|
#1
15-09-14, 17:00
|
||||
|
||||
Jack the Ripper identified...
...or not?
The story caught my attention: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-murders.html A businessman, Russell Edwards, bought a shawl. The story goes that the shawl was found next to the body of Catherine Eddowes, who was murdered by Jack the Ripper. A policeman liked the shawl and was allowed to take it home to his wife who, a dressmaker. She saw blood on it and popped in a shoebox, unwashed. Said shoebox was passed down through the generations until it was appeared at auction in Bury St Edmunds. DNA was extracted from the shawl and compared to a descendant of victim, Catherine Eddowes. There was a match. Another DNA sample was compared to a descendant of a suspect's sister. There was a match. The chap writing the book (for there is one...) unmasks the Ripper as hairdresser, Aaron Kosminski, a Jewish migrant who lived in the East End at the time. Anyone reckon there are holes in this story? 
Last edited by Shona; 15-09-14 at 17:15. Reason: Adding the suspect's sister 
|
|
#2
15-09-14, 17:10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Sounds pretty dodgy to me.
Quote:
In any case, I think the policeman's wife would have either washed the shawl or binned it or given it away.
__________________
"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
|
|
#4
15-09-14, 17:16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
DNA certainly compromised. Even if this is true I am sure someone at some point would have cleaned it!!
|
|
#5
15-09-14, 17:26
|
|||
|
|||
|
From the bit I read (I stopped at that point!) the DNA was mtDNA which is not unique to any one woman.
I also think the provenance of the shawl is extremely dodgy. It was apparently a very expensive one and I am sure, as Merry says, the policeman's wife would have washed it and either worn it herself or flogged it. It almost certainly didn't belong to Catherine Eddows who reputedly pawned everything of any value including her clothes. OC
|
|
#6
15-09-14, 17:27
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm always suspicious when someone writes a book following some surprise new evidence.
__________________
"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
|
|
#7
15-09-14, 17:45
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I don't know why!
|
|
#8
15-09-14, 17:49
|
||||
|
||||
|
There was a policeman named Amos Simpson - the one who was meant to have got the shawl to take home to his wife.
http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/23...l=ReturnRecord The 1911 census record states that Amos had been married for 36 years and that he and his wife Jane has two children, both living. Daughter Ellen, her husband and children are living with Amos and Jane in 1911. The other child was a son named Henry. http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/75...l=ReturnRecord According to the story, the shawl was meant to have been passed down via Amos's daughter Mary. Prob is, Mary doesn't seem to exist.
|
|
#9
15-09-14, 18:00
|
||||
|
||||
|
I read a review of this book - can't remember where - which said that the shawl is probably covered in several people's DNA. And even if someone's DNA is on a shawl owned by a victim (which is disputed) it doesn't necessarily follow that they must have murdered her, merely that they've had contact with the shawl.
__________________
Love from Nell researching Chowns in Buckinghamshire & Oxfordshire Brewer, Broad, Eplett & Pope in Cornwall Smoothy & Willsher/Wiltshire in Essex & Surrey Emms, Mealing + variants, Purvey & Williams in Gloucestershire Barnes, Dunt, Gray, Massingham, Saul/Seals/Sales in Norfolk Matthews & Nash in Warwickshire
|
|
#10
16-09-14, 07:36
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
