Originally posted by Henry Flower
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by Prosector View PostFisherman
You are quite right - I apologise. In that case he was even further away and could not have 'stumbled into the City' unless he was off duty at the time or was sent there deliberately.
Prosector
The best,
Fisherman
Comment
-
There's tons to read and I am sorry if this has already been stated. If the DNA profilers were 100% tested correctly with the blind samples and all, then it would only prove that that shawl had been close proximity of Eddows and Kosminski at some point. It doesn't prove that Kosminski could be JTR. It doesn't even prove Eddows even met Kosminski. The fact is, Kosminski and Eddows were both in the area at the time and it is possible that Kosminski was even a client of Eddows but that's about it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Henry Flower View PostI take your point though, and I argued earlier in the thread that the thing was not nearly as bulky as people were claiming, and that moreover a process called 'folding' had been invented just prior to the murders.
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
RH
Comment
-
Originally posted by wolfie1 View PostWas the piece of red silk, found around her neck by the first witnesses at the murder scene?
If the red silk material wasn't found around her neck, what then is the scarf that was found around her neck, as stated per the Cornishman article?
Note. I would upload but having issues with PDF,s. and also not sure if article is copyright and not public domain yet.
Comment
-
I see we're still going round and round in cricles, 'debating' questions which are all answered if one would just read the book. I've even tried to answer these same questions and given the books point of view for those that simply will not read it on principle (understandable to an extent) in this very thread.
I've said it in earlier posts, but I found the book fascinating. There were facets which warranted debate 100% (to put it lightly), several in fact, but unfortunately most seem hung up on backslapping about the 'table runner'.
I've read far whackier books about JtR and many that have gained traction. Its safe to say that even the more 'respected' books about JtR (Sugden for one example) has parts of the book which are certainly debatable, so what's so different here?
Comment
-
The crime scene picture certainly doesn’t show a spare bit of cloth anywhere.
Stewart Evans reproduced somewhere the original information from Amos Simpson’s family regarding their oral tradition concerning the cloth.
I believe this tradition was a bit vague about where or how Amos Simpson came by it, although they definitely claimed a Ripper connection.
In other words whether Amos Simpson was on supposed to be on special duties, whether he obtained it while the body was in situ in Mitre Square or on its way to the morgue, is unclear from information originally supplied from the family
It was first brought to the attention of people outside their family in 1988.
It is clear from the extant records of what happened in Mitre Square that the names of every policeman or bystander was not recorded.
A Metropolitan Policeman was a constable in the City of London.
Comment
-
Originally posted by wolfie1 View PostIf the red silk material wasn't found around her neck, what then is the scarf that was found around her neck, as stated per the Cornishman article?
Note. I would upload but having issues with PDF,s. and also not sure if article is copyright and not public domain yet.
Comment
-
I can put this to bed too, though I expect nothing to come of it. The book states that the shawl was mis-reported as a skirt by the press, which described the shawl at the crime scene, but said it was a skirt. The descriptions of the skirts by the police do not match what the press reported, as all her skirts are plain.
It's the authors theory that the shawl was mis-identified as a skirt by the press and by the time the police wrote up the articles of clothing for the report, Amos has already taken off with the shawl, hence it not appearing in police records.
Whether or not that is believable is another story.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lechmere View PostThe crime scene picture certainly doesn’t show a spare bit of cloth anywhere.
Stewart Evans reproduced somewhere the original information from Amos Simpson’s family regarding their oral tradition concerning the cloth.
I believe this tradition was a bit vague about where or how Amos Simpson came by it, although they definitely claimed a Ripper connection.
In other words whether Amos Simpson was on supposed to be on special duties, whether he obtained it while the body was in situ in Mitre Square or on its way to the morgue, is unclear from information originally supplied from the family
It was first brought to the attention of people outside their family in 1988.
It is clear from the extant records of what happened in Mitre Square that the names of every policeman or bystander was not recorded.
A Metropolitan Policeman was a constable in the City of London.
I am referring to a newspaper article re Eddowes inquest, it claimed a scarf was around her neck when she was found. Yet others on the boards are stating there was no material found with her??? I tend to believe published articles at the time, although it was Only mentioned in one article that I can find online, other reports of the same inquests are shorter in duration and omit the scarf around her neck and the fact she was noted to be a cleaner in Jewish homes and a hawker. Same article, also downplayed her drinking and lady of the night activities. Also refers to her as aka Eliza Conway.
Am I the only one who has read this article???
Comment
Comment