Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff. Get real? The information came from YOU. Were you mistaken about the date?

Cheers.
LC

Had it not have been do you have any reason to believe I would not have used it?

I was at the time working with Andy Aliffe and his credentials as a researcher are fairly well established.

I also spoke at length to Sue and Andy Parlour who made the discovery and had taken a small section of the table runner and placed it in a frame..

The shawl is NOT genuine…I understand that many people here have a reason to state the sky is green… `But hey' I'm used to that

Jx

[Henry Flower]

Hello Paul G.

"Does anyone think there might be evidence in the book that at this point has not been revealed by the author or associates."

No.

Cheers.
LC

Possibly the best post ever.

[Observer]

Hi Observer

THe Shawl was the subject of some discussion when i was trying to make a program about 2002

At that time I gave serious interest into the possibility of DNA

It don't exist

But the person who looked into the shawl was a guy who I have utmost respect for…called Andy Aliffe… He dated the shawl at the Victorian and Albert museum, I believe he was working there at the time, and they came up with edwardian 1902=04 based on the design… Its later been identified as an Edwarian Table Runner 8mx2m… It aint a shawl

If it belonged to Cathrine Eddows she would have cashed it in and gone on a long luxury holiday….but she could not have afforded it..

And I await anyone to challenge me why.. Arom Kosminksi would have wondered around WhoitChapel with such an article

It simply didn't Happen

Yours Jeff x

Hi Jeff

I realise it isn't a shawl, a table runner you say, it may as well be a Bow Street Runner if the age of the thing post dates the Whitechapel atrocities. Did the people at the V and A see the fabric in the flesh, or merely a photograph?

If the runner is in fact 1888 vintage, then I doubt Kosminski would be wandering around the area with it upon his person. If Eddowes owned it I doubt she swiped it off the tables in Cooney's lodging house. The thing is those street people "acquired" all manner of things. I wouldn't put it past Eddowes to own such an article. As Henry has implied she could have used it as a make shift shawl.

Regards

Observer

[lynn cates]

Bless me father . . .

Hello GUT. Thanks.

I heartily repent of my sins. Absolution? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Well call me stupid but perhaps Swanson got his information from all the bloody files that no longer exist given that he was the copper in charge to the entire case…

So anything Swanson says, given that he is the most credible copper involved and his police record was impeccable…suggests the obvious

'Kosminksi was the Suspect'

Yours Jeff

Yes but not Aaron !

[lynn cates]

facts

Hello Henry. Thanks.

But surely they could have gotten some facts straight?

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

But my point is that PROOF is deductive, EVIDENCE, inductive. Science is an INDUCTIVE discipline.

Cheers.
LC

What category does common sense fall into?

[Observer]

By the way I'll eventually get round to members who have answered my posts. This thread is moving along like a forest fire.

[Henry Flower]

It's now available for kindle download. Sorely tempted. I feel almost certainly it's a crock of nonsense, but yet....

Grrr. Tempted.

[lynn cates]

whew

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

Whew! Thought you had done a volte face.

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff

I realise it isn't a shawl, a table runner you say, it may as well be a Bow Street Runner if the age of the thing post dates the Whitechapel atrocities. Did the people at the V and A see the fabric in the flesh, or merely a photograph?

If the runner is in fact 1888 vintage, then I doubt Kosminski would be wandering around the area with it upon his person. If Eddowes owned it I doubt she swiped it off the tables in Cooney's lodging house. The thing is those street people "acquired" all manner of things. I wouldn't put it past Eddowes to own such an article. As Henry has implied she could have used it as a make shift shawl.

Regards

Observer

Hi Observer

Yes you get to the heart of it. I can only tel you what I understood at the time, and please understand that at that time I was rather hoping it was real.

Andy was at that time working at the V&A and had the daisy pattern checked out. The conclusion was that it was to late i.e. Edwardian. From memory I think that date was 1902-04 but I;m certain anyone could check that with Andy (Last I spoke to him he had not been well)

Its an Edwardian Table runner. About 8 meters in Length and 2 Metres wide.

If Cathrine Eddows owned this (Stollen) then why did she simply not porn it and have the night of her life?

Why would Aron Kosminski (If he were JtR, and I seem to be the only person credibly questioning this) why would he carry an 8 metre clothe that would restrict his movements? Its silly, is it not?

But more importantly what are the chances of either Victim or KIllre being caught at said same time with the damn length of fabric?

It simply don't make sense, and the time frames are impossible

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Henry. Thanks.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

No Phil wake up! We don't have to think about any off this stuff because the Shawl, if it were a shawl is actually Edwardian..that should say everything should it not?

J

Yes we DO have to Jeff- simply because EVERYTHING that can blow this clearly concocted story to smithereens should be thrown slap bang down on the table in front of the persons behind this nonsense for them to answer otherwise.

The provenance of the Amos Simpson shawl story comes before the ownership of the shawl- or whatever the blasted thing is.

IMO It is physically impossible for Simpson to have left N division and get to Mitre Square after the murder happened and not meet the doctors and policemen- and by dint of the sketch of the bodw WITHOUT the 8ft piece of material- he cannot have done it without having left N division before or at best as the murder was committed.

That proves the Amos Simpson story to be untrue. Which is the basis for the ownership of the shawl


Phil

[spyglass]

It's now available for kindle download. Sorely tempted. I feel almost certainly it's a crock of nonsense, but yet....

Grrr. Tempted.

No what you mean....havent felt this excited since the Ripper Code wss released.

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes we DO have to Jeff- simply because EVERYTHING that can blow this clearly concocted story to smithereens should be thrown slap bang down on the table in front of the persons behind this nonsense for them to answer otherwise.

The provenance of the Amos Simpson shawl story comes before the ownership of the shawl- or whatever the blasted thing is.

IMO It is physically impossible for Simpson to have left N division and get to Mitre Square after the murder happened and not meet the doctors and policemen- and by dint of the sketch of the bodw WITHOUT the 8ft piece of material- he cannot have done it without having left N division before or at best as the murder was committed.

That proves the Amos Simpson story to be untrue. Which is the basis for the ownership of the shawl


Phil

YEAH BUT ARON KOSMINSKI IS STILL JACK THE RIPPER, WE BOTH KNOW THAT