A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[RockySullivan]

Maybe Jari can turn his DNA testing to QV's bloomers and prove something [not sure what].

if the bloomers fit...

too bad it's not QV's brassiere

[GUT]

This Daily Mail article is ostensibly about a pair of Queen Victoria's size XL bloomers sold at auction, but the text is mostly about RE and the "Eddowes Shawl".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3157780/Bloomin-expensive-Queen-Victoria-s-pants-fetch-record-breaking-12k-auction.html

Oh so subtle product placement...
Archaic

Maybe Jari can turn his DNA testing to QV's bloomers and prove something [not sure what].

[Archaic]

Article On Q. Victoria's Bloomers? - OR Paid Advert for RE's Book + Shawl Theory?

This Daily Mail article is ostensibly about a pair of Queen Victoria's size XL bloomers sold at auction, but the text is mostly about RE and the "Eddowes Shawl".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3157780/Bloomin-expensive-Queen-Victoria-s-pants-fetch-record-breaking-12k-auction.html

Oh so subtle product placement...
Archaic

[Robert]

Hi Bunny

Yes, Isaac was well off but he looks far too young in that pic - after all, he died in 1920 and I think he was around 70 then.

[Archaic]

Hi Sam & Debs.

I agree, the 1893 date on the Shaw photo is probably a clerical error. It's too bad mistakes creep into the Archives like that.

Thanks,
Archaic

[Debra A]

I'm sure that it should just mean that the donor's father was born in 1893, Arch. I can't see the photograph, but I'd suggest that dating it to 1893 must be down to a clerical error. If not, then Shaw must have been a mightily precocious 12 year-old

Besides, the photograph taken in Shaw's studio of the "Kozminskis" must date well after 1910, simply judging by their clothes and the age of the (alleged) Matilda.

It must be an error, Gareth.
The Manchester archives catalogue list Neville Fraser as the 'donor' the only son of Max Freizeit. Max was born in Poland in 1893. He didn't come to England until September 1920.

[Archaic]

Hi Robert.

Sorry, I was trying to make the clothing and jewelry analysis very simple and "man-friendly".

I guess the gist of it is that the man identified as "Isaac Kosminski" and the woman identified as "Matilda Kosminski" are supposed to be brother and sister.

Isaac is shown with 2 adult children. He looks to be in his 40s.
The woman identified as "Matilda" might be a little older than him, perhaps more like 50 years old.

But judging by the clothing, jewelry, etc. the two photos were taken quite a few years apart, so if the man and woman are siblings there was an unusually large age gap between them.

The biggest problem is that the man identified as Isaac is in his 40s c. 1920.
This means that 32 years earlier in 1888 he was a kid. If he is 40-48 years old in the photo he was somewhere in the range of 8 years old to 16 years old in 1888.

I'm no Kosminski expert, but as far as I know Isaac Kosminski the brother of Aaron Kosminski was an adult in 1888.

The people in these photos also appear rather well-to-do. The lady in particular is dressed expensively and wearing gold, pearls and gemstone jewelry. The Kosminskis were recent immigrants. Were they well off?

Cheers,
Archaic

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam. There's a postcard in the National Archives by Henry Shaw that is dated 1893. I can't view the photo online.
Info says it's a photo postcard of donor's father who was born in 1893 and photo is dated 1893, so presumably it's a baby photo? Maybe you in the UK can view it.

I'm sure that it should just mean that the donor's father was born in 1893, Arch. I can't see the photograph, but I'd suggest that dating it to 1893 must be down to a clerical error. If not, then Shaw must have been a mightily precocious 12 year-old

Besides, the photograph taken in Shaw's studio of the "Kozminskis" must date well after 1910, simply judging by their clothes and the age of the (alleged) Matilda.

[Robert]

Hi Bunny

Impressive stuff re the clothes and jewellery, even if I didn't understand a word.

[Archaic]

Hi Sam. There's a postcard in the National Archives by Henry Shaw that is dated 1893. I can't view the photo online.
Info says it's a photo postcard of donor's father who was born in 1893 and photo is dated 1893, so presumably it's a baby photo? Maybe you in the UK can view it.

