Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Carol]

Hi Carol

You've probably answer your own question. The victims clothes were considered of little value in 1888. Blood or know blood it offered little of any use.

Monty could probably answer whether removing clothes was a serious offence or Not but I some how doubt it. The commercial value or even the News Paper stories were all still new and everyone was on a learning curve.

They did talk about bringing in Dogs.. But I don't think that happened until MJK event.

If Simpson offered a colleague a couple of pints for the artefact and made out he was there on the night to big it up…then its possible there is a kurnal of truth, should the DNA on Eddows blood descendant be shown to be more conclusive

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff,

That was quick! Thank you very much for your reply. Much appreciated!

Carol

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi everyone,

No doubt someone has already written the following but I just haven't got the time to check through all the thousands of posts on this thread!

What I can't understand is why the policeman who supposedly found the shawl by Eddowes' body was allowed to take it home with him. If it had the blood of the victim all over it surely the officer in charge of the case would have made sure it was kept somewhere safe. I appreciate that the police then didn't have the methods of identification available today but it seems very strange to me that Simpson was given permission to keep it.

Carol

Hi Carol

You've probably answer your own question. The victims clothes were considered of little value in 1888. Blood or know blood it offered little of any use.

Monty could probably answer whether removing clothes was a serious offence or Not but I some how doubt it. The commercial value or even the News Paper stories were all still new and everyone was on a learning curve.

They did talk about bringing in Dogs.. But I don't think that happened until MJK event.

If Simpson offered a colleague a couple of pints for the artefact and made out he was there on the night to big it up…then its possible there is a kurnal of truth, should the DNA on Eddows blood descendant be shown to be more conclusive

Yours Jeff

[Carol]

Hi everyone,

No doubt someone has already written the following but I just haven't got the time to check through all the thousands of posts on this thread!

What I can't understand is why the policeman who supposedly found the shawl by Eddowes' body was allowed to take it home with him. If it had the blood of the victim all over it surely the officer in charge of the case would have made sure it was kept somewhere safe. I appreciate that the police then didn't have the methods of identification available today but it seems very strange to me that Simpson was given permission to keep it.

Carol

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

"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."

Very well. But surely days of the week, times, PM reports are all agreed?

Cheers.
LC

They are..you only require an A to Z. Perhaps we should all chip in and send a copy

Jeff

[Patrick S]

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?

In my view, it's a stretch if you look at each murder individually. You cannot say that because he killed 4, 5, 6 women and was not apprehended then he he had a plan, cased the area, and/or stalked the victims. You must take each murder invidually and ask, why did he escape? What happend with Tabram is irrelevant to Nichols. What happened with Chapman is irrelevant to Eddowes. One does not affect the other. I realize I'm being snide in my responses with respect to him being a super-villan, etc. It's just that - to me - that's what this type of behavior implies because his NOT being observed, caught, arrested, was due to things he could not have controlled. In fact, based on the ACTUAL execution of the crimes, he SHOULD have been caught. To me, he showed NO (or very, very poor) planning. He killed in spots that were easily observed, usually from several vantage points: below windows, over-fences, around corners, in the shadows. It's clear these spots were chosen by the victims. They afforded the privacy THEY needed. They had the decency to go into the shadows to conduct business, a backyard, a corner of a deserted square. These were places where they may be seen....but they'd likely be ignored. They had the decency to seek SOME privacy, away from the public. But they didn't have the time or energy to seek total seclusion. Thus, they were killed in public, semi-secluded spots.

[lynn cates]

agreements

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

"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."

Very well. But surely days of the week, times, PM reports are all agreed?

Cheers.
LC

[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?

[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'.

[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

[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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.