Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[Phil Carter]

I don't know, it was someone at Scotland Yard who told Patricia Cornwell she should look at Sickert. At least Edwards was encouraged to follow an actual suspect. So I'd say we're making progress.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom,

Thanks for the comment and the observation! Someone at the Yard also pointed Stephen Knight in Joseph Sickert's direction too if memory serves?
Then we have Swanson, MacNagthen, Abberline, and other ex-Yard policemen all pointing us in directions too.

What a source we have eh? A seemingly never ending supply of generous inside informants willing to show us the true way every so often. Most encouraging! ;-)

kind regards

Phil

[Hercule Poirot]

Opinion of the Crime Museum's curator

If this may help, this is was the book reveals:

The curator RE met was Alan McCormack. He began by telling RE that the shawl "had never been proven to be linked to the case because we've never done any DNA testing on it". He also added that they never said if it was genuine or not.

He mentioned to RE that Scotland Yard always knew "who he (the Ripper) was and that they had documentation to prove it".

Asked for the name by RE, AM said "I'll tell you. The murderer was and always has been Aaron Kosminski"

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Mick,

Thanks for the comment, In light of your comment. may I ask your opinions on the references in the book specifically pertaining to what the Crime Museum have said to the author?

Trying to be objective-have we any reason to perhaps suspect the author to have somehow mis-quoted the Crime Museum's representative?

From what I have read, I can see no indication for the above having occurred. Can you?


regards

Phil

I don't know, it was someone at Scotland Yard who told Patricia Cornwell she should look at Sickert. At least Edwards was encouraged to follow an actual suspect. So I'd say we're making progress.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

If the reports about the way the Crime Museum is promoting Kosminski are true, then all I can say is that they need a few real museum curators and historians in there.

Hello Mick,

Thanks for the comment, In light of your comment. may I ask your opinions on the references in the book specifically pertaining to what the Crime Museum have said to the author?

Trying to be objective-have we any reason to perhaps suspect the author to have somehow mis-quoted the Crime Museum's representative?

From what I have read, I can see no indication for the above having occurred. Can you?


regards

Phil

[Observer]

Hey Obs

Hutt used slightly different words at the inquest than those of the inventory.

At the inquest he found a red handkerchief on the neck. The inventory refers to a piece of red silk on the neck.

At the inquest he refers to a white wrapper. The inventory refers to a large white handkerchief. Could this be the wrapper? After all according to Hutt, Kate wore a red handkerchief around her neck.

The inventory also refers to a white chemise defined by the SOED as:

A garment for the upper body ; esp. a woman's loose - fitting undergarment or dress hanging straight from the shoulders .

A wrapper is also defined as:

A shawl, cloak, etc., for wrapping round the shoulders or head.
A loose outer garment, esp. for informal indoor wear or for use in household work; esp. a woman's loose gown or negligee.

There are two other issues I reckon:

1. We all assume that Eddowes wore the clothing the way we would wear it. She was very poor. Maybe she wrapped the chemise around her neck as a scarf. We've no idea.

2. According to Edwards, Kosminski brought the shawl to Mitre Square. Are we to assume that he had time to dress Eddowes as well as kill her - all in about 5 minutes?

Hi Mick

I considered the white handkerchief as a possible for the wrapper, but Hutt I feel would have specified a handkerchief had he saw the white handkerchief tied around her neck.

She could have worn the chemise as a scarf, unlikely though in my opinion.

The only likely owner of the shawl in my opinion was Eddowes. Mr Edwards believes that Kosminski owned the "shawl", I very much doudt that he did.

Regards

Observer

[drstrange169]

Key points to remember here are,

1.Hutt was dealing with just another drunk pre mortem.

2.Post mortem, the inventory was part of a murder investigation that was scrutinised by every official in the land, from Queen Victoria down.

3.The object currently referred to as a scarf was so screamingly at odds with the rest of Mrs Eddowes processions that it should not fail to have been noticed.

