Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[lynn cates]

study

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

Well, if he had REALLY studied the case, perhaps he'd know the details better?

Be that as it may, none of us ought to over egg--as he has clearly done.

Cheers.
LC

[Caligo Umbrator]

Actually I got in quite a lot of stick on these boards for suggesting exactly that and understand Patricia has another book due for release next year.

If your saying 'Caseclosed' based on what we currently seem to know is 'a little premature'. I'm vary much in agreement with you.

Re: Caligo. Many thanks for the information you are supplying which answers many of my questions. Before screen printing we have Roller printing (Not that I understand this process even though I did a A level in Printing many years ago….and my family were fleet street printers.

And we have woodblock printing. Presumably this would be a similar to a process I did at A level called 'Lyno' printing but in wood?

Many thanks

Jeff

Hi, Jeff.
Yes Lino and woodblock are similar in effect. With some of the blocks I had in my collection (before I sold them to raise cash for my move to the USA), I had three blocks that were clearly intended to be printed upon each other - that is to say one after the other but placed in the same position upon the material - producing a mutli-colour print by hand, as it were. Sadly they weren't Golden Lily and Michaelmas Daisies, just early takes on the still familiar Paisley pattern.
As far as regionalising the design of the shawl, all I can say is I have lived in eastern Europe ( Poland and the Czech republic) for a few years and this looks like nothing I'd expect from there - I also traveled in western and southern Europe and to me, it has an more of an Anglicised Italian look to it than anything else. But then that would place it in the 1860's which is probably too late for the basic form it takes ( 2x8ft ).
Over to you.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

Well, if he had REALLY studied the case, perhaps he'd know the details better?

Be that as it may, none of us ought to over egg--as he has clearly done.

Cheers.LC

Um.. The problem is Lynn I know lots of people who have studied the case. And many of them don't agree about a hell of a lot…

Its all a matter of personal perspective to some extent.

Its great when people bring personal expertise in specific areas but as I said ripperology is a Jack trade.

I run off topic... sorry

Jeff

[PaulB]

Hey Jeff

Normally, your plea to 'cut the man some slack' would fall on fertile ground with me. After all, it's only by following up idea and formulating theories that progress is made in any field of research.

But... RE has gone out on such a limb of utter certainty, saying in effect, 'this cannot be gainsaid; there is nothing further to add to what I/we have discovered; the case is solved, no ifs, no buts'.

Given such outrageous arrogance, then slack should not be offered.

Either he really believes his own publicity, in which case, an 'I believe this to be true' might - just - earn a bit of slack; or he doesn't believe it in which case he's a money-grubbing charlatan and deserves all he gets.

Now, I believe he's probably the former and actually believes this stuff, but he still needs to tone it down a bit.

He's not the first to make claims of this kind, Cornwell, and quite a few more. I didn't notice them getting a lot of slack cut.

Which doesn't mean they shouldn't have been.

Actually, I don't think it is arrogant to have faith in what one believes. I don't actually see much wrong in being totally convinced of something and saying so as loudly as one likes. Providing, of course, one is sincere in that conviction. But just because someone thinks he's wrong or premature in what he's said then I have to say that I don't think attacking his business, or libelling him as a hoaxer, fraud, charlatan, or whatever, or attributing to him motives there is no evidence that he has, or rubbishing his work and book without having read it, comes within sniffing distance of justifiable criticism.

[Theagenes]

Hi, Theagenes.
I can only say that when i and other dealers used the term 'Spitafields' when referring to material, we were meaning that it was woven design, rather than printed and that it is a higher quality of item. At least that's what we meant 15 years ago. I haven't been involved much in the trade since then.
Sometime in the late 1820's, in England, the law was changed to allow for French imports of material and clothing. In reply to that change and so as to remain viable in competition to such imports, the methods of manufacture previously adhered to by major cotten and silk centers in England changed and allowed this for a significant decrease in the overall quality of middle class clothing goods.
So sometimes when a dealer states that a shawl is a 'Spitafields shawl' he or she is referring to the quality and date of manufacture as well as the process. It is not necessarily that the item in question can provably be placed in that particular location for manufacture, just that it conforms to the criteria in terms of quality, date and country of manufacture.

Got you and thanks again for contributing this information. So you're thinking then that this probably dates to that period just after the change in the law, when the quality started to decline?

And I guess it's safe to assume that feel pretty confident that this is in fact a 19th century shawl and not a table runner or some other object?

