Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Amanda Sumner]

Hello all. Long time lurker and first time poster. It's been said before on this monster of a topic but I think everything ultimately comes down to the fact that the only thing connecting this fabric to Mitre Square is little more than an urban legend. The historical record tells us that neither this piece of fabric or Amos Simpson were anywhere near the scene of Eddowes' murder. This means that the onus is on Edwards to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the existent historical record is wrong and his alternate "version" is the truth. Unfortunately for him he can't seem to do that.

I can't agree more, Mitchell. What I find more baffling is that after 1,407 posts by people who know the case inside out and yet can't grasp the fact that no shawl was found at the scene. That is the historical record. No shawl and no Amos Simpson. These 1,407 posts are discussing an event that never happened. It's a fairy tale. Do people really think that a policeman took a shawl that no one else saw, home to his wife? How on earth did he explain it to her? Had my husband given me a gift of a bloodstained shawl from a dead prostitute, I would probably have been horrified and burnt it!
The story is bizarre.
There was no shawl at the scene
There was no Amos Simpson at the scene
There are no grounds for debate.
Any DNA found on this shawl has nothing to with the Ripper murders.
Why, after 1,407 posts, are there still so many willing to discuss something that could not and did not happen?
Beats me.

[curious4]

Don't think it was me [if so I'm not sure what I was drinking, but I want more].

But do have it on good authority that she does a nice fish & chips on the stove top in the throne room, but only on Fridays.

Equally as unseriously.

Hello GUT

You've got it. Queen Vic lured her victims into dark corners with offers of free fish and chips, washed down with White Satin. She'd have got me - although I think I'd give the White Satin a miss, remembering something I once read about adulterated drinks!

Best wishes

C4

[GUT]

Hello GUT

You've got it. Queen Vic lured her victims into dark corners with offers of free fish and chips, washed down with White Satin. She'd have got me - although I think I'd give the White Satin a miss, remembering something I once read about adulterated drinks!

Best wishes

C4

I thought it was Bess that did the F&C for Phil.

Long live the Queen [otherwise Charlie will be King and Camilla Queen ]

[Chris]

I've read (some years back) but only in secondary sources, that Kosminski was recorded as having fair hair when he was admitted to the workhouse and/or asylum. Given the fair hair of his relations, this seems quite likely.

Unfortunately that's not true about Aaron. (His bodily condition was described as "fair", but not his hair.)

In the photographs of Morris and Matilda (Aaron's sister), the hair colouring does look quite light in the later ones, but I think that may be partly because they were greying by then. In the earliest photo, their hair colouring looks quite dark to me.

What we have been told - from information from a granddaughter of Matilda - is that "Matilda and Morris, her grandparents, and all their children were small and all had blue eyes. However we do not know whether all Matilda's brothers and sisters had blue eyes or not."

Morris was a first cousin of Matilda (Morris's father and Matilda's mother were Lubnowski siblings). For what it's worth, David Lubin was the son of another Lubnowski sibling, and his biographer, Olivia Agresti, mentions his "clear blue eyes":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lubin

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor

I'll let other people handle the science details. I was simply pointing out that identifying connections to Eddows should be far more simple than Kosminski. Thats because we all know and have met direct descendants of Catherine Eddows thanks to the brilliant work by Neil Sheldon.

And if there is blood on the Shawl it should be much more easy to identify and test.

And what I'm saying is that if those tests prove conclusive then it would seem probable that the Shawl/Table runner/Garrot had something to do with Eddows Death.

I mean sure you could argue what if she had been using the shawl as a tampax… but that's just a cloud cuckoo argument is it not?

The probability is that it supports the story originally told by Amos family. Who from everything I've heard and read were always cincere in their belief it was Cathrine Eddows shawl taken by their relative after the murder.

Yours Jeff

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29106437

But as has been said and many wont accept this either, destroy all that surrounds the provenance of the shawl and the DNA falls by the wayside.

Edwards should have taken steps to prove or disprove that the material is from the Victorian era first and that is a serious failing.

[Trevor Marriott]

I can't agree more, Mitchell. What I find more baffling is that after 1,407 posts by people who know the case inside out and yet can't grasp the fact that no shawl was found at the scene. That is the historical record. No shawl and no Amos Simpson. These 1,407 posts are discussing an event that never happened. It's a fairy tale. Do people really think that a policeman took a shawl that no one else saw, home to his wife? How on earth did he explain it to her? Had my husband given me a gift of a bloodstained shawl from a dead prostitute, I would probably have been horrified and burnt it!
The story is bizarre.
There was no shawl at the scene
There was no Amos Simpson at the scene
There are no grounds for debate.
Any DNA found on this shawl has nothing to with the Ripper murders.
Why, after 1,407 posts, are there still so many willing to discuss something that could not and did not happen?
Beats me.

Hi Amanda
You nailed it exactly !

[Chris]

Article in Hull Daily Mail. 1/10/1888 p3

"More Atrocities in London"
"Two Women Murdered"


Following is direct quote from article, of women found at murder scene.

...."Her dress was made of green chintz, the pattern consisting of Michaelmas daisies"

Other articles, same incident, added. "Michaelmas Daisies with Golden Lily Pattern" London Standard 1 Oct 1888

The green chintz with daisies matches the shawl/runner fringe end, with nil reference to the red color material in between both ends of the green chintz pattern.

