Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Henry Flower]

pink, I take your point - but - we should also be acknowledge that the whole Ripper circus is fuelled by crackpot theories. Without the constant stream of Royals, royal doctors, diaries, prominent artists, actors, mad abortionists etc fuelling interest, there's a chance this case might have dwindled into semi-obscurity many years ago. I'm sure a few hardcore murdernerds would still study it, but it wouldn't be the crowd-puller it is, it wouldn't have the same kudos, and quite the number of devotees it has, absent the constant fuel of crackpot lunatic theorising that has helped it maintain an almost mythic status down the decades. Without the artists and aristocrats and Sickerts and sicko doctors keeping the money flowing in from the gullible, there's a fair chance that the case would now be so semi-obscure that publishers wouldn't even bother publishing the more sober-minded examinations like Sugden or Wescott.

[lynn cates]

100%

Hello Mike. Good point. That 100% jarred me as well.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

It is quite clear that most posters on this thread who are giving their ‘informed‘ opinion have not read the article.
It is stated that special infra red and UV photography was used to identify areas of the shawl that should be investigated – for blood and semen.
According to the article the shawl’s material was also scientifically tested and dates to the 19th century.

Russell Edwards’ personal theory as to how the shawl came to be in the crime scene is of no consequence whatsoever – if the scientific tests hold up to scrutiny.
And again none of the loud, quick to condemn and accusatory voices on here are in any position to pronounce on that.

Some people are trying to claim that if it is conclusively proved that the shawl (or table runner – as if that detail is of any significance – people reutilised material for all sorts of purposes, and still do) does have Kosminski and Eddowes DNA then it doesn’t prove anything as it could have got on there from someplace other than Mitre Square. Get real.

In my personal opinion the tests will prove to be inconclusive as too many people will potentially match the samples.
But what do I actually know? I’m not a scientist and I haven’t been trained in the latest DNA testing techniques. You would think that various people on this thread have been!

Maybe I am hoping that further tests on the shawl will show that linking it to Eddowes or Kosminski is unsafe – as I have a book of my own to finish and sell!
But unlike other mean spirits, many whom have also written books on this subject, (shock horror – how terrible) I will not be rushing to condemn Russell Edwards for his coup.

With respect to the prissy accusations of fraud on the part of the author or the scientist, you know what?
The ‘Ripper’ world isn’t and never will be a pure historical or criminological topic. (Although aspects of the case cannot be discussed in an academic manner).
‘Ripperology’ is mixed with business interests (films, documentaries, books, gift shops, tours, Madam Tussauds, the London Dungeons and tourism). There will always be the circus element attached to it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves badly.

Oh! The tour guides should be rubbing their hands with glee as bookings will be up!
Or should they question anyone who turns up at their next tour to see of they have read the Daily mail – and if so turn them away?

[lynn cates]

wrong beat

Hello Barbara. Thanks.

"didn't mean Kosminski kept it as a trophy, but that the policeman picking it up at the scene, did."

But what was a Met copper doing in Mitre sq?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

obviated

Hello Kevin. Welcome to the boards. Excellent first post.

Yes, this rot will be obviated in double quick time--I have no doubt.

Cheers.
LC

[GUT]

Hi Gut

Forget Kosminski dropping it as a clue, a ruse to sell more books. Much more interesting to create a storyline that will intrigue Joe public. Do you really believe Mr Edwards is not aware of the day on which Mary Kelly was murdered?

This length of material, for that is what it is, it's not a shawl, it's 8 feet by 2 apparently, it's too large to use as a shawl I'd say. However, it would fold down to a very manageable piece of material, it could easily have fitted into one of Eddowes pockets. This piece of material is just the kind of thing I'd expect to see in a street woman's pocket. You have only to look at the inventory of Eddowes belongings to realise they carried their worldly goods around with them, on their person. It's possible that Eddowes owned the material in question, and the killer turned it out when rifling her pockets. It's also possible that a policeman "acquired" the material, if you get my drift, for I doubt whether a senior officer would allow a police constable to take away an article belonging to a murder victim.

Observer

No one doubts that they carried all that they owned with them, as Street people still do, however given the detailed list of her clothes and possessions, where is the piece of material?

[Observer]

I can't believe you racists are trying to pin this one on O.J. as well. Leave the poor guy alone. If the shawl doesn't fit, you must acquit!

Good to see you here again Henry old man. You're mistaken however, I believe the man in the frame is Homer. The Springfield Slasher is a better bet than Isenschmid, I might add.

Kindest regards

Observer

[lynn cates]

progeny

Hello Jeff.

"But to my knowledge descendants of Aaron Kosminski were traced."

Well, his siblings descendants, perhaps? Aaron had no progeny.

Cheers.
LC

[Henry Flower]

But what was a Met copper doing in Mitre sq?

That seems to be troubling quite a few posters here. I don't know the answer. The question seems reasonable. Perhaps someone who knows more about these procedural matters could let us know whether it was at all normal for officers to take a brief detour out of their own turf in the event of a major crime - or was it like some cheesy movie where the suspect manages to cross the boundary between two US states and the cop car behind him screeches to a halt rather than cross the invisible line, and has no choice but to let him escape....

[Observer]

No one doubts that they carried all that they owned with them, as Street people still do, however given the detailed list of her clothes and possessions, where is the piece of material?

It could not have been taken from the crime scene before the inventory was taken?

[lynn cates]

same

Hello Stewart.

"what sits uneasily with me is the fact that some authors happily encourage (or back) patent nonsense to keep the gravy train rolling."

Goes double for me.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

innocent

Hello Jeff.

"I spoke to the Parlours who believed the family that owned this artifact to genuinely believe it was the Shawl of Catherine Eddowes. But the reality is we are all told things by our parents and grand parents when we are young that turn out not to be true."

Perfectly sensible. Rumours are rumours and may have begun innocently.

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

That seems to be troubling quite a few posters here. I don't know the answer. The question seems reasonable. Perhaps someone who knows more about these procedural matters could let us know whether it was at all normal for officers to take a brief detour out of their own turf in the event of a major crime - or was it like some cheesy movie where the suspect manages to cross the boundary between two US states and the cop car behind him screeches to a halt rather than cross the invisible line, and has no choice but to let him escape....

To paraphrase Cates "Now you're talking"

[RockySullivan]

IMO the authors using a "DNA " loop hole to say " I solved JTR". But in the end of the day when the facts are in the samples will be too generic to identify.

[lynn cates]

evidence

Hello Scobie.

"And she was a prostitute."

Have we any evidence for this?

Cheers.
LC