Lizzie Borden Society Forum

It does look like a very fashionable, well made shawl of the era. Of course I'm no textile expert but Michaelmas daisy patterns were very in vogue at the time among the aesthetics. Those sort of patterns were popular right up to the turn of the century.

It's hardly the sort of silk drapery you'd expect your ordinary destitute East End tart to be wearing round her shoulders! It wouldn't be keeping her very warm in those wet and chilly evenings! Isn't the theory that Kosminski brought it with him as a sort of bait? Still, it's an interesting development and we should keep an eye on it, see what develops. I prefer Kosminski as a suspect to, say, Dr Barnado the philanthropist, James Stephen the academic, Prince Eddy and some others that have been put forward!

Heaven knows what Lizzie thought about the couch! At least by the time Lizzie came home Emma must have replaced mutilated carpet, hacked out plaster cornices and ledges, damaged chimney stacks etc left by police searches.

A dark green chintz skirt with Michelmas daisy and gold lily patterns is listed by some sources as part of the clothing Eddowes was wearing when murdered.

Exactly, Debbie. Need to watch the story but I think it has problems.

It must have been creepy for the upholsterer reupholstering the sofa for Emma. Slipcovers would have been cheaper.

Or a beanbag !

debbiediablo wrote:Another side to that is Lizzie's relationship with her sister ended forever. Or so we think. I cannot imagine siblings who weathered such tragedy (whether or not she was guilty) and hung together throughout...I cannot imagine what it took to split them asunder for the remainder of their lives.

I think what got Emma and Lizzie to separate after the murders and trial was that Lizzie was having people over to Maplecroft the were considered less than equal to them. At least in Emma's eyes and just had a belly full of it and left.

OFF TOPIC:

debbiediablo wrote:… Or from a source I can't recall, “You can give without loving, but you cannot love without giving.” …

This quote was made by Amy Carmichael, who was a Protestant Christian missionary in India; she opened an orphanage and founded a mission in Dohnavur. She served in India for 55 years without furlough and wrote many books about the missionary work there. Amy was one of India’s most beloved missionaries, and she was also one of the best-known and respected missionaries of the first half of the 20th century.

OFF TOPIC:

debbiediablo wrote:… Take a look at Twins...she is having fun tonight! …

Yes, I was having fun last night trying out some different animations for my avatar. Unfortunately, there two animated pictures I’d really like to have as an avatar, but I can’t seem to get them down to the size required by the system without distortions. Here are the two animations:

I got frustrated trying to get this one down to the required size, so that is why I submitted the other monkey one.

This one is a favorite of mine; love Laurel and Hardy ~ they were the best!!! The height and width of the following animation are easy to obtain, but the KB kill me!!!
A number of the Laurel and Hardy films were accompanied with a song and dance routine, the most famous of which is their dance to the song "At The Ball, That's All" sung by The Avalon Boys in Way Out West (1937).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpc9fxkuV6o

OFF TOPIC:

Curryong wrote:... Twins is having a season change! Is it a pear tree?

It could be!!!

I like both, but the see no evil, hear no evil one might be a bit more in keeping with a murder mystery. Or your tree! We could say it was a pear tree, and it would fit in with irina's gif then!

OFF TOPIC:

Curryong wrote:I like both, but the see no evil, hear no evil one might be a bit more in keeping with a murder mystery. Or your tree! We could say it was a pear tree, and it would fit in with irina's gif then!

I agree, the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil one does fit in with the Borden murder mystery. I think there were several people in this murder case who saw and heard things, which they refused to speak about.

You know Curryong, you have a very good point in that the tree one could be a pear tree, and it would definitely fit in with Irina's gif. Check out this picture of a Bradford pear tree:
However, I think it is more of a maple or oak tree:
What do you think?

I'll make a tiny observation, considering I am cyber-stupid. When I got FB & Twitter and figured out about avis I used some of my own photographs of flowers. FB readily accepted a picture showing the heads of five gloriosa daisies. Twitter wouldn't accept that picture so I offered other pictures till they accepted one. Twitter allowed a picture of a daylily. All I can figure is the daisy picture is complex and the lilly picture not so much. Maybe it's about pixels.

I love Laurel and Hardy too. The monkeys do make a big point. So does the pear. And I'm sure Lizzie's cat is unravelling the toilet paper. She's in purgatory and has to live with that every day.

That's quite a pear tree. We have mostly bartlet pears out here and the trees are scrawnier.

OFF TOPIC:

irina wrote:I'll make a tiny observation, considering I am cyber-stupid. When I got FB & Twitter and figured out about avis I used some of my own photographs of flowers. FB readily accepted a picture showing the heads of five gloriosa daisies. Twitter wouldn't accept that picture so I offered other pictures till they accepted one. Twitter allowed a picture of a daylily. All I can figure is the daisy picture is complex and the lilly picture not so much. Maybe it's about pixels. ...

Thanks for the information. You could be right about the pixels, but it's the KB's that seem to be the problem.

irina wrote:... I love Laurel and Hardy too. The monkeys do make a big point. So does the pear. And I'm sure Lizzie's cat is unravelling the toilet paper. She's in purgatory and has to live with that every day. ...

I love your interpretation of our avatars!!!

irina wrote:... That's quite a pear tree. We have mostly bartlet pears out here and the trees are scrawnier.

I edited my post to show maple and oak trees; probably an oak tree.

NOW BACK ON TOPIC:

irina wrote:...It must have been creepy for the upholsterer reupholstering the sofa for Emma. Slipcovers would have been cheaper.

Rebello's "Lizzie Borden Past & Present", pages 111, 112:

The Sofa

"At 5:35 [p.m.] the crowd outside was treated to a sensational repast, when the front door was opened and Undertaker Winward and an assistant bore out the sofa upon which Andrew J. Borden was lying when killed, to his wagon. It is an old-fashioned, low, hair-upholstered affair, with a pine frame recently varnished.

Evidence of the crime was plainly seen in a large blotch of blood near the head, which was discolored clear down to the cloth under the springs. ... The undertaker stored it in a rear room of his building, where it will stay as long as it is required as evidence."

"The sofa on which he [Andrew J. Borden] reclined was mahogany, with hair cloth covering such as was commonly manufactured for high class parlor furniture forty years ago. It was removed from the Borden home on Saturday and taken to Winward's wareroom.

Winward, the undertaker, drove into court square this forenoon with the sofa upon which Andrew J. Borden was murdered. It had been reupholstered, and Mr. Winward wanted to know what to do with it. After consulting with Assistant Marshal Fleet, it was taken to the Borden homestead on Second Street. It was covered with coarse matting and none of the upholstery was visible."

The sofa was later taken to Central Police Station and to the court house in New Bedford for the trial. It was returned to the guard room at the police station after the trial. The sofa was delivered to the Borden home on Thursday, June 22, 1893.


Also from the South Coast Times paper of Aug. 4, 1996, talking about the opening of the B&B:

None of the original furnishings is in the house; after the murders, Lizzie (who was ultimately acquitted in a jury trial) put the family's possessions in storage in a waterfront warehouse, where all were destroyed when a hurricane tidal wave flooded the building. She had taken with her only her sewing machine and her writing desk and chair. The fate of those items is a mystery.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbc ... /308049939

'A sensational repast' indeed! Thanks for that Twins, very interesting. So the sofa was eventually returned, at least temporarily, to No 92. I'm not surprised Lizzie decided subsequently to put most of the older style furniture in storage. She would probably have taken great pleasure in shopping for new items, antiques etc for Maplecroft.

So Lizzie had a sewing machine of her own. It couldn't have been Abby's guest room machine, could it?

Interesting how the "reupholstering" comment is kind of tacked on. May not have been reupholstered, merely covered with rough fabric and stored for evidence.

Pear tree leaves turn yellow in fall, not orange, if that helps.

OFF TOPIC

irina wrote:
I love Laurel and Hardy too. The monkeys do make a big point. So does the pear. And I'm sure Lizzie's cat is unravelling the toilet paper. She's in purgatory and has to live with that every day.

My black cat is enjoying the pleasures of indoor plumbing, something Abby and Andrew eschewed...and this is way off topic>>>>One of my friends and her husband spent hours and hours training their cat to use the toilet instead of the litter box. The cat finally learned. Then the cat spent its play time flushing...especially at night since cats are nocturnal. All night long....flush....flush....flush.

I found the article to the link I provide very interesting, as well; there are tidbits of information in there that intrigue me. For example:

On the wall above the sofa is a copy of the same picture that the Bordens had displayed there, Thomas Cole's "The Picnic."
I’ve heard of this picture before, but this is the first time I’ve actually seen a photo of it above the sofa that Andrew was killed on.

Here is a picture of Thomas Cole's "The Picnic”:

OFF TOPIC:

irina wrote:... Pear tree leaves turn yellow in fall, not orange, if that helps.

This does help, Irina, thank you. I think the shape of the tree is an indication of it being either a maple or an oak; probably an oak.

debbiediablo wrote:OFF TOPIC

irina wrote:
I love Laurel and Hardy too. The monkeys do make a big point. So does the pear. And I'm sure Lizzie's cat is unravelling the toilet paper. She's in purgatory and has to live with that every day.

My black cat is enjoying the pleasures of indoor plumbing, something Abby and Andrew eschewed...and this is way off topic>>>>One of my friends and her husband spent hours and hours training their cat to use the toilet instead of the litter box. The cat finally learned. Then the cat spent its play time flushing...especially at night since cats are nocturnal. All night long....flush....flush....flush.

OMG, Debbie, I was taking a sip of my coffee while reading your post and almost lost it due to laughing so hard!!!

OFF TOPIC

BOBO...I think you should have Cranking Hank as an avatar...I laugh about that all the time...

I started a Jack the Ripper thread in Stay to Tea.

Curryong wrote:'A sensational repast' indeed! Thanks for that Twins, very interesting. So the sofa was eventually returned, at least temporarily, to No 92. I'm not surprised Lizzie decided subsequently to put most of the older style furniture in storage. She would probably have taken great pleasure in shopping for new items, antiques etc for Maplecroft.

So Lizzie had a sewing machine of her own. It couldn't have been Abby's guest room machine, could it?

You're welcome. I'm not surprised that Lizzie decided to put the family's possessions in storage. I'm sure she didn't want anything around her that would remind her of the murders.

Well, the sewing machine was apparently hers, but would she have actually spent her money on such a thing when Andrew would have most likely bought it for the women in his family to use?

irina wrote:Interesting how the "reupholstering" comment is kind of tacked on. May not have been reupholstered, merely covered with rough fabric and stored for evidence ...

I agree, that comment did seem to be quite strange. Perhaps you are right in saying that it may have just been covered with a rough fabric instead of actually being reupholstered. It certainly makes more sense to just cover the blood stains over, since the sofa was put into storage; at least I assume it went into storage along with the family's other possessions. Why go to the expense of reupholstering it if the girls were not going to take it with them to Maplecroft?

Nice pictures. That's a nice print the Bordens had on the wall. Light, airy, bucolic, joyous. Wonder if they selected it or inherited it?

That's quite a story about the flushing cat. I never heard of one doing that before though I have heard of cats trained to use the toilet.

I think the tree in your avi, Twins, is an oak. The way the limbs spread and turn down. We don't have oak out here. Seldom even in towns for ornamental reasons. California has scrub oak which are small.

It is a nice piece of American art. The original is in the Brooklyn Museum. It was painted in 1845 and the print seems to be on a par with the rest of the furnishings at No 92, that is pre-Civil War. That is probably due to Andrew's taste. Didn't one of the reporters make a sarcastic remark about the furniture being of a style that was fashionable 40 years before? It may have been bought when the family moved into No 92 in the late 1870's of course. I hope for Abby's sake that most of the furniture in the Second St home didn't come from the time Sarah was alive.

Yes, it is a very nice painting.

Thomas Cole painted the "The Picnic” in 1846, two years before his death on February 11, 1848; he was only 47 years old! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cole). Sarah Borden, died on March 26, 1863, at the house on Ferry St. Andrew married Abby on June 6, 1865, and they lived in the Ferry St. house until Andrew bought the 92 Second Street house, from the original owner, on April 26, 1872.

So, the Thomas Cole painting could have been purchased by Andrew for Sarah, or purchased by Andrew for Abby, or purchased by the original owner of 92 second street and left there when Andrew purchased the house. I highly doubt the previous owner left the painting at 92 Second Street, when he moved out, although I could be wrong. If Andrew did purchase the painting for Sarah, I doubt it would have bothered Abby to have it hanging in her house, after all she knew Andrew had been previously married.

OFF TOPIC:

irina wrote:... I think the tree in your avi, Twins, is an oak. The way the limbs spread and turn down. We don't have oak out here. Seldom even in towns for ornamental reasons. California has scrub oak which are small.

I think so too. Wisconsin has a lot of oak trees, which are big and their tops are full and beautiful, just like the one I posted.

irina wrote:I read somewhere a couple years ago that Emma thought the sisters should live quietly in perpetual mourning and Lizzie's lifestyle was too flamboyant. That's extremely simple and it makes sense to me.

In the purported interview Emma gave in 1913 I noted something of interest. This item also makes me question whether Emma gave the interview as it rings false. Emma said she was certain Lizzie had not committed the murders because she had assured Emma many times that she was innocent.

I would compare that statement to what if my husband was accused of cheating on me? I know he's a good guy and honest. I believe him and he is innocent. He has no need to assure me multiple times over the years that he didn't do it. If Emma said that it tells me she wasn't sure and the subject surfaced possibly during disagreements.

