Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[robhouse]

It really does not matter if the thing was sewn up as a shawl or as a table runner, Rob - all we have to do is to conclude that it was cloth, cloth is warm and so it could have been USED as a shawl no matter what it was intended as.

Even if it was intended as a ceremonial tie, if there is DNA on it that can conclusively be proven to relate to the Eddowes and Kosminski bloodlines, then that is the point we should address. Provided the thing is old enough, at least.

Come to think of it, if it is NOT old enough to have been around in 1888, we may as well adress any Eddowes /Kosminski DNA on it just the same ...

The best,
Fisherman

I agree with you... I am just getting tired of hearing people refer to it as a table runner, when I suspect that said people do not know what they are talking about. But I agree with your post entirely.

RH

[Bitsie]

After a (admittedly quick) google I'm not finding the dimensions of the 'shawl/table runner/play mat for dried organs' incompatible with shawls of the time and earlier - although they certainly aren't the type of shawls to wear bundled around your neck and shoulders to keep warm, they're very fancy pants.

[spyglass]

Nearly post 900 and all everyone is just going over and over and over the same things now.

What I want to know is where is it all heading ?
The way I see it there doesnt seem to be much ( if any ) divided opinion concerning this matter as far as Ripper historians and the rest of us intrested in the case are concerned.
And so the book goes on sale, and after a few weeks it blends in on the shelf with all the others before it.
Newspapers wont be intrested after a few days and forget it until the next " JTR Solved " book appears.
I reminded myself today of just how many newspaper articles I have collected since 2000 that have almost the exact same headlines every time " JTR finally solved" ect. I have three or four from the last five years.

Regards

[lynn cates]

legends

Hello Stewart. Thanks for posting that.

If the author is "innocent" of the ripper case, at least he knows how to put the legends together.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

case

Hello Patrick.

"She was far too poor to have anything so nice (and valuable) on her person."

What of her cigarette case?

Cheers.
LC

[Boggles]

I would love it to be true, but i fear a hoax, and profitable one at that.
It may be quite an elaborate one, but I suspect wont stand up to proper scrutiny from a good 3rd party organisation.

DNA can be planted just like any other evidence. And perhaps its no bad thing to be reminded on this.

[lynn cates]

Somehow, he found a way to . . .

Hello Penny. Thanks. Agreed.

Actually, one is supposed to overlook all this and focus on the "DNA" claim. Of course, such "hand waving" is inimical to my practise.

Cheers.
LC

[curious]

DNA can be planted just like any other evidence. And perhaps its no bad thing to be reminded on this.

At the moment, I can't figure out a way to get DNA from a woman killed in 1888 and a man who died in 1919.

How could this DNA have been planted?

Thx,

curious

[MrBarnett]

Spyglass,

There was a guy on the boards some years ago who claimed to have solved the case. He was very cryptic about his evidence, but hinted that it had something to do with a crucifix owned by Mary Kelly. He received the expected 'warm' welcome and generated considerable debate.

When things got a bit too hot to handle, he announced that it was all a hoax. He had actually been carrying out some kind of social experiment to see what the response of the Ripperological community would be to the solution of the case.

Perhaps we should consider this in the same way and look at how the community has reacted to the claim of a solution to the mystery we all love so much.

MrB

[Phil Carter]

If the author is "innocent" of the ripper case, at least he knows how to put the legends together.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

ahh! now you are talking!

Except one small point he overlooked.
We can prove the "shawl" wasn't there at the murder site. Frederick Foster drew a detailed drawing of Eddowes neither wearing this 8ft long item nor lying next to it.

Ipso facto, Simpson cannot have 'asked' for the souvenir "on the way to the Mortuary" as claimed, You cant take something that isnt there.

best wises

Phil

[GUT]

I bet his shop is doing well.

[spyglass]

Hi,
Just thinking here...couldnt the same technique be used on that Diary, and see if any of Maybricks DNA is on it?
We migjt then be able to put Kosminski finally to bed.

Regards.

[GUT]

I also suspect the timing of opening the shop and launching the book is just a coincidence.

[Stewart P Evans]

Repeated

The Sergeant White 'curious floating tradition' is repeated on page 216 and then the Parlours further suggest that the location may have been Mitre Square and that Amos Simpson might have been one of White's colleagues keeping surveillance on possible anarchist or plotting Jews in the nearby Great Synagogue. Thus Simpson may have been first to find Eddowes' body, and the shawl, and picked it up and made off with it.

They conclude that 'it could be argued that Amos might have found the shawl on just about anybody and claimed it 'as a genuine Ripper souvenir' as the police at the time delighted in such trophies and tall tales. We cannot authenticate the shawl, but we can authenticate the part of the oral family tradition that Amos was a serving Metropolitan Police Sergeant [sic] whose definite existence no one has discovered until now. That adds a degree of credibility to the shawl's provenance.'

By now readers should be identifying a source for the new book by Mr Edwards. Add to that the fact that he is an old friend of the Parlours and that between him and the Parlours they own the whole shawl, this must be a given.

[Boggles]

Hi curious, the claimed DNA match is with the perpetrator’s descendants, both of whom the owner of the shawl would have been in contact with.