Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The True Provenance of the Eddowes Shawl?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Silly...

    It's getting silly now, carry on amongst yourselves.

    Comment


    • #32
      I don't see how this shawl could have been Eddowes'. And since we've never been given a reason to believe it was Eddowes, I think the only reason anybody believes the story is because we WANT there to be something tangible from these women surviving into the present day. I do think the trinket from Tabram surviving in the Bousfield family is real, but that's perhaps it. However, this shawl was partially drenched in blood, so there is a real and probably very interesting story behind it that's sadly been lost in favor of sensationalism.

      Yours truly,

      Tom Wescott

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
        Although there is no proof that Simpson was seconded do we have complete lists?
        If he was on duty near the City border it is conceivable he went to the murder scene I would have thought.
        Although not a purpose made shawl, and seemingly more of a strip of material, does this mean it couldn't have been used as a shawl?
        What actual proof is there that it isn't genuine?
        Hi Ed, I think the biggest argument against this being possible is the design.

        Its a Daisey pattern I understood to be early Edwardian rather than 1888 victorian.

        And again made of an expensive material that would have been well out of Eddows reach.. She could have gotten pissed for days on this!

        Thanks for the info on the table runner. Explains why Monty called it a table clothe and it just looked like a strip of material to me

        Does anyone know anything about the stain? Was it blood and were DNA tests done?

        Yours Jeff

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Rob House View Post
          Just to play devil's advocate here, but isn't it possible that the shawl was discarded some distance from the body, and Amos Simpson found it while the police were swarming around the area looking for clues and suspects?

          Rob H
          I think it would have been handed over if this was the case Rob.

          I've trawled through the Police Orders of 1888, and not found any reference to the transfer of Amos Simpson to H division. If I had, I'd have taken a photo. However I may have missed it as it is a massive book.

          No, as Stewart states, if he was in Mitre Square, it would have been noted. Also, he would have been called to inquest.

          The story, in my opinion, is fabrication.

          Monty

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Monty View Post
            I think it would have been handed over if this was the case Rob.

            I've trawled through the Police Orders of 1888, and not found any reference to the transfer of Amos Simpson to H division. If I had, I'd have taken a photo. However I may have missed it as it is a massive book.

            No, as Stewart states, if he was in Mitre Square, it would have been noted. Also, he would have been called to inquest.

            The story, in my opinion, is fabrication.

            Monty
            I guess thats the curiosity..

            The family seemed fairly certain that it was Eddows Shawl. And its unlikely they would lie or make it up. Of course we all know we are told stuff when we are young that later appears not to be true.

            Was it a story told to scare them or a joke of some sort?

            Or is there possibly a Kurnal of truth behind the story?

            Not that the 'Table Runner' is likely to have been Eddows but could Simpson have had some conection and the story got confused like chinese whispers?

            As an aside part from letters papers and photographs are there any other objects connected to the case? I can think of Don Rumblows Knife and Abberline's Cane..

            I guess there's Deammings Skull?

            Just a thought of curiousity

            Jeff

            Comment


            • #36
              What I’ve seen on this thread falls way short of proving that the shawl did not belong to Catherine Eddowes.

              It has been put forward that if Simpson was at Mitre Square then his name would have been recorded in a report. Which report? Which report lists the names of every policeman who was present at some time or another at Mitre Square while Eddowes’ body as there? The 27th October 1888 McWilliam report seems to be the most detailed on this matter but it clearly makes no attempt to list every officer present.

              It has been suggested that if he was at Mitre Square he would have been called as a witness at the inquest. Was every policeman who was present at Mitre Square while Eddowes’ body was there called as a witness at the inquest?

              It is suggested that Mitre Square was too deep inside City Police territory for a Met Officer to stray. It is about 300 yards from the border. Is it impossible for a Met Officer to have gone into City territory when he heard the alarm raised?

              It is said that there is no record of Simpson being seconded to assist with H Division during the Ripper murders (or at least it hasn't been found). I have never consulted Police Orders but is it the case that we could establish the name of every policeman who was seconded? For instance has Long’s secondment been found? Or has anyone seen whether Le Grand’s nemesis Sergeant James was drafted in?

              It is said that as the cloth was eight foot by two it was too big. If it was part silk it would have been thin. It could have been folded in two to wear (and be four foot by two) and similarly could have been folded quite small I should have thought, if Simpson did find it and take it away.

