If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Thanks for replying, I was just curious. I know that different people put different weight on science claims, for me this book isn't enough, for others it might be and for some, nothing would do it for them. I just wondered where that would lay for you, as someone who has put so much into this.
Like Neil Bell said elsewhere, most Ripperologists would not be pissed at someone solving the case. We'd welcome it! But it's the truth we're after, not another shoddy final solution. Those don't impress because there have been so many. A number of people genuinely believe the Diary was legit and the science used to prop that up was, to their minds, definitive. Alas, the Diary was a fake. That's borne out by the internal evidence...what's actually written in it! The science was wrong. In the case of the shawl, we have yet another piece of 'evidence' that wasn't known to have existed until recent years, and once again those with a financial interest are telling us it's the 'final solution'. Ditto Cornwell. All three of these cases have things in common: 1) Someone with a lot of money invested, 2) People who genuinely believe in their own theory, 3) Items being tested that have horrendous provenance, and 4) Questionable science.
The ONE THING this latest craze has going for it is a genuine Ripper suspect.
I think it's very likely that the shawl came from a notorious crime scene. Can anyone think of another reason why the family of a policeman would treasure a piece of old material stained with blood and semen?
The story of Simpson being given permission by his superiors to take the shawl is clearly absurd. And the chances of his being able to remove it from Mitre Square are next to zero. I suppose it could have been found anywhere on the night of Eddowes murder and been connected to that event. But If found in Goulstone street it's connection would have been a certainty. And it would have been found by a Met policeman was dismissed from the force shortly afterwards.
No evidence of course, but as a theory it has fewer holes than the family story.
MrB
Yes , a lot more plausible MrB . Only thing is , if another policeman found it by the apron before Long came along , surly the kudos of making the discovery would have been a greater gratification ? but I do think your on the right tracks regarding maybe a different murder or even location .. We know how victim names and murder locals got muddled up occasionally , even by those in charge .
Thomas Neill Cream. Sorry but I can't post the photo on here as I have one time publication rights on it. The photo has never been published before & belongs to the Musee McCord.
I've been researching his past for a long time (NOT as a Ripper suspect) and have a vast collection of his portraits.
Here's a thought experiment for you. If Aaron had carried such a cloth about--and to each murder--surely at least one other person would have noticed and remarked the fact?
Cheers.
LC
What if it was folded and wrapped up in newspaper , and carried as a package ?
One reason there could have been confusion between a shawl and a skirt?
It said it had three flouces. I have been finding hard to understand what a flounce is.......
Pat.................
Hi Paddy,
No expert by any means, but to my amateur costuming mind a "flounce" is an extra layer of fabric gathered around the skirt to add fullness. In this illustration, the back of the skirt below the bustle shows two flounces that do not go all the way around to the front.
Regarding The Blessed Sir Robert Anderson I have read Martin Fido. I have read Paul Begg. I have read Martin Fido extolling Paul Begg, and I have read Paul Begg extolling Martin Fido. And I have also read the newly-anointed Donald Swanson and his holy scripture.
Frankly, between all of them, it's bullshit.
Regards,
Simon
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.
" He also found evidence of split body parts during the frenzied attack. One of Eddowes’ kidneys was removed by her murderer, and later in his research Jari managed to identify the presence of what he believed to be a kidney cell."
So did the killer place her organs on the shawl first ? and if so , why cut the apron and switch carriers ?
The skirt Eddowes was wearing with the Michaelmas daisy design was clearly a SKIRT not a draped shawl right down to the evidence listing it having a brown button on the waistband. Flounces are large ruffles, usually several inches in width which could go part way around (probably giving fullness in the back as was the fashion at the time) or occasionally going all the way around the skirt.
I have been looking at Michaelmas daisies as a design element in the Victorian period and it looks very much like they were fairly popular. For us Yanks, they are also known as asters. William Morris used them as a design as early as 1864 so they wouldn't necessarily have been rare or unusual to find as a pattern in a woman's clothing.
The skirt Eddowes was wearing with the Michaelmas daisy design was clearly a SKIRT not a draped shawl right down to the evidence listing it having a brown button on the waistband. Flounces are large ruffles, usually several inches in width which could go part way around (probably giving fullness in the back as was the fashion at the time) or occasionally going all the way around the skirt.
Yes - the description of the chintz skirt in the inventory clearly precludes it being the same as the "shawl".
(Russell Edwards suggests the chintz dress in the press reports is different from the chintz skirt in the inventory, but I think they are clearly identical.)
Quoting from the abstract:
The terms psychopath and sociopath are often used interchangeably, but there appears to be some hesitance by researchers in the many disciplines comprising criminology to continue this trend. The problem seems to be that as research has advanced in studies of psychopathy, which is the more common of the two terms, psychopathy now commands a much more specific definition, and this is what alienates it from its estranged cousin, sociopathy.
Last edited by christoper; 09-12-2014, 01:37 PM.
Reason: sp
Comment