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/rd/678f2637-3144-4134-8665-9224ec9c7449

The National Archives dates the photo & therefore Henry Shaw studio to 1893.
Not sure if that's correct. If Henry (Chaim) was born in 1880 he'd only be 13 years old in 1893. Did his father operate the studio before him?

Shaw seems to have been a successful and well-known photographer.

Thanks,
Archaic

[Archaic]

Henry Shaw Photography Studio in 1922

Henry Shaw's photographic studio was at the same location on Commercial Road in 1922.
A dated photo of the Silver family is in the Manchester Archives.

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/rd/258f060a-7f92-4045-a10e-a7e6244893ef

Archaic

[Archaic]

Hi Sam, how are you?

Henry Shaw's photography studio was located at 76-78 Commercial Road in 1921 per the London Street Listings Index.

http://pubshistory.com/streets/CommercialRoadeast-S1.shtml

Best regards,
Archaic

PS: Hi Robert!

[Robert]

Henry died in Hove, 1945, his wife Marie following him seven years later.

One of his sons, Sebag, became a famous barrister and judge.

[Sam Flynn]

The Henry Shaw Artistic Photography studio was located at 76-78 Commercial Road. http://www.stgite.org.uk/media/commercialroad1921.html

Indeed, Archaic. He seems to have been in business there sometime between 1900 and 1910. Shaw, real name Chaim Sochaczewski (credit to Debra Arif) was born in 1880, which fits in with someone in their mid/late 20s having made enough money to get a shop of their own.

[Archaic]

Daily Mail Article with Dubious Photographs of "Kosminskis"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3149686/The-Ripper-s-family-Pictures-Victorian-respectability-brother-sister-Britain-s-notorious-killer.html

Judging by the clothing and jewelry (particularly the woman's) the photo of Isaac Kosminski & family was taken c.1919-1924, approximately 31-36 years after the Ripper murders.

I assume the young man and young woman in the photo are his son & daughter. There's a family resemblance. The absence of the mother suggests she has passed away. The man labeled "Isaac" is wearing a large gold ring on his right hand.

The young lady is beautifully dressed. This dress style of a sheer silk chiffon with embroidered lower neckline, loose mid-length sleeves, loose dropped waist and horizontal flounces was fashionable after WWI and before the Flapper era. Note that her dress is still pretty long. The dress is sheer and has a solid color silk chemise or lining. (I have dresses from this era that have the silk lining sewn into the sheer silk chiffon dress.) Her hair is long, soft, and pinned up, not bobbed.

The young woman and the photo labelled "Matilda Kosminski" are fairly well-to-do, as they are both dressed fashionably and wearing pearl necklaces. The jewelry is "real" (real pearls, real gold), not costume jewelry.

The 'Matilda' photo was taken years before the group photo. Her clothing, hair and jewelry date to the Late Victorian, possibly early Edwardian era. (Approximately late 1890s to early 1900s.)

This lady is fairly wealthy. She's wearing a long gold watch-chain looped double and pinned; it's the type that would hold a fashionable ladies watch or lorgnette. It's a rather thick & heavy gold chain. She seems to have pinned it to her collar with the gold hook end so the entire chain shows in portrait. She has pierced ears. Her earrings are real gemstones set in gold, possibly something like Amethysts.

This lady was a middle aged adult c.1900, approximately in her late 40s.

If the man in the group photo taken approximately 20-25 years later is her sibling there is quite a large age disparity. She is old enough to be his mother.

The man identified as "Isaac Kosminski" looks to be in his mid-40s, approximately age 45. If the group photo was taken in 1920, then 32 years earlier in 1888 he would have been a teenager, approximately 12 years old.

If the man is younger than 45, or if the photo was taken a few years later c.1922 then he would have been just a kid in 1888.

> Wasn't Isaac Kosminski an adult in 1888?

The Henry Shaw Artistic Photography studio was located at 76-78 Commercial Road. http://www.stgite.org.uk/media/commercialroad1921.html

Best regards,
Archaic