"Ripper" shawl goes to auction for £2.9m

[DrummondStreet]

Hopefully the proceeds will go to a fund benefitting the descendants of the Ripper victims or to a charity. Somehow I doubt it.

Here is a link for the dailymail article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-9million.html

[GUT]

Hopefully the proceeds will go to a fund benefitting the descendants of the Ripper victims or to a charity. Somehow I doubt it.

Here is a link for the dailymail article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-9million.html

Already on here Drummond street.

Do you really think he would give the money away.

And anyway why would it go to ripper victim families,, as there is not one iota of proof linking it to the ripper or his victims.

[DrummondStreet]

I looked for a thread on the subject but couldn't find it.

The shawl is being advertised as evidence from a JTR crime (hence the obscenely high price). So, yes, I do believe the victims' descendants deserve the proceeds. Profiting from the sale of physical evidence in a murder is unconscionable.

I fully support the sale of books and guided tours on the subject; these activities have historical value and the authors/tour guides should be compensated for their work. In fact, the owner of the shawl has every right to profit from his upcoming book. But the bloody shawl, if it is what he claims, should have never been swiped by the detective. It was and is evidence.

Personally, the claim that an officer was permitted to walk off with a victim's property is incredibly dubious. I know that the police botched the investigation in many ways, but they could not have been that incompetent or unscrupulous.

[GUT]

I wonder what Edwards will think if he sells this for 3m pound and the owner has it tested and shows it had no connection to the murder at all, what the damages are likely to be.

[Wickerman]

He can always use it as a table runner, so not a total waste....

[RockySullivan]

Someone could probably write an article for the daily mail about how the shawl has no real connection to the ripper case and how RE didn't solve the ripper case at all. Papers love a good scandal especially when someone is about to be had for lots of dough

[Dane_F]

Any person stupid enough to spend 2.9m+ on something without throughly vetting it deserves to be parted with their money. The only downside is that the defrauding person gets the cash.

[Dr. John Watson]

Act Fast!

As I understand it, it's not even a shawl but rather a table cloth which I believe is called a runner. Anyone thinking of buying this believing it's really Eddowes' shawl should save his money and immediately contact me. I have the actual scrap of bloody apron Jack dropped on Goulston St. and the actual stub of chalk he used to write on the wall, complete with a letter of authentication signed by Jack himself. But act fast - supplies are limited!

Dr. John Watson

[Paddy]

I wonder how the book or shawl sale would stand legally. Can someone claim a dead person is actually guilty without a doubt? (When there is doubt)
One has to consider the descendants surely?
Pat...

[Phil Carter]

Hello Paddy,

I honestly opine that this fellow doesn't give two hoots for any family descendants feelings...unless they too are going to get, or have got in the past, some kind of "gift" for their "help" in all this business.

As far as the auction goes. You can bet your bottom dollar that any proceeds from this auction will be quietly split.

Cynical? Moi?




Phil

[DrummondStreet]

Does Scotland Yard still have the physical evidence (clothing, personal items) from the JtR cases? Were they returned to relatives? Lost during the Blitz? Disposed of?

I agree with the majority here that believe the shawl is likely a false lead, btw.

[DrummondStreet]

Already on here Drummond street.

Do you really think he would give the money away.

And anyway why would it go to ripper victim families,, as there is not one iota of proof linking it to the ripper or his victims.

In my first reply, I think I misunderstood your question. Sorry I argued with you over something you never implied. I get a bit defensive when I sense that murder victims, their families, or descendants are being exploited.

In answer to the first question. No, I don't think he will give the money away.

In answer to the second question. Personally, I, too, am quite doubtful that the shawl is authentic.
However, if it is authentic, only the victim's descendants should be allowed to make the first sale. Not Edwards. Not the elusive descendent of Amos Simpson who allegedly exclaimed, "Ooh, what a pretty shawl!" and then pocketed it. Only Eddowes' descendants should have that right. If the shawl is a hoax and Edwards knows it, then nobody should profit from its sale. Hopefully the future buyer has a good lawyer.

[GUT]

In my first reply, I think I misunderstood your question. Sorry I argued with you over something you never implied. I get a bit defensive when I sense that murder victims, their families, or descendants are being exploited.

In answer to the first question. No, I don't think he will give the money away.

In answer to the second question. Personally, I, too, am quite doubtful that the shawl is authentic.
However, if it is authentic, only the victim's descendants should be allowed to make the first sale. Not Edwards. Not the elusive descendent of Amos Simpson who allegedly exclaimed, "Ooh, what a pretty shawl!" and then pocketed it. Only Eddowes' descendants should have that right. If the shawl is a hoax and Edwards knows it, then nobody should profit from its sale. Hopefully the future buyer has a good lawyer.

It's not the first sale, though Edwards bought for about 7K if memory fails not.

The sale advert talks of some guarantee, I'd love to know what is being guaranteed.

[Tecs]

If somebody does spend a few Mil buying the shawl could somebody please send the buyer to me.

I've got these magic beans that grow into a huge beanstalk you see...



regards,

[DrummondStreet]

It's not the first sale, though Edwards bought for about 7K if memory fails not.

The sale advert talks of some guarantee, I'd love to know what is being guaranteed.

I know it isn't the first sale. That is why I mentioned the elusive descendant of Amos Simpson. My point was the following. The first "mystery" seller and Edwards essentially colluded to deny the Eddowes' descendants the right to "first sale" of the shawl. As a matter of principle (my own of course) the Eddowes descendants should either get the shawl back or be allowed to collect all profits from each transaction to date (whatever Edwards paid plus the 2.9 "market value").

I don't care if the first mystery seller (if he/she truly exists) and Edwards lose their original profit and investment respectively. They either knowingly bought/sold property that wasn't truly theirs or are perpetuating a hoax, so I don't have a lot of sympathy for them.