Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[GUT]

Well, I've seen it spoken in this thread that it's ridiculous that a superior would give permission to take away such an "important piece of evidence". I don't see it that way at all. Trying to look at it through the eyes of a 19th century cop, I imagine an 8x2 piece of fabric would've been little more than an afterthought at the crime scene.

As for the placing Simpson at the scene. I agree that the provenance is sketchy. Not so sketchy though as, say, James Maybrick carving victims' initials into a watch or Walter Sickert painting Davinci style codes of murder scenes to incriminate himself, etc.

I don't know all the particulars of this story. But there's a man named Amos Simpson, he was a cop in the general area of the crimes at the time of the crimes, he had a cloth with a story, the cloth was passed down the line with the story, there may be dna evidence in the cloth. Sketchy provenance? Yes. But at least it's SOMETHING within the realm of possibility. It can't be said that the cloth wasn't at the crime scene if Simpson can't be definitively placed at the crime scene...there's just too many unknown variables. No matter what is ever put forth, it's going to boil down to how much circumstantial evidence will it take for each individual to accept that a suspect was or was not JtR.

Yes Amos was a cop in London ... so what?

He was in the wrong force.

There is no record of hm being on the site of the murder, or at the mortuary or in any other way involved in the case. And what has Maybrick got to do with it?

Even if there is DNA on the bit of cloth, it has been handled by literally 1000's of people and even according to Mr Edwards it's at best 99.2% so what does that prove, not a thing.

[The Good Michael]

I have some 19th century shoes that come from MJK's apartment. As the list of items found there no longer exist, you can't prove me wrong. There are some drops of something on the tongue of one shoe. It could be blood or linseed oil or something. If we can test it and prove that those drops came from this earth, we can compare it to an ancestor of Fleming, and we can say that Fleming did it. I just need an editor and a pseudo-scientist. And we can choose who we want, so if we don't want to look at Fleming, perhaps Gull? We need to have our suspect first or it becomes too perplexing.

Mike

[Penny_Dredfull]

Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

Stewart P. Evans- Well, you see there are just too many "ifs" concerning this piece of cloth for my liking. There are too many claims and assertions which can't be certified as fact. You have to accept that the cloth is something to do with Kosminski, that his semen is on the fabric, that it came into contact with Catherine Eddowes's blood, that the blood was shed when she was murdered, and thus that Jack the Ripper is Kosminski. It's too much to accept- without enough proof for each separate element the whole falls down like a rickety house of cards. It's just a piece of old cloth which can be claimed to be nearly anything.
Don't even get me started on the dubiousness of the DNA.

[GUT]

I have some 19th century shoes that come from MJK's apartment. As the list of items found there no longer exist, you can't prove me wrong. There are some drops of something on the tongue of one shoe. It could be blood or linseed oil or something. If we can test it and prove that those drops came from this earth, we can compare it to an ancestor of Fleming, and we can say that Fleming did it. I just need an editor and a pseudo-scientist. And we can choose who we want, so if we don't want to look at Fleming, perhaps Gull? We need to have our suspect first or it becomes too perplexing.

Mike

Perhaps the drop on the tongue of the shoe is semen. If so it was Kosminski .

[Pontius2000]

Yes Amos was a cop in London ... so what?

He was in the wrong force.

There is no record of hm being on the site of the murder, or at the mortuary or in any other way involved in the case. And what has Maybrick got to do with it?

Even if there is DNA on the bit of cloth, it has been handled by literally 1000's of people and even according to Mr Edwards it's at best 99.2% so what does that prove, not a thing.

That's the thing....too many unknowns. It assumes a lot to say that he got a piece of cloth from a crime scene that was preserved for 120+ years with dna evidence. However, it also assumes a lot to try to say definitively that it couldn't have happened exactly that way.

Saying, "he was in the wrong force" is saying absolutely nothing. Both jurisdictions had murders less than a mile apart on the same night, so I can tell you with certainty that dozens of officers from both jurisdictions crossed paths on that night. Do I have any proof that they crossed paths? No. But I know they did, but I know how police work. There is not some magical force field that keeps a cop from one jurisdiction out of another jurisdiction, particularly in the chaos of a murder in two neighboring jurisdictions.