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi, Jeff.
Yes Lino and woodblock are similar in effect. With some of the blocks I had in my collection (before I sold them to raise cash for my move to the USA), I had three blocks that were clearly intended to be printed upon each other - that is to say one after the other but placed in the same position upon the material - producing a mutli-colour print by hand, as it were. Sadly they weren't Golden Lily and Michaelmas Daisies, just early takes on the still familiar Paisley pattern.
As far as regionalising the design of the shawl, all I can say is I have lived in eastern Europe ( Poland and the Czech republic) for a few years and this looks like nothing I'd expect from there - I also traveled in western and southern Europe and to me, it has an more of an Anglicised Italian look to it than anything else. But then that would place it in the 1860's which is probably too late for the basic form it takes ( 2x8ft ).
Over to you.

I can't add much to that. I am aware that Lyno printing can be quite sophisticated if you get the registration correct. In fact I've seen Lyno Prints and you won't be able to tell by site they weren't screen prints.

Also I've got a guy creating some large cavarses for our new front room (we were flooded at Xmas) He's using a simple projection process… and given some of the TV programs on the Shraud of Turnin I presume projection was possible.. He projects an image making it larger and paints over the top..pretty neat.

Also there was another method at college called Litho -printing

And if my Prince Rupert History serves me well he invented a process called Mizo-tyne printing (May have spelling wrong) This was an etching process using metal and acid I believe. But that would post-date 1645 probably reformation. But this process as far as I'm aware was used for painted prints.

Don't know if any of that adds anything. What I'd really like to know is what the previous experts quoted in the A to Z believed.

Yours Jeff

[Garry Wroe]

What Garry Wroe said originally was that Dr Louhelainen "used this mtDNA match as the basis for assuming that the shawl had been present at the Mitre Square crime scene".

And was I correct?

Yes - he did initially say that, during the interview.

Thought so.

But then he [Dr Jari] went on to explain explicitly that there were other possibilities, and that he only considered the suggested scenario the most plausible.

And that is precisely what was under discussion – what Dr Jari considered to be the most plausible. What’s more, Dr Jari didn’t exactly volunteer the supplementary information that has so excited you. He conceded it whilst under some fairly searching questioning. It’s hardly the same thing.

People can argue with that - I would argue with it myself. But what people shouldn't do is misrepresent Dr Louhelainen's views by omitting all mention of his statement that - from a scientific point of view - there were other possible explanations of the evidence.

I’ve misrepresented nothing. I even included the quote from Dr Jari: ‘Russell is showing the circumstantial evidence which is linked to this case. So everything is possible. You can break down any case like this. But we think that we have the most plausible scene that has happened presented in the book.’ (My emphasis.)

Everything is possible – an unambiguous acknowledgement by Dr Jari that there are other possibilities. So where’s your argument?

Since then Garry Wroe has similarly omitted Dr Lohelainen's statement that his estimate of the age of the stains could only be a vague one.

Really? Another omission? Well, here’s the post in question:-

Dr Jari stated in the BBC radio interview, John, that he illuminated the stains with forensic lighting and gained the impression that they weren't of recent origin. The blood, he thought, looked like it might have been contemporaneous with the murders.

Here, Chris, I’ve emphasized those areas of vagueness which you claim I omitted. Other posters are free to draw their own conclusions regarding the validity of your allegation.

I'm not quite sure why he should be making Dr Louhelainen the target of this kind of tactics, but I don't think it's particularly fair, as he's not here to respond.

Well, since you got so much else wrong it comes as no great surprise that you concluded with more of the same. Maybe you ought to consider your previous Dr Jari misquotation (as noted by Helena) before next casting aspersions against another poster.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi. Jeff.
I guess we are getting a little of topic in some sense.
The Mezzotint, as I recall, was devised just a bit before Prince Rupert came along but he certainly had something to do with its popularity n England. I have a couple of mezzotints in my collection today. One is a rather uninspiring Welsh ruined abbey, the other an indoor scene.
However the mezzotint cannot really be utilised for printing on fabric other that paper.
When I was at university I did play with lino printing but kept cutting my fingers and found that reverse mono-prints were most favorable to the style of image I wished to convey. They are more stark of the line and more subtly inclined towards the shading, if the original drawing is good enough to support it.
I have the A-Z but it is an old edition. If you can provide me with an excerpt or quotation then perhaps I can assist with that.
Your, Caligo.

[Chris]

Garry Wroe

Suffice it to say that in your original post you didn't say any of those things you're now talking about - all that that came only after I challenged you. In your original post there was only this bald statement:
In his BBC radio interview Dr Jari described how he ‘authenticated’ the shawl. He compared the mtDNA derived from one of Kate’s descendants to that contained within a presumed bloodstain on the shawl, uncovered a match, and from there used this mtDNA match as the basis for assuming that the shawl had been present at the Mitre Square crime scene.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=309285&postcount=2595

You misrepresented what Dr Louhelainen had said then, and now you're misrepresenting what I've posted here.

[The Good Michael]

Actually, I don't think it is arrogant to have faith in what one believes. I don't actually see much wrong in being totally convinced of something and saying so as loudly as one likes. Providing, of course, one is sincere in that conviction. But just because someone thinks he's wrong or premature in what he's said then I have to say that I don't think attacking his business, or libelling him as a hoaxer, fraud, charlatan, or whatever, or attributing to him motives there is no evidence that he has, or rubbishing his work and book without having read it, comes within sniffing distance of justifiable criticism.

Paul, I hear what you're saying, but there are times when what one is shouting out can be seen as delusional, with the absolute faith that often comes with delusion. Yeah, no need to rubbish the work of someone who absolutely believes what they are saying, delusion or not, because it doesn't do any good. But someone who might be sticking fingers in his ears to drown out the sounds of things he doesn't want to hear, knowing that could make his findings less than probable, in committing fraud by negligence if there is such a thing. I don't know what the case is here with Edwards. I'm just saying there are times when people should be called on there nonsense, and especially when looking at historical situations.

Mike

[Observer]

Which doesn't mean they shouldn't have been.

Actually, I don't think it is arrogant to have faith in what one believes. I don't actually see much wrong in being totally convinced of something and saying so as loudly as one likes. Providing, of course, one is sincere in that conviction. But just because someone thinks he's wrong or premature in what he's said then I have to say that I don't think attacking his business, or libelling him as a hoaxer, fraud, charlatan, or whatever, or attributing to him motives there is no evidence that he has, or rubbishing his work and book without having read it, comes within sniffing distance of justifiable criticism.

Hear hear. Well said.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Garry Wroe

Suffice it to say that in your original post you didn't say any of those things you're now talking about - all that that came only after I challenged you. In your original post there was only this bald statement:
In his BBC radio interview Dr Jari described how he ‘authenticated’ the shawl. He compared the mtDNA derived from one of Kate’s descendants to that contained within a presumed bloodstain on the shawl, uncovered a match, and from there used this mtDNA match as the basis for assuming that the shawl had been present at the Mitre Square crime scene.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=309285&postcount=2595

You misrepresented what Dr Louhelainen had said then, and now you're misrepresenting what I've posted here.

Chris,
EEK!

Are you saying that he, in effect, reverse engineered the mDNA match?

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi. Jeff.
I guess we are getting a little of topic in some sense.
The Mezzotint, as I recall, was devised just a bit before Prince Rupert came along but he certainly had something to do with its popularity n England. I have a couple of mezzotints in my collection today. One is a rather uninspiring Welsh ruined abbey, the other an indoor scene.
However the mezzotint cannot really be utilised for printing on fabric other that paper.
When I was at university I did play with lino printing but kept cutting my fingers and found that reverse mono-prints were most favorable to the style of image I wished to convey. They are more stark of the line and more subtly inclined towards the shading, if the original drawing is good enough to support it.
I have the A-Z but it is an old edition. If you can provide me with an excerpt or quotation then perhaps I can assist with that.
Your, Caligo.

EDDOWS SHAWL

A rectangle of silk with flower print, long enough to make a wrap. Uncertainly dated by fabric experts as late nineteenth or early twentieth century. Property of descendants of PC AmosSimpson.In 1988, they cut out and framed two pieces which are displayed, first in thetford video shop and then in Clactonantique dealers. On the back of the frame is the inscription.

Two silk samples taken from Catrine Eddows shawl at the discovery of her body by Constable Amos Simpson in 1888 (end September) victim of Jack the Ripper.
Arabella Vincent (Fine Art)
Hand-made illustration Mounts
UK Studio, Tel Clacton
Surface printed silk
Circa 1886
Framed 100 years to the day
Vincent

In September 1991, the main part of the shawl was donated to Scotland Yard Crime Museum (the Black Museum) and reclaimed by the family in September 1997.Then, in June 2006, it was subjected to expert examination- in particular for possible DNA evidence- for channel 5 documentary Jack the Ripper the first Serial killer, with the conclusion that forensics science could offer no definite information. It was put up for auction by the family in 2007 but failed to meet the reserve price. However two weeks later, the person who had made the closing bid met the family and the shawl was privately sold.