              Is the design printed on the cloth actually from a later date? Has this been legitimately established? What is the source for this claim?
              The note stuck on the back of the framed shawl samples suggests that the printed material was dated to 1886. I don’t know how reliable that is.

              It seems to me that falsely attributing the cloth as being Eddowes’ shawl is a slightly strange choice. Why Eddowes?
              The story seems unlikely but could Simpson have turned up at Mitre Square (obviously not as the first person there), watched unobtrusively while the City officers fussed about and picked the cloth up from the floor after her body was removed? It doesn’t seem to have been smothered in blood.

              My guess is that the cloth could be tested to establish whether it dates to 1888, by the type of material and perhaps the pattern. If anyone wanted to.
              The blood could be tested, for DNA or age. It could be from the victim or the culprit or more likely of course someone else altogether. Rob said it had been DNA tested recently. What was the result, or was it inconclusive?

              I personally very much doubt that it was Eddowes’s shawl, or even Emma Smith’s shawl (which was Tom’s cautious counter suggestion) but I don’t think it has been disproved either.

              Comment


              • #37
                As usual in Ripperworld, the note on post 14 is ambiguous. It seems to say that Simpson discovered the body. We know that isn't true. An alternative reading is that Simpson took the samples. But surely the claim is that Simpson took the whole shawl?

                Anyway, it isn't a question of disproving anything - the shawl has to be proved.

                Comment


                • #38
                  What I’ve seen on this thread falls way short of proving that the shawl did not belong to Catherine Eddowes.
                  No one stated it was proven Ed, stated opinion.

                  It has been put forward that if Simpson was at Mitre Square then his name would have been recorded in a report. Which report? Which report lists the names of every policeman who was present at some time or another at Mitre Square while Eddowes’ body as there? The 27th October 1888 McWilliam report seems to be the most detailed on this matter but it clearly makes no attempt to list every officer present.
                  Initially, his report. As it was an event of significance, he would have had to note it down then compile a report. The report would go to Central Office who would then notify the City force. As no reference is made in M'Williams report to H (N) division presence, and it would have been made, one can conclude with a fair degree of certainty, that no Met personnel entered Mitre Square between the immediate aftermath of the discovery of Eddowes body, and her removal to the mortuary.

                  It has been suggested that if he was at Mitre Square he would have been called as a witness at the inquest. Was every policeman who was present at Mitre Square while Eddowes’ body was there called as a witness at the inquest?
                  Not every witness found a piece of clothing directly related to the victim. For that reason, he would have been called.

                  It is suggested that Mitre Square was too deep inside City Police territory for a Met Officer to stray. It is about 300 yards from the border. Is it impossible for a Met Officer to have gone into City territory when he heard the alarm raised?
                  Its not suggested, its a fact. No, a constable was permitted to venture inside another jurisdiction to pursue a criminal (I cite Halse), or prevent an immediate crime.

                  City police did not have whistles, Morris did and he used it. It must be noted that beat constables were not to leave their beat at all unless an important event had occurred close by. A sound of a whistle emanating from the city area (if heard) would be left to the city police to deal with.

                  It is said that there is no record of Simpson being seconded to assist with H Division during the Ripper murders (or at least it hasn't been found). I have never consulted Police Orders but is it the case that we could establish the name of every policeman who was seconded? For instance has Long’s secondment been found? Or has anyone seen whether Le Grand’s nemesis Sergeant James was drafted in?
                  Yes

                  Yes

                  I have seen a James, not sure if its Le Grand's nemesis.

                  It is said that as the cloth was eight foot by two it was too big. If it was part silk it would have been thin. It could have been folded in two to wear (and be four foot by two) and similarly could have been folded quite small I should have thought, if Simpson did find it and take it away.

                  Is the design printed on the cloth actually from a later date? Has this been legitimately established? What is the source for this claim?
                  The note stuck on the back of the framed shawl samples suggests that the printed material was dated to 1886. I don’t know how reliable that is.

                  It seems to me that falsely attributing the cloth as being Eddowes’ shawl is a slightly strange choice. Why Eddowes?
                  The story seems unlikely but could Simpson have turned up at Mitre Square (obviously not as the first person there), watched unobtrusively while the City officers fussed about and picked the cloth up from the floor after her body was removed? It doesn’t seem to have been smothered in blood.
                  Really?

