Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Chris]

What I meant is : how the author may pretend all at once that the so-called shawl was indeed Kate's dress (or skirt) and so actually been present on the inventory, and THE shawl brought by the killer to announce further crime ? Or did I misunderstood the claims ?

The author's suggestion is that the "shawl" was mentioned in the press reports but not in the inventory.

[pinkmoon]

The author's suggestion is that the "shawl" was mentioned in the press reports but not in the inventory.

Has it actually be confirmed that it was a shawl and not a tablerunner?

[Jeff Leahy]

Really no one loses here (except the fraudster--if there is one).

If proven genuine, I personally would be glad that a piece of evidence has survived and wasn't destroyed like most of the other evidence.

Hi Chris

I don't think we have to assume fraud. The guy doing the testing seemed quite genuine. In my experience that old devil Mr Cockup is usually to blame when things go wrong..

I'd also be careful what is said about Russell Edwards before everything is thoroughly looked at…nothing wrong with being a businessman

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Has it actually be confirmed that it was a shawl and not a tablerunner?

Its a strip of material originally thought to be screen printed, and thus dated as Edwardian. Probably a table Runner by expert opinion.

The latest tests appear to be saying it was hand painted. This would blow the original dating and ID.

But i'd want to see more before concluding it was definitely older

Yours Jeff

[christoper]

Fair enough Christopher. I think I said, life and theory don't run in neat sync. I also said that 507 matches is only for those people who've been tested and have put their data in the mitochondria database. A fraction of the total I'm sure. But it's not central.

For me at the moment the real issue is - was the shawl at the murder scene? We have no idea. Beyond a family story which may be completely true, but like DNA, family stories have a habit of mutating over the generations.

Suppose it really is Eddowes blood on the shawl. There isn't a lot, but to explain this, we are told that someone - long dead - cut the worst parts out. Did they? We don't know.

Does a blood stain prove it was at the scene, and that therefore Amos Simpson must have been as well? Of course not.

Did the police go to Eddowes digs after they found her body? We don't know, but it seems highly likely. If they did, did someone see a shawl laying around and say 'that'd be nice for the wife'?

There's any number of scenarios that are just as plausible (even more so?) as the murder scene finding.

Without something of substance linking it to Mitre Square, rather than just to Eddowes, then the question of 'proof' will always be wanting.

Fair enough. Unfortunately environmental exposures are causing mutations at a rapid rate nowadays--I'm sure if we could go back in time thousands of years DNA might stay unchanged for hundreds of years. It is a personal issue to me--as I have done some cancer research--and it is horrifying that so many, many young children are dying now at 4-5 years old--because their mothers DNA was mutated and it was passed on to them This is unprecedented. And highly upsetting to me.

As far as the cloth--I will be satisfied if it is sufficiently proven to be Eddowes blood, at a level of degradation that indicates the correct age, and in a splatter pattern consistent with stabbing. If those things are shown--I willl not have a problem believing that the cloth was at Mitre Sq. (I think it is unlikely this level of proof will be provided--but if it was--that would satisfy me.)

As far as Simpson being at the scene--that is a non issue for me.

Personally, (and this is just my theory) I don't believe Simpson was anywhere near Mitre Sq--he probably made that up to explain how he got the artifact and sound important.

However, my gut feeling is that he (and perhaps his wife) wanted a ghoulish souvenir and someone--perhaps one of his friends on the force who owed him a favor--provided them with their prize (perhaps genuine--perhaps not)

The piece of cloth would fold up to an easy size to slip into a coat pocket--and truth be told in those days a lot of evidence walked away. The police couldn't get any forensic evidence from something like this at that time--so it would only end up being thrown away--and with that rationalization a lot of items from scenes like this are known to have ended up in private hands. Simpson may have even paid for it.

The Simpsons obviously believed it was a genuine murder artifact--they made up a story to explain how they had it, tucked it safely away, cherished it for generations. told the children that someday it would be worth some money (!!!)--and even kept it in the same trunk with their own Sunday clothes--so obviously none of them (including the wife) seemed to be too creeped out by the blood or the association (I don't think the seminal fluid was visible to the naked eye--so they may not even have known about that).

Anyway--that is how I picture it, although there are many possible scenarios.

I don't believe he was there--and won't unless some proof is shown. However the blood evidence indicates the possibility that the cloth was there-so I will entertain that notion until I know one way or another.

[pinkmoon]

Its a strip of material originally thought to be screen printed, and thus dated as Edwardian. Probably a table Runner by expert opinion.

The latest tests appear to be saying it was hand painted. This would blow the original dating and ID.

But i'd want to see more before concluding it was definitely older

Yours Jeff

Thanks Jeff

[GUT]

Its a strip of material originally thought to be screen printed, and thus dated as Edwardian. Probably a table Runner by expert opinion.

The latest tests appear to be saying it was hand painted. This would blow the original dating and ID.

But i'd want to see more before concluding it was definitely older

Yours Jeff

G'day Jeff

Why would it "blow it".

Hand painting continued for decades after screen printing, in fact continues to this day.

Yes t would need to be re-evaluated if it was hand painted and if the original date was based on it being screen printed.

[christoper]

Hi Chris

I don't think we have to assume fraud. The guy doing the testing seemed quite genuine. In my experience that old devil Mr Cockup is usually to blame when things go wrong..

I'd also be careful what is said about Russell Edwards before everything is thoroughly looked at…nothing wrong with being a businessman

Yours Jeff

sorry--that was not very clear.

I didn't mean to imply that there is fraud in this particular case--just that people seem to be on guard from the beginning because there has been a history of fraudulent Ripper discoveries.

[Jeff Leahy]

G'day Jeff

Why would it "blow it".

Hand painting continued for decades after screen printing, in fact continues to this day.

Yes t would need to be re-evaluated if it was hand painted and if the original date was based on it being screen printed.

No thats a fair point it could still be post the murder. Which is why I'd want to see more. But if they prove the blood is Eddows through direct testing it would appear to have to date at least to the night she was killed…hence my exaggerate expression

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

sorry--that was not very clear.

I didn't mean to imply that there is fraud in this particular case--just that people seem to be on guard from the beginning because there has been a history of fraudulent Ripper discoveries.

Yes ignites a lot of passion around here. Jenni Sheldon gave a great talk at the Welsh conference on the Uncle Jack fraud and then we have the Maybrick Diary. But if you check the threads on the Marginalia you will note some strong opinions.

In this case fraud would appear to be unlikely as the shawl was well known and documented before Russel Edwards purchased it and sent it to be examined. And it seems improbable that a respected scientist would risk his career on anything dodgy….cockup yes, fraud no

Yours Jeff

[curious4]

For those wanting to know how carefully handled the 'shawl' was over the years, the O'Donnell (Parlours') book tells us -

'He [David Melville Hayes] remembered seeing the shawl for the first time when he was 8 or 9 years old, when it was kept in an old sea-chest with waxed rope handles at his grandmother's house. The chest was about 18"x15"x4'. His mother also recalls it being kept in this chest, which is now in David's possession. She recalls how her mother kept their Sunday best clothes in the same chest, with the shawl! One corner of the shawl was tattered and some material had been cut away. David has always assumed that this had been bloodstained and his grandmother had cut this off and thrown it away, also dabbing out one or two more stains with bleach (David himself had cut out the two sections which were later framed.).'

Bleach?!!

[pinkmoon]

Bleach?!!

Edwardian table runner?!!

[curious4]

Hello GUT

I agree. Long live her Majesty. The other option is not appealing!

Best wishes
C4

[christoper]

Bleach?!!

IMO, chlorine bleach would disintegrate that delicate, silky fabric--or at very least weaken it so much it would start falling apart.

....once blood stains set they are very hard to get out.

[GUT]

Hello GUT

I agree. Long live her Majesty. The other option is not appealing!

Best wishes
C4

I might even support becoming a republic if that happens, now Will and Kate are another matter.