Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Tom_Wescott]

And yet many of the victims lived or frequented flower&dean street. Sounds like the killer knew them from there. Do you know off hand any pubs that some of the girls were known to frequent there?

Based on my research, Stride and Eddowes both likely worked as cleaner women for the tenants of the Rothchild buildings. Residents of F&D Street were also known to frequent the Jewish baths on Goulston Street. There were a lot of pubs in the vicinity. But Eddowes and Stride had lived on the same street since the early 1880s, so they must have known each other at least by sight. Not to say that has anything at all to do with their murders though.

The best connection between most of the victims I've been able to find thus far is with Pearly Poll and the landlords. And Stride and Eddowes, oddly enough, are the two victims I don't have a firm connection with to Pearly Poll.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom ,

Eddowes had been arrested in Aldgate a few hours before she went back there and met Jack.

Liz had connections to the Swedish Church in Princes Square in St Georges.

MJK was killed where she lived.

Were Paul's comments specifically about Bucks Row? I wouldn't have thought so. If you go there today and then move on to Brick Lane, following Paul's route to work, they are worlds apart, even though on the map they appear close by.

MrB

He was reported as talking about that spot in Buck's Row. Perhaps the stable gates were often left open? That would make it a great spot for thugs to lie in wait for passerby.

I'm sure the women were all over the East End, I'm just going by the records.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[RockySullivan]

Rocky,

So to add to his encyclopaedic knowledge of police beats and work routes we must add the bladder and bowel movements of 29 Hanbury Street?

I take it back, he deserves his top hat and silk lined cloak .

MrB

Perhaps he had a relative in that building? IMO the ripper lives or works atleast near one of the murder sites. I think if the ripper knew it could act quick and get inside because he was in his comfort zone. That would be my theory

[RockySullivan]

Could just be that the Ripper was very familiar with the East End, as I believe he was. You'll recall the spot Polly Nichols was killed at was considered by Robert Paul - who walked that street daily - to be a regular spot for muggers and whatnot.

Another thing to consider is that most of the victims were not known to the residents or constables in the area in which they were murdered. Mitre Square was not Eddowes' beat, Berner Street not Liz's, etc.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

And yet many of the victims lived or frequented flower&dean street. Sounds like the killer knew them from there. Do you know off hand any pubs that some of the girls were known to frequent there?

[MrBarnett]

Could just be that the Ripper was very familiar with the East End, as I believe he was. You'll recall the spot Polly Nichols was killed at was considered by Robert Paul - who walked that street daily - to be a regular spot for muggers and whatnot.

Another thing to consider is that most of the victims were not known to the residents or constables in the area in which they were murdered. Mitre Square was not Eddowes' beat, Berner Street not Liz's, etc.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom ,

Eddowes had been arrested in Aldgate a few hours before she went back there and met Jack.

Liz had connections to the Swedish Church in Princes Square in St Georges.

MJK was killed where she lived.

Were Paul's comments specifically about Bucks Row? I wouldn't have thought so. If you go there today and then move on to Brick Lane, following Paul's route to work, they are worlds apart, even though on the map they appear close by.

MrB

[Tom_Wescott]

Dear, God. The superhuman, all-seeing, all-knowing, genius Ripper. My favorite.

Could just be that the Ripper was very familiar with the East End, as I believe he was. You'll recall the spot Polly Nichols was killed at was considered by Robert Paul - who walked that street daily - to be a regular spot for muggers and whatnot.

Another thing to consider is that most of the victims were not known to the residents or constables in the area in which they were murdered. Mitre Square was not Eddowes' beat, Berner Street not Liz's, etc.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Theagenes]

Well, I'm just reading the extracts from the book available on Google Books. It seems as though two different tests are being conflated here. Jari Louhelainen did an absorption test and, according to Edwards, these showed that the blue dye was very similar to indigo, but not to Royal Purple, but the test couldn't determined the chemical composition of the dye.

So they move to NMR which, again according to Edwards, showed a molecule structure more in keeping with natural dyes than synthetic ones. It gets a bit unclear here, but he seems to say that the NMR itself showed the dyes as being very similar to woad, but he could be bringing that in from elsewhere. He's not a good writer.

He then says that the use of a natural dye strongly supports the notion of the shawl being pre-1870. This bit seems to have just been pulled out of the air really.

On the Russian origins, what he has is an apparent statement by the NMR bloke, that the dye structure reminded him of some he'd seen from the St Petersburg region. Edwards gets very excited by this and, implicitly claims this as proof of origin.

Until I get the full book in a week or so, that's all I can say.

That sums it up that section very well. Just to add, the scientist that carried out the NMR analysis was Fyaz Ismail.