                  My guess is that the cloth could be tested to establish whether it dates to 1888, by the type of material and perhaps the pattern. If anyone wanted to.
                  The blood could be tested, for DNA or age. It could be from the victim or the culprit or more likely of course someone else altogether. Rob said it had been DNA tested recently. What was the result, or was it inconclusive?

                  I personally very much doubt that it was Eddowes’s shawl, or even Emma Smith’s shawl (which was Tom’s cautious counter suggestion) but I don’t think it has been disproved either.
                  I believe it was inconclusive, which wasn't surprising considering the naturl of the programme.

                  Monty

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Monty
                    Are you saying that a stray Met Officer appearing at Mitre Square while the City Police were busy fussing around Eddowes’s body would have been regarded as a matter of significance? Something worth reporting by McWilliam? That doesn’t seem likely to me.

                    If Simpson did find and retrieve a shawl then he clearly kept it and did not hand it in. Hence he would not have been called as a witness about the shawl.

                    Quite a number of City Police went to Goulston Street – not to pursue a criminal or prevent a crime, but to follow up the Eddowes murder to a location where evidence was found. Other City Police carried out concealed observations in Met territory. So clearly the ‘rules’ of crossing boundaries were not as limited as you suggest.

                    I should have thought that what was immediately regarded as another ’Whitechapel Murder’ occurring 300 yards from the Met border would have been regarded as an important event. If a Met Officer was very close by and heard the alarm being raised (whether via Morris’ whistle or another means – perhaps by speaking to a City Policeman) then surely it would have been quite understandable and excusable for him to go to see what had happened.
                    And I would think that if he appeared there for a few minutes just as Eddowes was being taken away, then his name and details may well have gone unrecorded.
                    So if, hypothetically, Simpson was seconded and was on beat duty near the City border is it really that improbable that his brief presence at Mitre Square could have escaped being reported?

                    Robert
                    The only way it could be proved is if the blood was tested and the DNA evidence showed it came from Eddowes. I imagine that due to contamination etc. this would be very difficult.
                    It can be disproved if the shawl is proved to be of more recent origin or if it can be proved that Simpson was nowhere near Mitre square that night.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Hi Ed

                      I was just saying that the burden of proof lies with the Shawlists.

                      Re Met police going to Mitre Sq - surely there could be nothing more calculated to help the Ripper evade detection, than for nearby police to congregate at the scene of the crime instead of watching out for suspicious characters passing through their beats?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Robert
                        I was just reflecting on the comments that effectively said the shawl was certainly a fake. I hadn't given the shawl any real consideration before and assumed that it had been conclusively proved to be fake, but it seems that it hasn't.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Hi Ed

                          No, I wouldn't say "The shawl is a fake." I wouldn't say it's genuine either. But it seems to me that the shawl's genuineness is hard to reconcile with the info in post 14.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            The information written on the back of the frame?
                            Clearly it is taken to be written in 1988. It suggests that Simpson found the body. That is easily explained as a family myth. I don’t think this impacts greatly on whether or not the pieces genuinely came from a shawl possessed by Eddowes. If Simpson was present, however briefly, in Mitre Square then it is understandable that the family myth would be that he actually found the body rather than that he just saw it there a short while after its discovery.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                              [SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Calibri]
                              My guess is that the cloth could be tested to establish whether it dates to 1888, by the type of material and perhaps the pattern. If anyone wanted to.
                              The blood could be tested, for DNA or age. It could be from the victim or the culprit or more likely of course someone else altogether. Rob said it had been DNA tested recently. What was the result, or was it inconclusive?

                              I personally very much doubt that it was Eddowes’s shawl, or even Emma Smith’s shawl (which was Tom’s cautious counter suggestion) but I don’t think it has been disproved either.
                              Just to pick up on this Ed.. I'm far from certain because I'm working from memory.. But things do lodge in the back as my brain are usually basically correct..(Hopefully) no comments please..

                              When I was doing my research on the Shawl it was at a time when I worked often with Andy Aliffe. If my memory serves me correctly Andy worked at the Victorian and Albert Museum.. My guess is the ID on the Daisey pattern came from that source..

                              But I could be muddling facts.. it was a long time ago

                              So perhaps running past them again if someone has the inclination. But my understanding is that the Pattern is later than 1888, so it cant have been Eddows.. Besides she was basically a very poor 'bag' lady what would she be doing with such an expensive object even if it was stollen?

                              Yours Jeff

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Textiles are tricky. Didn't they find How Brown's fingerprints on the Turin shroud?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X