A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Observer]

A wrapper covers the whole body

[mickreed]

“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?

[Observer]

Oh dear, I thought I was on the "Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2" thread. Fancy that, I do apologise, most sincerely.

[Observer]

Hey Mick

I think we should repair to another thread. Where do you suggest?

[Cogidubnus]

I stuck my beak in? It's a public forum is it not? It's exactly what I want to do, and I have every right to advise you to leave it to the experts. By the way, are you aware that it against forum policy to address a poster as "you"?

That's pretty rich, Observer, coming from someone who in a thread yesterday or the day before was referring to "you people"...from which I deduce that YOU (my quite deliberate emphasis) don't like it when someone other than yourself is sitting on the sidelines sniping...

[mickreed]

Hey Mick

I think we should repair to another thread. Where do you suggest?

Dunno Obs.

I suppose "Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2" I'll post my bit there and you can (if you want) carry on from there.

[Observer]

Ok Mick, no probs.

[Observer]

That's pretty rich, Observer, coming from someone who in a thread yesterday or the day before was referring to "you people"...from which I deduce that YOU (my quite deliberate emphasis) don't like it when someone other than yourself is sitting on the sidelines sniping...

When you enter an argument it's always best to know the full facts. I received an infraction for such behaviour. I was merely pointing out to Debra A that her behaviour could result in a similar action. So there you go Cogidubnus

[Cogidubnus]

As none of us are party to your having received an infraction I fail to see how it's relevant. I maintain my position. Goodnight.

[Observer]

Well now you know.

[Debra A]

When you enter an argument it's always best to know the full facts. I received an infraction for such behaviour. I was merely pointing out to Debra A that her behaviour could result in a similar action. So there you go Cogidubnus

I've never felt the need to report anyone all the 11+ years I've been on casebook.
I received an infraction for the post of mine that Observer drew attention to yesterday.
Just for those who've asked me what's happened here.

[Chris]

As we're being so punctilious about the rules, can I draw people's attention to the eighth one:

Do not engage in trolling behavior. For the purposes of these forums, trolling is defined as any behavior designed to disrupt a thread. If you believe a thread is too silly, stupid or offensive to be discussed seriously, ignore it. Remember, just because you don't find a topic worthy of serious discussion, doesn't mean there aren't others who do. Disrupting someone's thread with inflammatory or off-topic posts because you personally don't agree with it is trolling. Abide by the OP's stated intentions in starting the thread. This does not mean you can't take issue with the thread or point out silliness or flaws in the topic as long as your posts are on topic. Pouring ridicule on anyone who wishes to discuss the topic, is not on-topic.
[my emphasis]

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2612

[Observer]

I've never felt the need to report anyone all the 11+ years I've been on casebook.
I received an infraction for the post of mine that Observer drew attention to yesterday.
Just for those who've asked me what's happened here.

I have never felt the need to report anyone either, and I haven't.

[Observer]

As we're being so punctilious about the rules, can I draw people's attention to the eighth one:

Do not engage in trolling behavior. For the purposes of these forums, trolling is defined as any behavior designed to disrupt a thread. If you believe a thread is too silly, stupid or offensive to be discussed seriously, ignore it. Remember, just because you don't find a topic worthy of serious discussion, doesn't mean there aren't others who do. Disrupting someone's thread with inflammatory or off-topic posts because you personally don't agree with it is trolling. Abide by the OP's stated intentions in starting the thread. This does not mean you can't take issue with the thread or point out silliness or flaws in the topic as long as your posts are on topic. Pouring ridicule on anyone who wishes to discuss the topic, is not on-topic.
[my emphasis]
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2612

I purposely did not join in with the DNA jargon which was being discussed in this thread because it was over the top of my head. If advising to leave the scientific analysis for DNA to the experts is considered disrupting the thread, then I am guilty of disrupting the thread.

[Sam Flynn]

Nice observation, Obs, but...

Before it’s too late. Much has been made about the thoroughness employed by the Metropolitan, and City police when itemising the belongings of the victims of Jack The Ripper. Thus, because the “shawl” was not itemised, and did not appear in the inventory of Kate Eddowes belongings, it could not have been at the crime scene.

Assuming the item(s) were still on her person when she reached the scene of crime, of course.

I’ll draw your attention to the testimony of George Henry Hutt gaoler at Bishopgate Street Police Station. “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”.

"...we take from them anything that might be dangerous". Is it possible that the wrapper/handkerchief were confiscated for Eddowes' safety when she was locked up, but overlooked on her release, not returned and thus absent from Mitre Square?