Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Patrick S]

Patrick S.- Well, yes! I agree with you there. And if this book does nothing more than get people discussing the Jack the Ripper case again then at least it's served some purpose. Personally though, I prefer research which looks at new angles of the case, however small, to books solely concerned with establishing the identity of the Ripper. In a way it becomes a game- it was Jill the Ripper, it was a member of the Royal family, it was an American, it was Lewis Carrol, it was Aaron Kosminski. I would rather get back to the basic, bare bones of the case and reassess what we know.

Agreed. I've always fet it's folly to select a 'suspect' and say, 'This is Jack the Ripper'.

[lynn cates]

provenance

Hello Stewart. Thanks for posting that.

Not exactly an inspiring provenance.

Cheers.
LC

[Penny_Dredfull]

Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

Curious- "Kosminski went to his hidey-hole and brough tout his beloved dried- out trophies to play with on the table" hahahaha that tickled me!

I think you get to the heart of the problem when you start off saying " Let's look at what we think we know".

[Patrick S]

1. The material (shawl or table runner) has been dated to 1902-1904.

I must have missed the memo on the date of the shawl/table runner. Is that accurate? And if so, why in the hell are we even discussing this? How does Jack's sauce get on a table runner dipped in Eddowes' blood 15 years after Mitre Squre (outside the eloquent scenario you presented in your post). If this date is substantiated, then I'm quite disappointed! This could have been interesting....for a while, at least.

[Stewart P Evans]

So...

So, in trying to establish that his Ripperological 'first', the discovery of the 'shawl', Harrison needed to do some research and it was then he encountered his first major obstacle.

As everyone knows the body of Catherine Eddowes was discovered by PC Watkins of the City Police, and, deep in City ground, no Metropolitan officer would, or should, have been present. He thought that might be 'a case of mistaken identity'. As no one had apparently tried to make any financial gain from the 'shawl', Harrison felt that some credibility might attach to the problematical item and that the person who originated the claims about the shawl must have had 'some private information relating to the description of Catherine Eddowes' clothing [?] and 'that it is the real thing.'

Harrison stated, 'I make no false claims about the shawl's authenticity and leave it to those who feel sufficiently curious to have it forensically examined and tested. In reality, the locating of the shawl was an added bonus for my efforts over the years. It certainly proves that, although the case is over one hundred years old, it is still possible to locate and unearth new evidence, albeit rather controversial and unconnected with the direct evidence of the case...'

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Penny!

I think we should wait til they find Kosminski's dna from the other victims belongings too...

All the best
jukka

[Bridewell]

Let's suppose that there is absolutely no reason to believe that the shawl was ever in Mitre Square aside from the Simpson family tradition. Yet, the shawl not only contains Kosminski's DNA (semen) but also Eddowes' (blood). This is FAR from an established fact at this point, but, bear with me. That's not convincing in any way? A leading contemporary Ripper suspect, named as the likely Ripper by a senior police official and an established Ripper victim - both of their DNA on one article of clothing. That's not convincing at all, regardless of the inability to prove when and where the DNA was deposited?

I didn't say it wasn't convincing. I said it wasn't proof - which is what the author claims it to be.

[curious]

I must have missed the memo on the date of the shawl/table runner. Is that accurate? And if so, why in the hell are we even discussing this? How does Jack's sauce get on a table runner dipped in Eddowes' blood 15 years after Mitre Squre (outside the eloquent scenario you presented in your post). If this date is substantiated, then I'm quite disappointed! This could have been interesting....for a while, at least.

Eloquent? Thanks, I've been called worse.

However, like about every thing else about this the dating of the shawl/table runner seems to be in doubt.
Imagine that.

[Penny_Dredfull]

Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

Bridewell and Patrick S.- Exactly so. Very good points. There are fundamental problems here. Even if it is established without a doubt that Kosminski's semen is on the object- you have no way of knowing when and how it came to be there. And it is by no means proof of a murder- semen on a prostitute's clothing? How unusual is that?

[curious]

Curious- "Kosminski went to his hidey-hole and brough tout his beloved dried- out trophies to play with on the table" hahahaha that tickled me!

I think you get to the heart of the problem when you start off saying " Let's look at what we think we know".

Exactly, every facet of what is known and not known can be argued to the end of the world and back.

Good times ahead!

[Stewart P Evans]

A Major Problem

A major problem for any budding Ripper author is to introduce anything valid and new to the case for his book. The Ripper story covers many well travelled paths.

Thus when the Parlours entered the fray with their book The Jack the Ripper Whitechapel Murders, 1997, (authorship credited to Kevin O'Donnell) they struggled to come up with much that was both relevant and new. Back in 1991 Harrison had concluded, 'Undoubtedly, the shawl will cause much controversy among those who learn of its existence, yet I feel confident that its history is eventful and may merit further research.' The Parlours took up the challenge.

[lynn cates]

In donde esta?

Hello Velma. Interesting.

In such a scenario, I presume he used the "shawl" for masturbation? Right. Now since he did not have time at Mitre for this, as you say, he used it for later.

But presumably, he would be carrying a piece of apron to wipe his hands as he leaves the square, and be fully engaged with that. Where is the shawl?

Cheers.
LC

[Poch]

Bridewell and Patrick S.- Exactly so. Very good points. There are fundamental problems here. Even if it is established without a doubt that Kosminski's semen is on the object- you have no way of knowing when and how it came to be there. And it is by no means proof of a murder- semen on a prostitute's clothing? How unusual is that?

Except its not claimed to ever have belonged to Eddowes.

[curious]

Hello Velma. Interesting.

In such a scenario, I presume he used the "shawl" for masturbation? Right. Now since he did not have time at Mitre for this, as you say, he used it for later.

But presumably, he would be carrying a piece of apron to wipe his hands as he leaves the square, and be fully engaged with that. Where is the shawl?

Cheers.
LC

Lynn,
The shawl/table runner was NEVER at Mitre Square. Could NOT have been if it dates from 1902-04.

Velma

[Penny_Dredfull]

Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

Egads- what is this thing after all?! A shawl, an apron, a table runner, or what?! It can't even be determined with any certainty exactly what the thing is.