Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[GUT]

Observer,
It seems that the shawl was dated 1886 by Arabella Vincenti, a fine art picture framer, possibly the one in Colchester. (On the back of the framed piece shown on The Australian Suspect at 29.30)
I wonder how authentic this dating was? Anybody know?

Pat..............

G'day Pat

And if I have to choose between the date given by a pcture framer and the V&A who would I pick as most reliable ... mmm???

[spyglass]

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 .

The differnce being that this latest charade can and proberbly will be prooved to be
Wrong, fake, hoax whatever you wished to call it.
But dispite what many people on here believe....the Diary has at no point ever been prooved to be faked.

Regards.

[Stewart P Evans]

Oo-er

...But dispite what many people on here believe....the Diary has at no point ever been prooved to be faked.
Regards.

Oo-er Missus, did someone mention the duff 'diary'?

[pinkmoon]

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.

source book is very good.

[Henry Flower]

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, do you mean that scientifically, or legally?

Hypothetically: If a respected, qualified, professional scientist did his work conscientiously and honestly, and found what he was satisfied were very strong DNA matches with a victim and a suspect, you would dismiss that as entirely worthless based on the possibility of contamination? Even though, for example, you might have no actual evidence of how or when DNA matching Eddowes might have been deposited on the thing except at the time of her death? You would be happy to dismiss something so potentially definitive based on the mere possibility of contamination?

And if so, are you sure you're not holding Ripper evidence to a standard that, after so long, is unrealistically legalistic? I mean, maybe there wasn't enough to convict OJ in a criminal trial beyond a reasonable doubt, but a civil jury knew damn-well that he had killed Nicole based on a preponderance of evidence. I think some here, if the science was demonstrated to be straight and honest and reliable, might think similarly about Kosminski.

Again, I'm asking hypothetically - I'm not defending the shawl or the book. Personally I feel convinced this is Maybrick / Sickert all over again. Too many holes.

[Stewart P Evans]

Longest

source book is very good.

That took the longest, very hard work, manuscript of around 250,000 words when submitted. A labour of love though.

[GUT]

I have just read, with alarm, that this shawl was handled in 2007 at the Wolverhampton conference by descendants of Kate Eddowes.

I have written to the gentleman concerned asking permission to quote his name and comments in full.


Phil

Thanks Phil

Just a minor point.

[TizerisT]

Hi all, first post

First I would like to start with a scenario in which it may be possible that Amos walked away with the table cloth / shawl. It should be remembered that police protocol in those days was in it's infancy. With the GSG you have the possibility of a public squabble between two groups of coppers. We should remove it. No we shouldn't.

Amos, may not have informed what could have been in his eyes a rival group of police about what he took. Or perhaps even he was allowed to take it as it seemed unconnected to the crime. If folded, the blood stains, (which I think may have been minimal) may not be apparent.
Allow me if I may, to propose a scenario.

Amos finds the body (outside duristiction for whatever reason) either before or after a City police officer. Both find the scene at around the same time.
City police officer says 'Can you wait here for a sec, let me see if I can grab another officer' and Amos stays at the scene, and finds a table cloth / shawl that was not immediately apparent. Perhaps it could have been 15-20 feet away from the victim, Jack discarding it as he left the square. Amos either A) tucks it away somewhere he can unknowingly grab it as he leaves or B) declares to the City officers that he will take it, perhaps because it would be inadmissable or unconnected. Don't forget, it could have been relatively far from the body, hence why it wasn't listed on the crime scene list.
When they return, he is no longer required, and leaves.

I don't think that scenario is far-fetched. I'm trying to think of 'how it's possible'. Don't put too much confidence into Victorian Police policy. It has shown itself to be haphazard in many ways, and it's possible he duped the other officers when he took it. Just saying.

Another thing that's been on my mind:
When did barber shops stop performing medical surgery in London?

Thanks

[Prosector]

The Michaelmas daisy was a very common motif in the late 19th and early 20th century - and even later, think Mary Quant. I am sure that some serious research at the textile department of the Victoria and Albert Museum would pinpoint the likely origin of this piece of fabric.
Prosector

[Stewart P Evans]

Claim

Stewart, do you mean that scientifically, or legally?
Hypothetically: If a respected, qualified, professional scientist did his work conscientiously and honestly, and found what he was satisfied were very strong DNA matches with a victim and a suspect, you would dismiss that as entirely worthless based on the possibility of contamination? Even though, for example, you might have no actual evidence of how or when DNA matching Eddowes might have been deposited on the thing except at the time of her death? You would be happy to dismiss something so potentially definitive based on the mere possibility of contamination?
And if so, are you sure you're not holding Ripper evidence to a standard that, after so long, is unrealistically legalistic? I mean, maybe there wasn't enough to convict OJ in a criminal trial beyond a reasonable doubt, but a civil jury knew damn-well that he had killed Nicole based on a preponderance of evidence. I think some here, if the science was demonstrated to be straight and honest and reliable, might think similarly about Kosminski.
Again, I'm asking hypothetically - I'm not defending the shawl or the book. Personally I feel convinced this is Maybrick / Sickert all over again. Too many holes.

The claim is that the 'shawl' proves the identity of Jack the Ripper via DNA. This is not possible in any sense. Think about it.

[spyglass]

Oo-er Missus, did someone mention the duff 'diary'?

I knew you would bite !

[pinkmoon]

The diary has never been proved a fake!!!!!!!!the people who found it can't even remember where they found it least the shawl has some story about how it was discoverd.

[Jeff Leahy]

This would be a very strange table runner, in my opinion... one half blue printed silk, the other half red silk. Also... isn't the point of a table runner to protect the table from dings and scratches? Would this extremely thin piece of silk even make sense as a table runner?

RH

My understanding is that the table runner was more fashion than practical?

Yours Jeff

[Stewart P Evans]

Table Running

My understanding is that the table runner was more fashion than practical?
Yours Jeff

I tried table running once, but kept falling off the table. Or are we talking about something else here?

[GUT]

It is interesting to see that some of the sources for this book are a bit vague, and not backed up with anything solid (such as facts).

Struth Stewart now you want FACTS what next?