There is no suggestion of calculated deception on anyones part it is doubted that the shawl was really Eddows- for example it is a costly item and therefore improbable that she might have possessed it and no suchitemis mentioned in description of her possessions and clothing.

Sue and Andy Parlour 'Catherine Eddows Shawl and Eddows Shawl. The auction The journal of Whitechapel Society 19,2007.


I hope i'm not break copyright by posting the whole entry. It does however seem relevant given the latest information Jeff

[Patrick S]

Your right I think it's very likely he watched who walked all along those routes at the time of the night. To me the ripper shows signs of being a calculating stalker

You see signs, do you? Such as?

Those with education, training, and experience in such matters...they've managed to miss those signs.

I'll say this one last time and they I'll save my breath...er...fingers: Try not to fixate on RESULT. Anyone worth being taken seriously is able to readily observe that the RESULT in the case (i.e. the killer not being 'caught') says much more about the environment and the victims than it says about any ingenuity, cunning, or planning on the killer's part. The environment (the East End) itself was a cloak for the killer. He concealed himself among the crime and vice. Mitre Square, Hanbury Street, Bucks Row. These are ALL places where witness stated it was completely normal to see prostitues with the clients. It was not unusual to hear cries of 'Murder!'. Thus, these cries were simply ingored. Fights occured nightly. Robbery. Assault. "High-Rip" Gangs. Intoxication was typical.

The victims looked to conduct their business out of sight...but not too far out of sight. They stepped just off the well trodden path to earn a penny. They stepped into the shadows off Buck's Row. Into backyards in Hanbury Street, and into the dark corner of Mitre Squre. The locations of their murders (excepting Kelly) show that, not some plan by the killer to lure these women away from their usual places of business. They were killed in spots where I'd wager they'd done their thing dozens of times.

If you look at the circumstances that led to Jack's not being discovered, OBSERVED in the act (!), you should understand that these are things that no one could possibly plan for. Alas, you imbue your Jack the Ripper with qualities you wish him to have: Genius. Steath. Cunning. Medical knowledge. Flair. Artistry. Omnipotence. He's Sir William Gull. He's 'John Leslie Stephenson from 'Time after Time'.

[RockySullivan]

You see signs, do you? Such as?

Those with education, training, and experience in such matters...they've managed to miss those signs.

I'll say this one last time and they I'll save my breath...er...fingers: Try not to fixate on RESULT. Anyone worth being taken seriously is able to readily observe that the RESULT in the case (i.e. the killer not being 'caught') says much more about the environment and the victims than it says about any ingenuity, cunning, or planning on the killer's part. The environment (the East End) itself was a cloak for the killer. He concealed himself among the crime and vice. Mitre Square, Hanbury Street, Bucks Row. These are ALL places where witness stated it was completely normal to see prostitues with the clients. It was not unusual to hear cries of 'Murder!'. Thus, these cries were simply ingored. Fights occured nightly. Robbery. Assault. "High-Rip" Gangs. Intoxication was typical.

The victims looked to conduct their business out of sight...but not too far out of sight. They stepped just off the well trodden path to earn a penny. They stepped into the shadows off Buck's Row. Into backyards in Hanbury Street, and into the dark corner of Mitre Squre. The locations of their murders (excepting Kelly) show that, not some plan by the killer to lure these women away from their usual places of business. They were killed in spots where I'd wager they'd done their thing dozens of times.

If you look at the circumstances that led to Jack's not being discovered, OBSERVED in the act (!), you should understand that these are things that no one could possibly plan for. Alas, you imbue your Jack the Ripper with qualities you wish him to have: Genius. Steath. Cunning. Medical knowledge. Flair. Artistry. Omnipotence. He's Sir William Gull. He's 'John Leslie Stephenson from 'Time after Time'.

Your right he essentially hid in the plain sight...if just so happens the plain sight was darkness & vice. I'm not implying the ripper was a super villain with super powers....only that he planned the murders...the same way a burglar would case before a robbery. He cased the sights and stalked the victims. Its not that much of stretch to think so is it?