[mickreed]

Theagenes from my first link:



In fact I'm curious about how the nmr spectra told the scientist it was from woad

cheers, gryff

Well, I'm just reading the extracts from the book available on Google Books. It seems as though two different tests are being conflated here. Jari Louhelainen did an absorption test and, according to Edwards, these showed that the blue dye was very similar to indigo, but not to Royal Purple, but the test couldn't determined the chemical composition of the dye.

So they move to NMR which, again according to Edwards, showed a molecule structure more in keeping with natural dyes than synthetic ones. It gets a bit unclear here, but he seems to say that the NMR itself showed the dyes as being very similar to woad, but he could be bringing that in from elsewhere. He's not a good writer.

He then says that the use of a natural dye strongly supports the notion of the shawl being pre-1870. This bit seems to have just been pulled out of the air really.

On the Russian origins, what he has is an apparent statement by the NMR bloke, that the dye structure reminded him of some he'd seen from the St Petersburg region. Edwards gets very excited by this and, implicitly claims this as proof of origin.

Until I get the full book in a week or so, that's all I can say.

[MrBarnett]

Rocky,

So to add to his encyclopaedic knowledge of police beats and work routes we must add the bladder and bowel movements of 29 Hanbury Street?

I take it back, he deserves his top hat and silk lined cloak .

MrB

[dropzone]

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

That works, but as a fan of non-commitment and weasel words I prefer calling it "the cloth."

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.

Natural dyes can be made fairly colorfast. I was interested when someone mentioned many pages back that water soaking through carried a lot of dye. Not at all colorfast, or it hadn't been washed ever--like the first time through the wash for a pair of old-fashioned, indigo-dyed blue jeans.

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.

As I look at more photos, the lining,for instance, is very nice and varied and may suggest its use as a shawl, where both sides are seen. Folks are arguing whether the pattern is painted or printed? Wood-block printing on cloth goes back millenia. However, I wish I could find sharper shots of it online because in the picture below the pattern looks woven, with the warp threads gathered into fringe:

http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/webimage/1.6286236.1410194771!/image/3119017547.jpg_gen/derivatives/articleImgDeriv_628px/3119017547.jpg

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.

Ain't it painful? I feel fortunate because I don't have a favorite.

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 I vote for "neither," as I said above. Really wish I could get a better look.

The difference between a shawl and a stole is in your soul, but for communicating this specific style you probably want to say "stole".

So you're saying Acting Sergeant Simpson stole a stole? That doesn't flow as well as "stole a shawl."

[RockySullivan]

Dear, God. The superhuman, all-seeing, all-knowing, genius Ripper. My favorite.

I never said that now patty....what I said I was the ripper planned and stalk. Wouldn't you? I think the idea that the ripper was simply a nutter loose from the asylum makes less sense then a cunning predator who stalked and planned his attack. What you see is a killer who can incapacitate , kill, remove specific organs in the pitch black night, and leave the crime scene unseen. Hardly a looney roaming the streets killing at random and running on pure luck alone. Just the fact that he could remove the organs in minutes says volume about his character.

[Tom_Wescott]

Jari tweets

https://twitter.com/JariLouhelainen

But first, he takes a selfie.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Well, actually indigo is a related plant, but not quite the same (Indigofera tinctoria). If you read in the link you posted, indigo started replacing woad, then both were replaced by synthetic dyes. But as you said, natural dyes were still being used into the 20th century -- just less commonly.

But the fact that this is woad (Isatis tinctoria) and not true indigo, suggests an earlier date.

Theagenes from my first link:

The dye chemical extracted from woad is indigo, the same dye extracted from "true indigo", Indigofera tinctoria, but in a lower concentration.

In fact I'm curious about how the nmr spectra told the scientist it was from woad

cheers, gryff

[Patrick S]

Sorry to be so secretive, Mr Barnett, but I wonīt glean anything more just yet. All in due course, however!

And as you say, itīs the wrong thread anyway.

All the best,
Fisherman

Can't wait. I'll be open minded, as always. Though, I won't be one of your cheerleaders, either, Fish. You seem to mistake anything but unadulterated praise as hate-speech.

[Theagenes]

The blue dye then would be indigo. Link

Natural indigo production in 1897 was 19,000 tons but declined to 1,000 tons by 1914.

The first synthesis of indigo was described by Adolf von Baeyer in 1878 (from isatin) and a second synthesis in 1880 (from 2-nitrobenzaldehyde). However, a "a commercially feasible manufacturing process" was not established until 1897.

So while the shawl could have been produced prior to the JTR murders, that natural dye was still being used in 1897 and since Link


cheers, gryff

Well, actually indigo is a related plant, but not quite the same (Indigofera tinctoria). If you read in the link you posted, indigo started replacing woad, then both were replaced by synthetic dyes. But as you said, natural dyes were still being used into the 20th century -- just less commonly.

But the fact that this is woad (Isatis tinctoria) and not true indigo, suggests an earlier date.