back confirming the origin. It appears I muddled the story a little.

But basically the Shawl was taken to an expert (I beleive at Victoria and Albert Museum) They dated the pattern as a screen Print and thus Edwardian as this process didn't start until then..I though I was told 1902-04 but I think Adam was saying it started 1910.

Who ever made that examination claimed it was probably a table runner as they were fashionable in that period.

It pretty much became perceived wisdom therefore that the Shawl could not be genuine. That was certainly the information I received from most experts in the field of ripperology.

What Russel Edwards appears to have discovered is that the daisies are not screen printed but hand painted. Given this its possible the original ID was correct but also possible that the shawl is much older. I guess because that seems to be incorrect its possible to question whether it actually is a table runner..

However in essence we are looking at a long piece of material. Its exact age and usage now appears open to question..

If Adam or Andy Aliffe are reading this it might by useful to know who exactly made that original examination and call on the screen printing.

Yours Jeff

[Phil Carter]

I have now seen suggestions it may be an old fashioned Jewish Prayer Shawl.


How to tie in Kosminski competition. Write your answer on the back of a postcard and address it to ...nah... on the other hand...don't bother.



Phil

[robhouse]

If the science all checks out OK the only thing that really is knocking this theory is putting the shawl at the crime scene.

If the science checks out then there are only two options, as far as I see it:

1. The shawl was at the crime scene in Mitre Square, and Kozminski was the Ripper.
2. Willful and deliberate fraud by both the author and Dr. Louhelainen.

So at this point, I don't really see any sense in continuing to debate until the scientific results are reviewed and either verified or shown to be in error.

RH

[Jeff Leahy]

2. Willful and deliberate fraud by both the author and Dr. Louhelainen.
RH

This seems most unlikely as the Shawl was well document before Mr Edwards purchased it indeed it had appeared at conferences. Its unlikely a respected scientist would risk his reputation..

Can we just say the possibility of error on the Dr Louhelainens part?

The key discovery here appears to be that the daisies are not silk screened but painted. That would appear to be Mr Edwards discovery.

Yours Jeff