"Proof" that Amos Simpson was at Mitre Square? Nope. But there is also technically no "proof" that the man who killed Mary Kelly was ever in Mitre Square either. What I'm saying is that if Amos Simpson was a cop in London in 1888, then there's a pretty damn good chance that he WAS present at one of the scenes that night, if not both. Again, the provenance is sketchy. But it's also sketchy to assume that he wasn't there just because there is no surviving written record of him being there.

[GUT]

Gee you say

so I can tell you with certainty that dozens of officers from both jurisdictions crossed paths on that night.

That's not what Monty and Stewart say and they are probably two of the most knowledgeable non that subject on the boards.

What I'm saying is that if Amos Simpson was a cop in London in 1888, then there's a pretty damn good chance that he WAS present at one of the scenes that night, if not both.

So most of the Cops in London were there?

.

[Pontius2000]

That's not what Monty and Stewart say and they are probably two of the most knowledgeable non that subject on the boards.

Knowledgeable on what, police from different jurisdictions crossing paths? Unless they were somehow there, they're no more knowledgeable than I on who did or didn't cross paths that night. Do you accept that Charles Warren gave the order for the graffiti to be erased? Was the graffiti in the city's jurisdiction or the met's jurisdiction?

So most of the Cops in London were there?

.

The ones who were working likely were. And of course, that includes any additional forces who were working overtime because of the murder spree. So yes, if Amos Simpson was a cop in London in 1888, then there's a fairly good chance he was working that night.

[GUT]

So no police worked any of the other shifts.

If you have three shifts a day, and all leave is cancelled and every officer on duty attends one or other murder that gives him about 1 in 6.

Bearing in mind that many of the police wouldn't have even known about the murder till well after the body was removed, I really doubt that 1% of the total force would have been at either scene.

[Jonathan H]

Behold the Face of the ...

Wow! Not only is it solved but there is a picture of Aaron Kosminski too!

He looks older, perhaps before he died, even healthy and dapper?

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/it8217s-case-closed-for-jack-the-ripper--alas-20140910-10et93.html

[Tom_Wescott]

That's a picture of Swanson.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

G'day Tom

Sure looks like him.

[Pontius2000]

Oh, so just as many police- and added police- worked the day shift? Because so many of the JtR murders were occurring in broad daylight, right?

And to answer my question that you skipped over....Charles Warren of the MET POLICE went into the CITY OF LONDON and ordered that the graffiti be erased. That obliterates your theory that cops don't just cross over into other jurisdiction during times of chaos. He said he did it to prevent violence against Jews. By your logic, the Jews in the city of London weren't really Warren's concern, right?

Again, I don't want it to sound like I'm supporting this new book, because I'm not. The whole thing reeks of fraud. And while I've not read the book, I agree that it sounds like the author went out looking for the answers that conveniently fit his own preconceived theory. But at the same time, I've read A LOT of comments on this thread which are automatically dismissing any of this shawl story outright because it doesn't seem to fit the poster's pet theory. As far as I'm concerned, nothing plausible should be automatically accepted OR dismissed.

[Magpie]

Wow! Not only is it solved but there is a picture of Aaron Kosminski too!

He looks older, perhaps before he died, even healthy and dapper?

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/it8217...10-10et93.html

Patrica Corwell is the "Queen of the Ripperologists"? Wtf? Has this silly little tablecloth turned the entire world insane?

[Magpie]

And to answer my question that you skipped over....Charles Warren of the MET POLICE went into the CITY OF LONDON and ordered that the graffiti be erased.

That would be incorrect.

[Pontius2000]

Has this silly little tablecloth turned the entire world insane?

That quote is a prime example of the problem I have within this whole thread...dismissing the whole thing outright without any real proof to the contrary.

The Maybrick story was a fantasy concocted around someone who was previously completely unconnected to the JtR story.

The Sickert story was a fantasy concocted around someone who was previously completely unconnected to the JtR story.

The Gull story was a fantasy concocted around someone who was preciousl completely unconnected to the JtR story.

This "shawl story" is connected to someone (Simpson) who, at the very least, was a cop in the area at the time of the crimes. A strenuous connection, but still a connection. Dismissing the entire story outright without any evidence to the contrary, to me, is just as bad as accepting something in face value. It deserves more research, not to just be dismissed with a laugh.