Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Observer]

G'day Gut,

The story goes that Amos asked permission to take the shawl from his superiors.

That is quite clearly absolute bollocks. If a PC did obtain the shawl, either in Mitre Square or subsequently in the WM investigation, he nicked it while no one was looking.

We have no written record of a policeman stealing a valuable item from the crime scene, or subsequently, but then why would we?

MrB

Those are exactly the lines I was thinking along Mr B.

[GUT]

G'day Gut,

The story goes that Amos asked permission to take the shawl from his superiors.

That is quite clearly absolute bollocks. If a PC did obtain the shawl, either in Mitre Square or subsequently in the WM investigation, he nicked it while no one was looking.

We have no written record of a policeman stealing a valuable item from the crime scene, or subsequently, but then why would we?

MrB

G'day MrB

But we also have no record of Simpson being anywhere near the scene, and that we would expect to have.

Personally I suspect he said something like

"That shawl [or table runner] is the same [pattern] as the dress worn by Jack the Rippers victim"

And over the years the story mutated.

[MrBarnett]

Obs/Gut,

Once you discount the 'My superiors gave me permission to take a crucial piece of evidence home so my wife could make cushion covers' rubbish, the possibilities become endless.

Endless and unprovable/disprovable.

I'd like to know a bit more about PC Amos. His precise whereabouts in the autumn of '88 would be interesting. By 1891 he was living in leafy Hertfordshire, miles from Islington, let alone the Aldgate area. But who knows where he was on that fateful morning?

MrB

[paul g]

Shawl table runner.

Anyone know if the shawl/table runner could be accurately dated if the owner allowed.

[dropzone]

Its an Edwardian Table runner. About 8 meters in Length and 2 Metres wide.

Is this the cloth in question?

http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com/2014/09/ripper_-_shawl.jpg?w=620&h=464

If so then you seem to have your units of measurement confused. That looks more like it's 2 feet by 8 feet, the other floral print endpiece having been removed at some point. This is the size for an 8 foot table, with the printed ends hanging. With the other end gone it is both a manageable length for an apparently lightweight shawl and worth a lot less at a pawnshop. Eddowes could have owned it, if the dating works. I'll dig out what a similar product would cost back then. Not that I believe for a second that any of that hogwash is true.

I joined here for the classic reason: Somebody was wrong on the internet. And, as a Yank, it's my patriotic duty to support Tumblety.

[GUT]

Is this the cloth in question?

http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com/2014/09/ripper_-_shawl.jpg?w=620&h=464

If so then you seem to have your units of measurement confused. That looks more like it's 2 feet by 8 feet, the other floral print endpiece having been removed at some point. This is the size for an 8 foot table, with the printed ends hanging. With the other end gone it is both a manageable length for an apparently lightweight shawl and worth a lot less at a pawnshop. Eddowes could have owned it, if the dating works. I'll dig out what a similar product would cost back then. Not that I believe for a second that any of that hogwash is true.

I joined here for the classic reason: Somebody was wrong on the internet. And, as a Yank, it's my patriotic duty to support Tumblety.

G'day Dropzone

Welcome to casebook, hope you hang around after the "hogwash" dies down.

Yes it appears some get their metrc and imperial confused, but considering we have posters from all over he world that's not surprising.

The only problem is the author says that Eddowes didn't own but that Kosminski planted it as a clue.

If he hadn't gilded the lily so much he might have had a better reception.

[GUT]

But probably not as much publicity and sales. Both of his book and in his shop.

[Henry Flower]

I joined here for the classic reason: Somebody was wrong on the internet. And, as a Yank, it's my patriotic duty to support Tumblety.

haha

A genuine member of the Tumbleteam - what a pity Stewart is sleeping it all off....

[Pontius2000]

I've not read this book and have no real opinion on this whole matter. But just to play devil's advocate in questioning the application of 21st century police ethics and procedures to a 19th century police case....WHY would the shawl have been considered an "important piece of evidence"? Is there any clue whatsoever that could have been taken from this "shawl"? I mean, the use of DNA in criminal cases was still a century away. Again, i have no opinion on this one way or another. I just don't see it as a huge leap of faith to think, in 1888, some superior officer saying, "hey, your wife sows fancy things. Take this fancy fabric, this lady won't be needing it." Of course, I could be way off. I just don't see the "strict securing of crime scenes and evidence" back in those days as compared to what you'd see now.

[mucher1]

Yes, I know what it is, but what I asked is where did you get the picture you posted from?

I think you posted it yourself a while back:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=296

[GUT]

I've not read this book and have no real opinion on this whole matter. But just to play devil's advocate in questioning the application of 21st century police ethics and procedures to a 19th century police case....WHY would the shawl have been considered an "important piece of evidence"? Is there any clue whatsoever that could have been taken from this "shawl"? I mean, the use of DNA in criminal cases was still a century away. Again, i have no opinion on this one way or another. I just don't see it as a huge leap of faith to think, in 1888, some superior officer saying, "hey, your wife sows fancy things. Take this fancy fabric, this lady won't be needing it." Of course, I could be way off. I just don't see the "strict securing of crime scenes and evidence" back in those days as compared to what you'd see now.

I'll leave the ethics questions to people better acquainted with that issue.

But if we can't place Simpson on the scene how does it even get to the starting gate.

[Lechmere]

I took this substandard one that anyone can copy for all I care.

[Pontius2000]

I'll leave the ethics questions to people better acquainted with that issue.

But if we can't place Simpson on the scene how does it even get to the starting gate.

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.

[Veritas]

The dreaded shawl is back, for the umpteenth time.

Pity it's not a shawl, pity the provenance (such as it is) is merely oral family tradition from a police officer (Amos Simpson) who was in the Metropolitan Police and not the City Police and who has no recorded involvement whatsoever in the Eddowes murder, pity that fairly recent scientific tests on the 'shawl' failed to provide any evidence that what stains were on there were blood at all, pity that the pretty extensive records of Eddowes and her possessions reveal no such item as a shawl at any time, pity that all attempts in the past to 'prove' this was Eddowes 'shawl' failed dismally, pity...

Still, I guess that if you paid a high price for this dubious 'relic' you would be very keen to prove it real. Proving any such thing is totally impossible and, more to the point, hasn't been done. The whole claim is totally, and fatally, flawed.

Agreed. No sense trying to confuse some people with the facts, their mind's made up.

[GUT]

Agreed. No sense trying to confuse some people with the facts, their mind's made up.

And some people get really confused by facts.