Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[lynn cates]

sell

Hello Jason. Sell it? Whom would buy?

Cheers.
LC

[pinkmoon]

Hello Barbara. If Kosminski kept the shawl as a trophy, surely Simpson could not have picked it up that night?

Cheers.
LC

It might have been discarded like the piece of apron and picked up shortly after and not handed in by the police man.

[Rob Clack]

Any idea of the phone number or email address I think we might have a couple of questions to ask the owner in fact I can see a minibus been hired here.

Personally I wouldn't give him any more publicity.

http://www.jacktherippertoursandstore.co.uk/

[pinkmoon]

Hello Jason. Sell it? Whom would buy?

Cheers.
LC

Maybe he thought he might be able to sell it one day but got cold feet many people do things at the spur of the moment and regret it later I mean look at all those poor sods who are married.

[Prosector]

Hello Barbara. If Kosminski kept the shawl as a trophy, surely Simpson could not have picked it up that night?

Cheers.
LC

The Eddowes murder site was very well catalogued by the police and the police surgeons right down to the mustard tin containing the pawn ticket for her boyfriend's boots. The idea that a policeman (who was not recorded as being present and belonged to the Mets not the City Police) could or would have made off with as important a bit of evidence as a blood stained shawl defies belief.
Prosector

[spyglass]

I think it was donated to the museum but they thought it was rubbish and never put in on display and then Mr Edwards bought it at auction and then his research started and that leaves us here.By the way spyglass where do you stand on this.

I always keep an open mind, in this case I am happy to stand well back and watch the fireworks go off.

[lynn cates]

honest

Hello Jeff. Your honesty is most refreshing.

Cheers.
LC

[pinkmoon]

Personally I wouldn't give him any more publicity.

http://www.jacktherippertoursandstore.co.uk/

Cheers I shall be sending email might give him a ring in the morning see if he would like to join us on here if he's not already on here under a false name the plot thickens.I've just looked at the merchandise he is selling I....plenty of taste all of it bad.

[paul g]

25 hours tick rock

Presuming you can get your hands on the book just after midnight we are now less than 25 hours away from possibly finding out the Kominsky was indeed Jack the Ripper.

So far the claims by the author and the scientist via press releases are. ( the prosecution)

1. The shawl is proved to 100% certainty that it belonged to miss Eddowes.
2 The D.N.A evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that Eddowes and Kominskys D.N.A is on the said shawl, and the samples being blood and semen.
3 The samples taking to prove the above are traceable in the case of Eddowes and kominsky but the provider regarding kominsky wishes to remain un named.

The counter claims by various posters on the forum ( the defence).

1 No evidence written at the time of the murders or recorded by the police make a mention of the shawl.
2 The D.N.A evidence has already been shown to flawed by various on here. And at best can be attributed to 1/40,000.


So it is quite possible that the book reveals 100% fact that the shawl belonged to Eddowes. It is also possible that the D.N.A evidence is supported by the scientists peers and accepted by the scientific community as 99.5% reliable and accurate. They the author and scientist may have already duplicated there tests and trials independently and that may be in the book, we just don,t know yet.

They may produce a statement with a signed statement from Kominskys relative in the form of some legal document that verifies and also satisfys any doubters.

If so it becomes quite plausible and Probable that kominsky was the killer.
The only counter argument left against against the fact of kominsky being the killer would be cross contamination of the shawl

One question I have if anyone could answer is...

In this day and age is it possible to date the samples obtained from the shawl?.

[Rob Clack]

Cheers I shall be sending email might give him a ring in the morning see if he would like to join us on here if he's not already on here under a false name the plot thickens.

Tell him to read Sugden so he can at least get the basic facts about the Eddowes right.

[Stewart P Evans]

History Lesson

Hi all,
Without going through all the posts, I thought the shawl was put in the black museum. So how was the guy able to buy it....or have I missed something ?
Regards.

And now for the history lesson...

The first mention of the 'shawl' appeared in the 1991 book, Jack the Ripper: The Mystery Solved [it wasn't, of course], by Paul Harrison. Two cut out and framed pieces of the 'shawl' were displayed in a video shop [!] in Clacton. The rest of the 'shawl', the part that all this fuss is about, was in the possession of a local antiques man David Melville Hayes (a very nice guy whom I have spoken with) to whose family the shawl belonged having devolved from his great-great-uncle the aforementioned Amos Simpson.

Oral tradition in the family told the tale that dear old Amos was 'the first person to find the body in Mitre Square' and had 'picked up the shawl that night and kept it.' It was kept in the family and his grandmother had cut a piece off as it was believed to be bloodstained. As I understand it Mr. Hayes decided to donate the 'shawl' to the Crime Museum, when Bill Waddell was curator, and it was later inspected by a Sotheby's expert who believed it to date to the early 1900s.

In view of the dubious provenance the 'shawl' was returned by the museum to Mr. Hayes, who later sold it at auction to the current owner. It was researched by the Parlours and Kevin O'Donnell for their 1997 book The Jack the Ripper Whitechapel Murders and a lengthy account of it is in this book, pp. 211-220.

[lynn cates]

proof

Hello Jason.

"It was Druitt!!!!! I have proof"

Hmm, 120 proof, perhaps? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

We need a second opinion on the shawl.

Perhaps the Maybrick Diary scientific analysis team could run a test.

They should be able to date it within +/-50 years.

Regards,

Simon

[Prosector]

Presuming you can get your hands on the book just after midnight we are now less than 25 hours away from possibly finding out the Kominsky was indeed Jack the Ripper.

So far the claims by the author and the scientist via press releases are. ( the prosecution)

1. The shawl is proved to 100% certainty that it belonged to miss Eddowes.
2 The D.N.A evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that Eddowes and Kominskys D.N.A is on the said shawl, and the samples being blood and semen.
3 The samples taking to prove the above are traceable in the case of Eddowes and kominsky but the provider regarding kominsky wishes to remain un named.

The counter claims by various posters on the forum ( the defence).

1 No evidence written at the time of the murders or recorded by the police make a mention of the shawl.
2 The D.N.A evidence has already been shown to flawed by various on here. And at best can be attributed to 1/40,000.


So it is quite possible that the book reveals 100% fact that the shawl belonged to Eddowes. It is also possible that the D.N.A evidence is supported by the scientists peers and accepted by the scientific community as 99.5% reliable and accurate. They the author and scientist may have already duplicated there tests and trials independently and that may be in the book, we just don,t know yet.

They may produce a statement with a signed statement from Kominskys relative in the form of some legal document that verifies and also satisfys any doubters.

If so it becomes quite plausible and Probable that kominsky was the killer.
The only counter argument left against against the fact of kominsky being the killer would be cross contamination of the shawl

One question I have if anyone could answer is...

In this day and age is it possible to date the samples obtained from the shawl?.

Not only is it not possible to date the samples there is also the question of the 'epithelial cells' and the (solitary) kidney cell. Isolated cells can only exist in a dry (ie air) environment for a limited period of time and still be recognisable . I don't know exactly what that is, it depends on circumstances but, in the case of a single kidney cell I would say that the period was measured in days if not hours. Furthermore I would not be able to recognise a single cell as having come from a kidney and nor, I believe, would any other scientist with histological experience.
Prosector

[wolfie1]

Presuming you can get your hands on the book just after midnight we are now less than 25 hours away from possibly finding out the Kominsky was indeed Jack the Ripper.

So far the claims by the author and the scientist via press releases are. ( the prosecution)

1. The shawl is proved to 100% certainty that it belonged to miss Eddowes.
2 The D.N.A evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that Eddowes and Kominskys D.N.A is on the said shawl, and the samples being blood and semen.
3 The samples taking to prove the above are traceable in the case of Eddowes and kominsky but the provider regarding kominsky wishes to remain un named.

The counter claims by various posters on the forum ( the defence).

1 No evidence written at the time of the murders or recorded by the police make a mention of the shawl.
2 The D.N.A evidence has already been shown to flawed by various on here. And at best can be attributed to 1/40,000.


So it is quite possible that the book reveals 100% fact that the shawl belonged to Eddowes. It is also possible that the D.N.A evidence is supported by the scientists peers and accepted by the scientific community as 99.5% reliable and accurate. They the author and scientist may have already duplicated there tests and trials independently and that may be in the book, we just don,t know yet.

They may produce a statement with a signed statement from Kominskys relative in the form of some legal document that verifies and also satisfys any doubters.

If so it becomes quite plausible and Probable that kominsky was the killer.
The only counter argument left against against the fact of kominsky being the killer would be cross contamination of the shawl

One question I have if anyone could answer is...

In this day and age is it possible to date the samples obtained from the shawl?.

thank you Paul, agree with everyone of your summations.
I have no idea if it is possible to date samples, I do hope Prosector will respond.
As for Kosminski DNA, I am able to access Kosmisnki family members in Aus, as my g.grandma married into the Kosmisnki family, there was a name change in 1920's to an Anglicised version for personal reasons.