Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Stewart P Evans]

The Dreaded 'shawl'

The dreaded shawl is back, for the umpteenth time.

Pity it's not a shawl, pity the provenance (such as it is) is merely oral family tradition from a police officer (Amos Simpson) who was in the Metropolitan Police and not the City Police and who has no recorded involvement whatsoever in the Eddowes murder, pity that fairly recent scientific tests on the 'shawl' failed to provide any evidence that what stains were on there were blood at all, pity that the pretty extensive records of Eddowes and her possessions reveal no such item as a shawl at any time, pity that all attempts in the past to 'prove' this was Eddowes 'shawl' failed dismally, pity...

Still, I guess that if you paid a high price for this dubious 'relic' you would be very keen to prove it real. Proving any such thing is totally impossible and, more to the point, hasn't been done. The whole claim is totally, and fatally, flawed.

[lynn cates]

ruse

Hello Writerboy.

"And are we really meant to believe a bobby asked to take it home. . ."

Well, if this ruse is to succeed, you are. Is it not normal procedure for constables to take the evidence home before an inventory is taken? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[curious4]

Shawl

I can't believe that Kate was ever near this shawl - unless it was to admire it on someone else. As previously observed, there is no mention of a shawl among her belongings and I think a shawl would have been mentioned at the police station. I gather that neckerchiefs were taken as a matter of course from prisoners and surely a shawl would come into this category. If she did own such a shawl, surely it would have been pawned before Kelly's boots. The whole story of a policeman taking it home to his wife is ridiculous. In the first place, anything from the crime scene was evidence and no senior policeman would have allowed a junior officer to make off with anything to do with the murder. I can also imagine any wife's reaction to "here you are, dear, nice shawl, took it off a murder victim, just give it a wash to get rid of the bloodstains and it will be as good as new!"

Best wishes,
C4

[GUT]

If the police had even a suspicion that it was her shawl does anyone honestly think they would have given it away?

[lynn cates]

publicity

Hello Paul. Thanks.

Would that book count as the breaking story? As you rightly point out, the "story" (ie, proper publicity) begins now.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Hear, hear!

Hello Stewart. Hear, hear!

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

scenario

Hello Gwyneth.

"The whole story of a policeman taking it home to his wife is ridiculous. In the first place, anything from the crime scene was evidence and no senior policeman would have allowed a junior officer to make off with anything to do with the murder. I can also imagine any wife's reaction to "here you are, dear, nice shawl, took it off a murder victim, just give it a wash to get rid of the bloodstains and it will be as good as new!""

Exactly.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

no

Hello GUT.

"If the police had even a suspicion that it was her shawl does anyone honestly think they would have given it away?"

No.

Cheers.
LC

[GUT]

I can't believe that Kate was ever near this shawl - unless it was to admire it on someone else. As previously observed, there is no mention of a shawl among her belongings and I think a shawl would have been mentioned at the police station. I gather that neckerchiefs were taken as a matter of course from prisoners and surely a shawl would come into this category. If she did own such a shawl, surely it would have been pawned before Kelly's boots. The whole story of a policeman taking it home to his wife is ridiculous. In the first place, anything from the crime scene was evidence and no senior policeman would have allowed a junior officer to make off with anything to do with the murder. I can also imagine any wife's reaction to "here you are, dear, nice shawl, took it off a murder victim, just give it a wash to get rid of the bloodstains and it will be as good as new!"

Best wishes,
C4

And having taken it home to his dressmaking wife, she did nothing with it, didn't make anything, didn't even wash it.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

When this story broke over here in Scandinavia today, I hoped to hear Stewart P. Evans opinion - and we got it.

I agree with many here, that the provinence of the so called "shawl" is speculative to say the least. How would a Metropolitan policeman get hold of it on the crime scene outside of his jurisdiction before anyone else registred it, especially since it took some time for the Met police to hear the news about the murder? And why take the risk of such a criminal act?
It doesn't make sense.

As for the DNA, I am neither capable or competent enough in order to value these types of physical evidence - I am not a chemist - but does this mean, that people infer that Russell has contaminated the piece of clothing with mtDNA afterwards , if the mtDNA can be trusted at all?

All the best

[historynerd93]

His gift shop will be doing business now...

[curious4]

Thanks Lynn. I can feel an attack of the vapours coming on just at the thought of it! :-D

Gwyneth

[Trevor Marriott]

I can't believe that Kate was ever near this shawl - unless it was to admire it on someone else. As previously observed, there is no mention of a shawl among her belongings and I think a shawl would have been mentioned at the police station. I gather that neckerchiefs were taken as a matter of course from prisoners and surely a shawl would come into this category. If she did own such a shawl, surely it would have been pawned before Kelly's boots. The whole story of a policeman taking it home to his wife is ridiculous. In the first place, anything from the crime scene was evidence and no senior policeman would have allowed a junior officer to make off with anything to do with the murder. I can also imagine any wife's reaction to "here you are, dear, nice shawl, took it off a murder victim, just give it a wash to get rid of the bloodstains and it will be as good as new!"

Best wishes,
C4

And as Stewart has pointed out Amos Simpson was stationed in Islington North London, miles from East London.

[TomTomKent]

I don't believe the idea that the shawl was an obscure clue to dates of future murders. It simply seems too much of a stretch and makes little or no sense.

As it stands, if the Shawl WAS from the crime scene, WAS kept unwashed, and WAS splattered with semen, we have evidence that the owner may have obtained the semen on that night, from either Kosminski or another relative of the descendent.

Proving that at some point before the murder the victim had sex with Kosminski is not "unmasking the Ripper". It would be of note, of course, but would not be a case and of its own.

[Phil Carter]

The dreaded shawl is back, for the umpteenth time.

Pity it's not a shawl, pity the provenance (such as it is) is merely oral family tradition from a police officer (Amos Simpson) who was in the Metropolitan Police and not the City Police and who has no recorded involvement whatsoever in the Eddowes murder, pity that fairly recent scientific tests on the 'shawl' failed to provide any evidence that what stains were on there were blood at all, pity that the pretty extensive records of Eddowes and her possessions reveal no such item as a shawl at any time, pity that all attempts in the past to 'prove' this was Eddowes 'shawl' failed dismally, pity...

Still, I guess that if you paid a high price for this dubious 'relic' you would be very keen to prove it real. Proving any such thing is totally impossible and, more to the point, hasn't been done. The whole claim is totally, and fatally, flawed.

Hello Stewart,

This is just worthy repeating and quoting.

thank you.



Phil