Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[pinkmoon]

Amos Simpson is on his way. Actually the police don't deal with libel, it comes under civil law.

I mean I hope the police investigate these claims made about this shawl.

[Stewart P Evans]

They hoped...

I mean I hope the police investigate these claims made about this shawl.

They hoped that with the 'diary', but what investigation there was ended quite abruptly, there was no identifiable 'injured party', although I thought 'the public' might have sufficed.

[Henry Flower]

I'll put a good word in for this new book while I'm at it.

Oh I see. Suddenly we like the book, do we?

Stewart, you have a gloriously dry sense of humour.

[Stewart P Evans]

You actually...

It is not a perfect match that gives a billion to one chance against its produced a weaker strain which they claim is because the d.n.a is so old which gives a 400,000 to one chance against but and this is the big but for me d.n.a has been taken from living direct descendants at some stage so could that have Been tamperd with and added to the shawl?

You actually make very valid points. The dreaded 'shawl' has been through umpteen hands and has been handled without any thought of evidence many, many times. There is no continuity, it has been in private hands for donkeys' years and this alone makes any DNA work on it totally invalid.

[Stewart P Evans]

Star

Oh I see. Suddenly we like the book, do we?
...

Yes, ever since I found that I star in it.

[pinkmoon]

They hoped that with the 'diary', but what investigation there was ended quite abruptly, there was no identifiable 'injured party', although I thought 'the public' might have sufficed.

Do you mean the thousands of poor sods who forked out 8 quid a time to buy the book about the diary and the videos and you who produced an excellent book about tumblty which came out after the diary and a lot of people didn't buy because the fuss the diary caused and thought here we go again we were all conned on that diary the diary that no one made any money out of so we were told .

[Stewart P Evans]

Too Kind

Do you mean the thousands of poor sods who forked out 8 quid a time to buy the book about the diary and the videos and you who produced an excellent book about tumblty which came out after the diary and a lot of people didn't buy because the fuss the diary caused and thought here we go again we were all conned on that diary the diary that no one made any money out of so we were told .

You are too kind...

[Tecs]

You should be so lucky.

Ha ha, yes as I was writing it I was thinking "Yeah, as if..."

And I thought women went weak at the knees for someone who could talk for hours on a first date about the details of a 126 year old undiscovered eviscerator.



regards,

[pinkmoon]

You actually make very valid points. The dreaded 'shawl' has been through umpteen hands and has been handled without any thought of evidence many, many times. There is no continuity, it has been in private hands for donkeys' years and this alone makes any DNA work on it totally invalid.

Imagine trying to introduce the d.n.a taken from the shawl as evidence in a murder trial.

[Stewart P Evans]

Surprised

Ha ha, yes as I was writing it I was thinking "Yeah as if..."
And I thought women went weak at the knees for someone who could talk for hours on a first date about the details of a 126 year old undiscovered eviscerator.
regards,

You'd be surprised what turns some women on...

I didn't just say that.

[pinkmoon]

You are too kind...

I am honest! fakes harm any subject .your book would have sold more copies if that diary hadn't appeared people were put of the subject by that diary.

[Stewart P Evans]

Total Non-Starter

Imagine trying to introduce the d.n.a taken from the shawl as evidence in a murder trial.

Yes, it's a total non-starter which is why I am surprised to see that some posters (and apologists) are clinging on to the belief that such things could be proved with DNA in this case. They are obviously not au fait with the rules of evidence and proof. Mind you, we might now have a debate about the difference between legal proof and historical proof...watch this space.

[Jeff Leahy]

What was displayed at Wolverhampton was a replica of Kate's clothing and possessions produced by Andy and Claudia Aliffe.

On a related note, I spoke with Andy Aliffe this morning who said he has never worked at the V&A and has never spoken to them about the shawl. The Edwardian dating comes from a quote by former Crime Museum Curator Alan McCormick, who told Russell Edwards that is what Sotheby's had told him from a cursory glance.

Reading Russell Edwards' book, the truth seems to be rather different.

Adam

Hi Adam

And many thanks for this confirmation. I was Not at the bounmouth event but was at the Wolverhampton event and was working fairly regularly with Andy Aliffe at this time.

I'm fairly certain that Andy was working at the museums at this time.. But could have been anyone of them (It was a long time ago and I'm working from memory) However I do remember Andy telling me the shawl was of Edwardian origin not 1888. At that time he new the Parlours well and introduced me to them. If I have confused elements of that story I do apologise to Andy. However I maintain that Andy is one of the great unsung heroes of ripperology who's research and guidance should not be questioned.

It does appear however that the basic story of the clothes ID as Edwardian remains the same..

After all thats largely what these forums are here for .. is it NOT?

It would be great to get any further clarification Andy is willing to give about the shawl and its authenticity. I do know he had considerable contact and involvement with the Parlours at that time.

Many thanks, as always, for your help Adam. Always the voice of reason.

Yours Jeff

[Stewart P Evans]

Not my best book...

I am honest! fakes harm any subject .your book would have sold more copies if that diary hadn't appeared people were put of the subject by that diary.

Not my best book (I don't like books about suspects), but, unsurprisingly, the most lucrative, it did sell around 50,000 copies in the end.

[Tecs]

Hi all,

I didn't want to do this post as I thought somebody would have already. But unless I missed it, apologies if I did, nobody has suggested this.

In the follow on discussion about how the DNA's could have got on to the item if not at Mitre Square some people have made a few suggestions. But isn't one of the obvious ones that as Kate did work for the Jews, she may at some time have cleaned or helped out at the Kosminski house?


Actually, do you know what, I give in. You can see where I was going but I admit defeat. I'm off to bed!

Fill in your own ending.

See you all tomorrow.

regards,