Hence author claim that Eddowes dress, as described in this article, is actually in fact the shawl/table runner now in his possession.
The dress in this article does not appear in clothing inventory in later articles or official publications.

Yes. The author suggests that the chintz "dress" mentioned by the press was taken by Amos Simpson before the official inventory was compiled, but that the reporters had either seen it in Mitre Square or had been told about it by police officers.

However, the official inventory does include "Chintz Skirt 3 flounces, brown button on waistband, Jagged cut 6 1/2 inches long from waistband, left side of front, Edges slightly Bloodstained, also Blood on bottom, back & front of skirt." [Evans and Skinner, Ultimate Sourcebook, pp. 226, 227]

I think it's clear that the chintz dress mentioned in the press reports is identical with the chintz skirt in the inventory, particularly because in some versions the description of the "dress" is followed by the words "three flounces". For example, the Pall Mall Gazette, 1 October (in a list described as "issued by the police authorities with a view to identification") had:
"... dark green chintz dress, with Michaelmas daisies, golden lily pattern; three flounces, dark linsey skirt, ..."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/pall_mall_gazette/18881001.html

Obviously the further details of the chintz skirt in the official list would make it impossible to identify it with the shawl.

I think it's also questionable whether the pattern on the "shawl" shows Michaelmas daisies, let alone golden lilies, but that's a separate question.

(Aelric above referred to the list on the Catherine Eddowes page in the wiki section of this site. Unfortunately I haven't been able to work out where that comes from. It may be a composite of the official list and press reports.)

[roughyed]

Personally, having read all the posts so far, I think we have lost sight of Occam's Razor, in that when you have two competing theories the simpler one is better.
This guy knows you cant prove a negative!!!! Its the classic "Prove God doesnt exist" trick! You cant! You can not prove the "shawl" was there or not there! All you can do is look at all the evidence and the simplest deduction is usually correct. It was not recorded at the scene. Therefore it is more likely to not exist.
If a puppy is sat next to a pile of poop, who would you blame? 😄
I think theres a big steaming pile of poop here! Just saying!

[Chris]

Edwards should have taken steps to prove or disprove that the material is from the Victorian era first and that is a serious failing.

I assume what you meant to say was "I haven't read the book. Can anyone tell me whether Edwards took steps to prove or disprove that the material is from the Victorian era?"

If so, the answer is yes.

[JeffHamm]

Here's a nice page concerning the distribution of Haplogroup T (for mtDNA).

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_T_mtDNA.shtml

T1 appears to be around 1-3% in the UK (so T1a1 would be less of course), but if there were 7 million in the UK, at 2% we're talking 140,000 people with T1, but what proportion of those would be T1a1 I don't know.

Anyway, this could be a useful resource for the current discussions.

- Jeff

[Henry Flower]

But as has been said and many wont accept this either, destroy all that surrounds the provenance of the shawl and the DNA falls by the wayside.

Not at all. IF the DNA evidence were indisputable, provenance falls by the wayside - because this is not a recent murder being tried in a court of law by absolute legal standards. IF the DNA showed beyond a reasonable doubt that Eddowes' blood and Kosminski's semen were found on an item, I think we would be entirely justified in giving that finding absolute priority over a story of provenance that has accrued a century and a quarter of garbling and Chinese whispers.

What amuses me slightly is that, with respect to other theories, many respected researchers here have had no problem with accepting certain stories as being garbled, confused, incomplete, or misremembered versions of what must have actually happened, and happily use such unresolved historical errata to bolster their own theories. BUT - when an outsider like Edwards comes along with such a story, then he is expected to either prove every aspect of the story beyond any legal doubt or have his entire theory - DNA and all - roundly rejected.

Edwards should have taken steps to prove or disprove that the material is from the Victorian era first and that is a serious failing.

Trevor, I assume from this comment that you have read the book and know that he didn't?

[JeffHamm]

I've attached an image of the shawl, which I grabbed from the article which is linked to in the first post of this thread. Just so we can all get a good look at it.

[Outlaw]

I can't agree more, Mitchell. What I find more baffling is that after 1,407 posts by people who know the case inside out and yet can't grasp the fact that no shawl was found at the scene. That is the historical record. No shawl and no Amos Simpson. These 1,407 posts are discussing an event that never happened. It's a fairy tale. Do people really think that a policeman took a shawl that no one else saw, home to his wife? How on earth did he explain it to her? Had my husband given me a gift of a bloodstained shawl from a dead prostitute, I would probably have been horrified and burnt it!
The story is bizarre.
There was no shawl at the scene
There was no Amos Simpson at the scene
There are no grounds for debate.
Any DNA found on this shawl has nothing to with the Ripper murders.
Why, after 1,407 posts, are there still so many willing to discuss something that could not and did not happen?
Beats me.

My thoughts exactly, I am also somewhat perplexed why this fairy tale was not dealt with in one or two posts and then filed alongside Joseph Gorman's Bedtime stories and the William Gull nonsense....

[Henry Flower]

When a bald man has more than one button open on his shirt, that screams 'fraud' to me.

[Henry Flower]

Look at that silky shirt! How do we know it's not Edwards' own semen on the fabric?