[mickreed]

From Observer

A white wrapper. Wrappers, in general, were loose fitting dresses, and were used such as a robe today. Some had draw strings placed in them to be fitted with a corset. Now I doubt whether Hutt, saw a wrapper when he loosened the things around the deceaseds neck, it’s my guess he saw a wrap, or stole.

A wrapper is also defined as:

A shawl, cloak, etc., for wrapping round the shoulders or head.
A loose outer garment, esp. for informal indoor wear or for use in household work; esp. a woman's loose gown or negligee.

From a great poem by George R Sims - In the Workhouse Christmas Day (1879)

And the guardians and their ladies,
Although the wind is east,
Have come in their furs and wrappers,
To watch their charges feast:
To smile and be condescending,
Put puddings on pauper plates,
To be hosts at the workhouse banquet
They’ve paid for – with the rates.

[mickreed]

Transferred for thread 'A Problem with the Eddowes Shawl DNA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer

“A Juror: Do you search persons who are brought in for drunkenness? - No, but we take from them anything that might be dangerous. I loosened the things round the deceased's neck, and I then saw a white wrapper and a red silk handkerchief”

A white wrapper. Wrappers, in general, were loose fitting dresses, and were used such as a robe today. Some had draw strings placed in them to be fitted with a corset. Now I doubt whether Hutt, saw a wrapper when he loosened the things around the deceaseds neck, it’s my guess he saw a wrap, or stole. No such garment is listed in the inventory of Kate Eddowes belongings. And if that garment is missing from the inventory, the “shawl” could also have been overlooked.

Hey Obs

Hutt used slightly different words at the inquest than those of the inventory.

At the inquest he found a red handkerchief on the neck. The inventory refers to a piece of red silk on the neck.

At the inquest he refers to a white wrapper. The inventory refers to a large white handkerchief. Could this be the wrapper? After all according to Hutt, Kate wore a red handkerchief around her neck.

The inventory also refers to a white chemise defined by the SOED as:

A garment for the upper body ; esp. a woman's loose - fitting undergarment or dress hanging straight from the shoulders .

A wrapper is also defined as:

A shawl, cloak, etc., for wrapping round the shoulders or head.
A loose outer garment, esp. for informal indoor wear or for use in household work; esp. a woman's loose gown or negligee.

There are two other issues I reckon:

1. We all assume that Eddowes wore the clothing the way we would wear it. She was very poor. Maybe she wrapped the chemise around her neck as a scarf. We've no idea.

2. According to Edwards, Kosminski brought the shawl to Mitre Square. Are we to assume that he had time to dress Eddowes as well as kill her - all in about 5 minutes?

[mickreed]

Therefore imho I personally find it most disturbing when the comments and the manner of the comments coming from the Met Police Crime Museum in the book are along the lines of "We have known it was Kosminski for ages and have the evidence but Joe Public isn't allowed in here to see it."

If the reports about the way the Crime Museum is promoting Kosminski are true, then all I can say is that they need a few real museum curators and historians in there.

[mickreed]

If you didn't meet him, or talk to him, why has he given you an acknowledgment?

Trevor,

Far be it for me to defend Paul, since he's obviously very capable to of doing it himself, but I'm going to.

RE says:
I initially wish to thank the experts and historians whose passion for the Ripper story gave me the grounding and information that helped me gain my first true understanding of the mystery. They are Paul Begg, Martin Fido, Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow.

Now that says to me, that these blokes provided the basis for his Ripper knowledge. That is, he read their books.

The people who gave him specific assistance are mentioned later. This is a perfectly normal way of doing things.

And that is about the only defence I can give RE's book which I don't have a real high regard for.

[PaulB]

Or possibly writs from those mentioned on Mr Marriott's acknowledgment pages.

Hello Hercule,

If one questions the 'finite' comment an author makes, such as in the present scenario of Mr Edwards' 'case closed', and upon that questioning it becomes abundantly clear that 'case closed' is not at all applicable, then by weight of reason one will naturally ask who (for like almost everyone who has written an historical book) has been of help to said author and to what extent.
Simply because in this case, the original story from the ONLY descendant ever interviewed who met Amos Simpson, has not only been changed but expanded upon and even added to by the author. There isnt a mention of Kosminski in her statement I believe. (Please correct me if I am wrong)

So exactly who said what and/or helped Mr Edwards to reach this certainty and introduce Kosminski and NO OTHER SUSPECT is of great import imho. Why? Well to this naive soul, it is simple.

When a major worldwide-promoted-theory is such a certainty, then shown again and again to be the total opposite upon examination of the words of the book and the authors own words afterwards, one asks quite naturally, who aided Mr Edwards in the making of the book that falsely claims such a certainty. One looks to the book to find the answer.

Therefore imho I personally find it most disturbing when the comments and the manner of the comments coming from the Met Police Crime Museum in the book are along the lines of "We have known it was Kosminski for ages and have the evidence but Joe Public isn't allowed in here to see it."

Now just who is prromoting what here? And- a better question perhaps imho, is why?

Does THAT opinion could cause inuendo? (if one wants to push the depths of forming reason)

Regards

Phil

So what this verbiage boils down to is that you suspect that somebody is promoting something you haven't specified and doing so for reasons you're like explained.

Thus speaks a conspiracy theorist.

[Tom_Wescott]

Perhaps it was yours that served as a replacement flower pot.

Not likely. Copies of my book sell out too quickly at his store to be of any practical use.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Hercule Poirot]

Hello Hercule,

If one questions the 'finite' comment an author makes, such as in the present scenario of Mr Edwards' 'case closed', and upon that questioning it becomes abundantly clear that 'case closed' is not at all applicable, then by weight of reason one will naturally ask who (for like almost everyone who has written an historical book) has been of help to said author and to what extent.
Simply because in this case, the original story from the ONLY descendant ever interviewed who met Amos Simpson, has not only been changed but expanded upon and even added to by the author. There isnt a mention of Kosminski in her statement I believe. (Please correct me if I am wrong)

So exactly who said what and/or helped Mr Edwards to reach this certainty and introduce Kosminski and NO OTHER SUSPECT is of great import imho. Why? Well to this naive soul, it is simple.

When a major worldwide-promoted-theory is such a certainty, then shown again and again to be the total opposite upon examination of the words of the book and the authors own words afterwards, one asks quite naturally, who aided Mr Edwards in the making of the book that falsely claims such a certainty. One looks to the book to find the answer.

Therefore imho I personally find it most disturbing when the comments and the manner of the comments coming from the Met Police Crime Museum in the book are along the lines of "We have known it was Kosminski for ages and have the evidence but Joe Public isn't allowed in here to see it."

Now just who is prromoting what here? And- a better question perhaps imho, is why?

Does THAT opinion could cause inuendo? (if one wants to push the depths of forming reason)

Regards

Phil

Asking questions was not the issue I was bringing up. If someone affirms he's found the definitive answer to the Ripper murders with the kind of loose evidence such as RE's book offers, questions must be asked and it involves serious debates. It's the subtle undertones many have coated their response with which worries me. Now don't ask me to give examples to prove what I'm saying, it's rather obvious.

What matters to me is addressing the problems found in the evidence presented and the impacts it creates and not who created them or why. I may be naive or silly in thinking this way but it's who I am. Facts first, theories and speculations after.

On the other hand I'm still impressed by the extent of the knowledge shared by the majority of the participants in this topic.

Respectfully,
Hercule Poirot

[PaulB]

To keep the shawl from rolling off file cabinets when there wasn't a flower pot handy?

He must have used only your older books since Bennett's not acknowledged.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I doubt it. My books were evidently in use, hence the acknowledgement. Perhaps it was yours that served as a replacement flower pot. John is acknowledged. So too are Keith, Stewart and Don.

[Tom_Wescott]

I believe Russell Edwards acknowledged me because he made use of my books.

To keep the shawl from rolling off file cabinets when there wasn't a flower pot handy?

He must have used only your older books since Bennett's not acknowledged.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott