Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Presumably

    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi All,
    Does anyone know why Amos Simpson remained an Acting Sergeant for seven years?
    Regards,
    Simon
    Presumably because he was never promoted to substantive sergeant.

    Neil might have come across something on the rank structure of the Met in Victorian days but it appears to me that Acting Sergeant was in itself a substantive rank equating with an Army corporal. Simpson wore two stripes as opposed to a full sergeant's three stripes.

    In my day we performed acting sergeant duties with no stripes or anything else to indicate the rank.
    SPE

    Treat me gently I'm a newbie.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Chris View Post
      Judging from the description of this recently developed technique, it might not be hard to date the "shawl" directly:


      The calibration samples used for its development included one from the 1840s.
      Now that does look like an interesting method. Be nice to know what the error is likely to be ie. +/- x years.

      cheers, gryff

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Stewart P Evans View Post
        Presumably because he was never promoted to substantive sergeant.

        Neil might have come across something on the rank structure of the Met in Victorian days but it appears to me that Acting Sergeant was in itself a substantive rank equating with an Army corporal. Simpson wore two stripes as opposed to a full sergeant's three stripes.

        In my day we performed acting sergeant duties with no stripes or anything else to indicate the rank.
        I agree with Stewart,

        I can only conclude he was deemed suitable for the rank, but either failed in his exams, or didn't take them for promotion, happy with his lots as it were. Or was never put forward for promotion, which would be odd, if he was valued.

        Of course, we are assuming Simpsons acting up was continuous, it may not have been.

        It is something which I'm looking at, with the help of Keith Skinner. I hope to have something of substance over the next few weeks, which, of course, I shall release for everyones review.

        Monty
        Monty

        https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

        Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

        http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

        Comment


        • Acting Sergeants

          Originally posted by Monty View Post
          I agree with Stewart,
          I can only conclude he was deemed suitable for the rank, but either failed in his exams, or didn't take them for promotion, happy with his lots as it were. Or was never put forward for promotion, which would be odd, if he was valued.
          Of course, we are assuming Simpsons acting up was continuous, it may not have been.
          It is something which I'm looking at, with the help of Keith Skinner. I hope to have something of substance over the next few weeks, which, of course, I shall release for everyones review.
          Monty
          Constables were selected as acting sergeants on a combination of experience and capability. Again in my day such duties were not permanent but were given when cover was required or a substantive sergeant was on leave etc.

          As I indicated, a photograph of Simpson shows him wearing two stripes and his pension record shows him retiring in the rank, which seems to indicate that it was something more substantive than an occasional duty. A slight increase in salary would also accompany the rank.
          SPE

          Treat me gently I'm a newbie.

          Comment


          • Appointed...

            Simpson's pension record states 'Appointed Act:Sergeant 31st August 1881' and on resignation 'late a Police Acting Sergeant' which again seems to indicate that it was a substantive rank.
            SPE

            Treat me gently I'm a newbie.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Chris View Post
              I suppose the only thing that might argue against it would be the fact that Dr Louhelainen thought the shape of the stains was "consistent with arterial blood spatter caused by slashing". But I don't see that any of the other tests would distinguish.
              I asked the question a while ago, maybe on JTRForums - it seem in another life anyway - if there was, according to Dr Browne at the inquest, 'not a speck of blood' on the front of the clothes, how come there is some on the shawl?

              I also said that maybe Kate got a smack in the mouth at some point - maybe by some bloke in a pub - merely to illustrate that there's a thousand ways her blood (if it is her blood) could get on the shawl.
              Mick Reed

              Whatever happened to scepticism?

              Comment


              • I've been trying to find out when promotion examinations were first introduced but to no avail. For those who don't know there are, in the UK, examinations, the passing of which are mandatory for substantive promotion to the ranks of Sergeant and Inspector, with promotion to Chief Inspector and above being (allegedly! ) purely on merit. The passing of the exam does not guarantee promotion; it is just a hurdle which has to be successfully negotiated in order for it to be possible.

                I suspect (if such promotion exams were already in place) that Amos Simpson, if he was acting up for seven years but never rewarded with substantive promotion, was thought otherwise suitable, but never passed the necessary exam. (So like what Monty said basically!).
                I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

                Comment


                • Hi Stewart and Monty,

                  Thank you.

                  Regards,

                  Simon
                  Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                    I'm bothered by Dr. Jari's statement in the Finnish paper that he was taken advantage of. Are we confident in that translation? Because that's a pretty bold statement.

                    Yours truly,

                    Tom Wescott
                    Well, I posted it on the forum and said that the translation was done by Google Translate, but then Christer, who's Swedish, translated it from the original Swedish (it's a Swedish language, Finnish paper), and confirmed the translation.
                    Mick Reed

                    Whatever happened to scepticism?

                    Comment


                    • Hi Stewart

                      Does that mean that Amos was Acting Sgt when he resigned/retired? He lists himself as a constable in 1891.

                      Comment


                      • This site mentions an educational examination instituted in 1865.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Garry Wroe View Post
                          Dr Brown specifically detailed his failure to find arterial spray on and about the body. He and others also described the pool of blood lying beneath Kate's neck, head and shoulders. One would assume, therefore, that if the shawl was in a position such that it could have been sprayed with arterial blood, it would also have become soaked by the blood that had collected beneath Kate's neck. Yet this is apparently not in evidence on the shawl examined by Dr Jari.

                          Something doesn't add up.

                          Let's assume the shawl/table runner/pot plant holder was at the murder scene, but it was left on the ground by Eddowes or Kosminski, to the side of the act, before the murder began . The item was splashed from a distance and either collected again by Kosminski, assuming it was his bait and trophy item to relive the acts again in private. He then dropped the item in his rush to leave the scene.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Stewart P Evans View Post
                            I am not sure how the auctioneer introduced the shawl, other than quoting the description given in the auction catalogue (...log for US readers), thus -

                            235 A late 19th century brown silk screen printed shawl
                            decorated with Michaelmas daisies [sic], 8ft (with some sections cut out and torn). (illus.)
                            This is Sotheby's? If they dated it to 1902-04, why describe it as late 19th century?

                            Yours truly,

                            Tom Wescott

                            Comment


                            • Where...?

                              Originally posted by Robert View Post
                              Hi Stewart
                              Does that mean that Amos was Acting Sgt when he resigned/retired? He lists himself as a constable in 1891.
                              Where are you quoting this from? His pension record form on resignation states that 'Amos Simpson late a Police Acting Sergeant Resigned from this Division on the Twenty-seventh day of March 1893 with pay to the Twenty-sixth day of March 1893, to which day inclusive he has been paid, and is entitled to a Pension of £54 . 16 . 2 per Annum commencing on the Twenty-seventh day of March 1893.'

                              This also suggests that the acting rank had the effect of increasing his pension sum, otherwise why record it thus?
                              Last edited by Stewart P Evans; 09-16-2014, 03:07 PM.
                              SPE

                              Treat me gently I'm a newbie.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
                                Phil
                                It might help you if you read the book - Edwards explains that he favoured Deeming because of the Liverpool connection. As for Aaron Kosminski, before he bought the "shawl" he spoke to the curator of the Crime Museum who told him that the police had always known that the identity of Jack the Ripper was Aaron Kosminski.
                                Seems like every high profile book begins with a trip to Scotland Yard where some numb skull gives his personal theory as hard evidence. Cornwell, and now Edwards. At least this time it was a real suspect, albeit sold as the bonafide proven Ripper with secret documents to back it up.

                                Yours truly,

                                Tom Wescott

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X