A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Fantasio]

You referred to me as "you" followed by a criticism. Any time you're passing by the way pop into the palace.

And what about this? I concur that in order to avoid such rudeness we all should use, from now on, terms such as "honorable member" and so on depending on how many posts the user has written. For esample, "most honorable" over 1000, "sir"/"madam" over 2000, "mylord"/"mylady" over 5000.
(don't mind: that's what happens when you watch too many episodes of Downton Abbey)

[lynn cates]

arisen

Hello Honourable Members. I rise to suggest we go back to work. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

The late great Roy Buchanan

Me too.
There should be an infraction system for trolls and people here solely to goad others into comitting an infraction.

That's not what I'm here for.

[Tom_Wescott]

All this DNA talk goes right over the head of this small town midwestern boy. But I'm hoping my comparatively simple questions to Mr. Lucky don't go unanswered.

Mr. Lucky, you're on record as a hardcore Lechmerian, yet you seem to believe in the 'science' that puts Eddowes' and Koz's DNA on the shawl. Does this mean you think Eddowes was a one-off by Koz and thus not a Ripper victim?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Observer]

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. 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”

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.

[Tom_Wescott]

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. 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”

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.

Conversely, wouldn't Hutt have mentioned having removed an 8 foot shawl?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Observer]

I don't believe it was a shawl Tom. From what I've seen I doubt whether it would have afforded much protection from the cold, owing to it's flimsy nature. I believe it's possible that Eddowes had it folded and tucked away in one of her pockets. My point is, why was the "wrapper" not mentioned in the inventory?

[Tom_Wescott]

I don't believe it was a shawl Tom. From what I've seen I doubt whether it would have afforded much protection from the cold, owing to it's flimsy nature. I believe it's possible that Eddowes had it folded and tucked away in one of her pockets. My point is, why was the "wrapper" not mentioned in the inventory?

Perhaps it was, but we call it an apron.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Observer]

Loosened the things around the deceased's neck, and then saw a white wrapper, and a red silk handkerchief.

[Observer]

Then apart from Hutt, every other official referred to the apron as an apron.

[Chris]

Observer

Please take this off-topic material elsewhere and stop disrupting the thread.

[Observer]

It seems the Met, and City police were not as thorough as has been suggested.

[Debra A]

Observer

Please take this off-topic material elsewhere and stop disrupting the thread.

Time for Sudoku?

[Observer]

That's sort of a crossword but using numbers not words. Sounds great

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, I apologize for my part in the exchange regarding the apron mistakenly referred to as a wrapper.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott