Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Jeff Leahy]

Before applying your refreshingly original brand of common sense, it would help if you understood what Fido actually said, which obviousl was not that a good Christian would never lie.

I have tried explaining this but most people just don't seem to understand Martins premise..

Even less seem to understand SRA

ironically we have pork pies here for breakfast...

Many thanks Jeff

[Theagenes]

Researchers need broad knowledge, even if most of it is shallow. A little bit of knowledge about one thing may be dangerous, but a little bit of knowledge about a whole bunch of stuff can allow you to spout off about just about anything, to a limited extent.

This is a modern table runner, but they've been around forever:
http://www.hm.com/us/product/23184?a...FccRMwodRmAAUA
Note the way the panels are arranged, with matching ends that are strongly patterned and a center section that is more subdued so it does not detract from the centerpiece. That one is smaller, for a smaller table. The fully-assembled "shawl" was sized for an 8' table, with the patterned ends hanging over the table like this:

http://www.ziva-needlepoint-designs.com/images/chestnut-runner-on-table.jpg

Did the people at Liverpool actually call it a shawl, or was that word put in their mouths? Table runners don't need to be washed so color-non-fastness would not be a problem. Over-the-shoulder evening shawls are usually a foot* or two shorter than the complete "shawl" was, and the symmetrical layout is more diagnostic of a table runner. However, this is not to say that Ms Eddowes, or someone else, could not have used it as a shawl to dress up some, and it's a handsome cloth.


* - Remember that this was 1888, the height of the British Empire, and the units used were Imperial, by God! Not that damned French system.

Actually the Liverpool people did not -- they were focused specifically on the dye. However, according to Edwards' experts at Christie's and Sotheby's did identify as a shawl and Swiss shawl expert and dealer Diane Thalmann was quote referring to it as a shawl: "I am fairly sure this shawl is early 1800s" (Edwards Ch. 9)

A quick look on Thalmann's site shows several "long" shawls like Edwards' with similar patterns and similar dimensions. Take a look this silk shawl (30" x 10") from Spitalfields c 1815 and tell me whether or not Edwards' shawl looks more like this or one of the modern table runners you posted:

http://www.antique-textiles.net/shaw...ds_floral.html

A quick google search shows that these "long" shawls are less common than the square ones that more people are familiar with, but there are plenty of them out there. And the ones from mid-19th century and earlier would have had to be natural dyes and would have had to have been kept from getting wet. I have found shawls with natural dyes as recent as the 1920s though, so that may not be a reliable dating method.

As Jeff pointed out, he is the one who started the Edwardian table runner thing in this thread and it was based his recollections of what was told to him, which he admits may have been a faulty recollection. But in their zeal to dismiss this shawl at all costs, there are many here who take spurious bits of information like this and repeat them over and over until they become "conventional wisdom."

Likewise the idea that mtDNA always means that it could be 400,000 people -- Trevor actually told this nonsense to a newspaper!

Or quoting the screwball Amazon reviewer that Edwards had the relatives DNA samples in hand before Jari tested the shawl.

That was my larger point -- and Amanda I don't mean to pick on you because a lot of people have been doing this. People here are very quick to run with spurious information if backs their position. All I'm asking is that you all utilize the same level of scrutiny on the evidence that supports your arguments as on the evidence that contradicts it.

And quite frankly I don't like being in the position of having to defend Edwards poorly-written tabloid book, but I feel like someone needs to play devil's advocate in this place.

[Amanda]

Spurious Information

Actually the Liverpool people did not -- they were focused specifically on the dye. However, according to Edwards' experts at Christie's and Sotheby's did identify as a shawl and Swiss shawl expert and dealer Diane Thalmann was quote referring to it as a shawl: "I am fairly sure this shawl is early 1800s" (Edwards Ch. 9)

A quick look on Thalmann's site shows several "long" shawls like Edwards' with similar patterns and similar dimensions. Take a look this silk shawl (30" x 10") from Spitalfields c 1815 and tell me whether or not Edwards' shawl looks more like this or one of the modern table runners you posted:

http://www.antique-textiles.net/shaw...ds_floral.html

A quick google search shows that these "long" shawls are less common than the square ones that more people are familiar with, but there are plenty of them out there. And the ones from mid-19th century and earlier would have had to be natural dyes and would have had to have been kept from getting wet. I have found shawls with natural dyes as recent as the 1920s though, so that may not be a reliable dating method.

As Jeff pointed out, he is the one who started the Edwardian table runner thing in this thread and it was based his recollections of what was told to him, which he admits may have been a faulty recollection. But in their zeal to dismiss this shawl at all costs, there are many here who take spurious bits of information like this and repeat them over and over until they become "conventional wisdom."

Likewise the idea that mtDNA always means that it could be 400,000 people -- Trevor actually told this nonsense to a newspaper!

Or quoting the screwball Amazon reviewer that Edwards had the relatives DNA samples in hand before Jari tested the shawl.

That was my larger point -- and Amanda I don't mean to pick on you because a lot of people have been doing this. People here are very quick to run with spurious information if backs their position. All I'm asking is that you all utilize the same level of scrutiny on the evidence that supports your arguments as on the evidence that contradicts it.

And quite frankly I don't like being in the position of having to defend Edwards poorly-written tabloid book, but I feel like someone needs to play devil's advocate in this place.

Hello Theagenes,

Spurious Information? ! Well, thanks a lot!

I have been very clear in my posts that the information I find can be taken however the reader finds most useful. In some posts I have written ..."This May not be relevant but....".

I may be a 'Cadet' on this site but I have undertaken historical research for over 20 years and have a proven track record in unearthing information that has not previously been made public. Some very experienced people on the forum have been most generous in their comments towards my input, for which I am honoured.
Perhaps you would like every piece of new information to go through your 'filter' first so that you can personally decide whether you feel it is worthwhile to be posted or not.

Nobody needs to play Devils Advocate on here, we're all just supposed to be having a professional adult debate/discussion.

If anyone else would like to send me a message telling me that my information is 'spurious' please go ahead & I'll be happy to quit the site.

On a final note to my 'spuriousness' , Theagenes, did you know that Amos Simpson's wife worked for a prominent Jewish family before you read my research?

Amanda

P.S. While you ponder whether it's a shawl or a table runner, I will confidently say neither. But won't share my findings in case they are even more 'spurious'.

[MrBarnett]

Are we allowed to call it a shawl now and not a 'shawl' ?

[Amanda]

Hi Mr.B,

From my findings it's neither a shawl nor a 'shawl'.

Sorry if I'm being secretive, blame Theagenes. My hackles are still up!

Amanda

[Chris]

Hello Theagenes,

Spurious Information? ! Well, thanks a lot!

I think Theagenes meant the person posting as Amanda Sumner, not you!

[Amanda]

We'll....

I think Theagenes meant the person posting as Amanda Sumner, not you!

Well, on behalf of both of us it was uncalled for.

Amanda

[Jeff Leahy]

We appear to have a piece of material approx eight foot by two.

With hand painted flowers.

Mr Edwards appears to have had it looked at by Sutherby's who have dated it as early nineteenth century probably a Shawl.

Previous wisdom was that the shawl was Screen printed, hence it was previously thought to be Edwardian and thus most likely a table runner.

The Amos Family always gave the same story. That it was handed down from Amos Simpson and was the Shawl of Cathrine Eddows. They believed he was in Mitre Square on the night of the murder, I believe.

It seems improbable from research that Simpson was actually in the square on the night of the murder given the research by credible ripperologists like Monty..

It appears to contain arterial blood from Cathrine Eddows given a good percentage match to a decedent. As I understood from Colin Roberts.

So thats where i think we are at present…all still somewhat of a mystery. But a different position to perceived wisdom on the subject before Russell Edwards book as I understand

Yours Jeff

[Fisherman]

Are we allowed to call it a shawl now and not a 'shawl' ?

"Yes".

Fisherman

[Theagenes]

Hello Theagenes,

Spurious Information? ! Well, thanks a lot!

I have been very clear in my posts that the information I find can be taken however the reader finds most useful. In some posts I have written ..."This May not be relevant but....".

I may be a 'Cadet' on this site but I have undertaken historical research for over 20 years and have a proven track record in unearthing information that has not previously been made public. Some very experienced people on the forum have been most generous in their comments towards my input, for which I am honoured.
Perhaps you would like every piece of new information to go through your 'filter' first so that you can personally decide whether you feel it is worthwhile to be posted or not.

Nobody needs to play Devils Advocate on here, we're all just supposed to be having a professional adult debate/discussion.

If anyone else would like to send me a message telling me that my information is 'spurious' please go ahead & I'll be happy to quit the site.

On a final note to my 'spuriousness' , Theagenes, did you know that Amos Simpson's wife worked for a prominent Jewish family before you read my research?

Amanda

P.S. While you ponder whether it's a shawl or a table runner, I will confidently say neither. But won't share my findings in case they are even more 'spurious'.

The idea that this item is a table runner is indeed spurious. It originated from what appears to be a faulty recollection on the part of Jeff of something that was told to him years ago. This dubious "fact" was repeated over and over in this thread until it effectively became a meme -- even after it was essentially debunked by Adam Wood and Jeff himself.

I didn't say you were spurious nor did I mean to criticize your research. I very much apologize if it sounded like I was attacking you personally as that was certainly not my intent. I was just using your post as an example to point out a larger problem with this whole discussion in general.

[Theagenes]

I think Theagenes meant the person posting as Amanda Sumner, not you!

Yes, I think it was Amanda Sumner who was still repeating the table runner meme. But as I said I didn't intend for that to come across as a personal attack at all. I was just trying to point out that larger problem of repeating dubious information until it becomes accepted as conventional wisdom.

[Amanda]

Goodbye

The idea that this item is a table runner is indeed spurious. It originated from what appears to be a faulty recollection on the part of Jeff of something that was told to him years ago. This dubious "fact" was repeated over and over in this thread until it effectively became a meme -- even after it was essentially debunked by Adam Wood and Jeff himself.

I didn't say you were spurious nor did I mean to criticize your research. I very much apologize if it sounded like I was attacking you personally as that was certainly not my intent. I was just using your post as an example to point out a larger problem with this whole discussion in general.

Hi Theagenes,

What a back-handed apology. You 'did not mean to criticise my research' but you were 'using my post as an example'.

I know the idea of this 'thing' being a table runner is a bit far-fetched - but 'spurious' no, until we know for sure exactly what is is, no idea is 'spurious'(which yes I know, means false or fake). You are using the English language in an inappropriate context here.

Notice you didn't pick up on my 'P.S' note that I might actually have found out exactly what the bloody thing is, so I'll keep that gem to myself.
Forum might just gave lost a damned good researcher.

Amanda

[Theagenes]

Hi Theagenes,

What a back-handed apology. You 'did not mean to criticise my research' but you were 'using my post as an example'.

I know the idea of this 'thing' being a table runner is a bit far-fetched - but 'spurious' no, until we know for sure exactly what is is, no idea is 'spurious'(which yes I know, means false or fake). You are using the English language in an inappropriate context here.

Notice you didn't pick up on my 'P.S' note that I might actually have found out exactly what the bloody thing is, so I'll keep that gem to myself.
Forum might just gave lost a damned good researcher.

Amanda

Amanda, let me clear then. I am sorry. I should have used someone else as an example -- like Trevor or Lynn who are far more egregious in repeating dubious (better than spurious?) information until it becomes accepted.

Your post just happened to pop up at point where I was getting frustrated at still seeing the table runner repeated.

[lynn cates]

thread

Hello Theagenes. Were it not for dubious information, surely this thread would not exist?

Cheers.
LC

[Theagenes]

Hello Theagenes. Were it not for dubious information, surely this thread would not exist?

Cheers.
LC

Touche.