I think Emma couldn't tolerate show business folk. Even Los Angeles in the silent era had supposedly had signs on various rooming houses saying: No dogs. No Jews. No actors. Or variations thereof. I could imagine Emma finding theater people to be a low class of humanity not fit to be in an upstanding home.

I read that somewhere too. I remember reading something of the likes of that Lizzie was entertaining the actors of the day and Emma wasn't to pleased with it. Back then actors and theater people were one step up from prositutes. Emma got a belly full and left for good. Or so the story goes.

Somewhere I read that the shawl was examined by experts and determined to be of an old style worn and made in Russia.

Are we back with Jack the Rip? Yes, I read it was made from St Petersburg silk. Poland of course wasn't an independent country then, just absorbed as Russian Poland. I expect the country was awash with Russian goods. If the Kosminsky family brought it over with them, all well and good, though it's a bit of an odd item for poor Polish Jews to have in their trunk.

It's more how it came into the possession of a police sergeant stationed in Islington, (the Southern tip of which is a mile away from Mitre Square) that's worrying me. He was a Met police officer, and the City police were all over the Catherine Eddowes murder. Many extra Met police officers were brought in on street patrols etc., in 1888, but Sgt Simpson's name doesn't appear. It's a bit strange too, that he should be allowed to stroll off with what was presumed to be a bit of the victim's clothing, (as compared to nicking it later from the mortuary) 'smile'.

There are lots of things that are a puzzle in this latest news. On the other hand, Dr Loubelainen is a well-respected molecular biologist, the last person one would expect to be involved in any fraud. I am waiting for Edwards' book to be released on Kindle in Australia, in about a fortnight. Then some of my questions will be answered, hopefully.

I just finished reading Jack the Ripper and the Case Against Scotland Yard's Prime Suspect by Robert House. He makes a strong but fair case against Kosminski. I, too, am not sure I believe Simpson asked to take the shawl and was given permission. But in a way, this makes it more believable to me. Simpson "pinched" it somewhere along the way, probably in the mortuary, and then lied to his family.

I tried to buy the Kindle version on AmazonUK but it recognized where I live and refused the order.

OFF TOPIC

This is my Kindle for Mac, a screenshot of the first 15 books. This really does not look good!! Note that Naming Jack the Ripper became available on US Amazon sometime this morning.

Believe me, my Kindle is even worse. Books on murder, fictional and real-life, until about no 22 in the stack, except for my history magazine monthly, and even that's got an illustration of the Wars of the Roses on the cover! I'd hate to think what it all says about me!

With all the talk of prussic acid I also did a quick refresher course on HCN online. Problem was there were many articles, some from the mining industry~cyanide has an affinity for gold~to cyanide in cigarette smoke causing vitamin B 12 to be excreted faster due to the cyano group on cyanocobalamine. I checked many, many sites and kept thinking about the 250 or whatever online searches for chloroform in the Casey Anthony case. It isn't necessarily hard to rack up a bunch of searches on an unfortunate subject in a short amount of time....

Hey, on and off topic, my hatchet spent a couple months on the ground near the garden and thus was rusty and dull. I sharpened it with an antique (circa Lizzie's timeframe) hand turned grinder. It took a long time. I made a good edge but not as sharp as how the police described the weapon used at 92 Second. I don't know what it would take to make a razor sharp edge, in case Lizzie or an intruder did their own hatchet sharpening. The repeated remarks about the sharp weapon bother me when I think of a hatchet. Such implements in the Borden home didn't seem to receive special care so guess we have to look at a new one, Lizzie sharpening one or an intruder who carried a sharp implement of some kind, or had a new one.

irina wrote:With all the talk of prussic acid I also did a quick refresher course on HCN online. Problem was there were many articles, some from the mining industry~cyanide has an affinity for gold~to cyanide in cigarette smoke causing vitamin B 12 to be excreted faster due to the cyano group on cyanocobalamine. I checked many, many sites and kept thinking about the 250 or whatever online searches for chloroform in the Casey Anthony case. It isn't necessarily hard to rack up a bunch of searches on an unfortunate subject in a short amount of time....

Hey, on and off topic, my hatchet spent a couple months on the ground near the garden and thus was rusty and dull. I sharpened it with an antique (circa Lizzie's timeframe) hand turned grinder. It took a long time. I made a good edge but not as sharp as how the police described the weapon used at 92 Second. I don't know what it would take to make a razor sharp edge, in case Lizzie or an intruder did their own hatchet sharpening. The repeated remarks about the sharp weapon bother me when I think of a hatchet. Such implements in the Borden home didn't seem to receive special care so guess we have to look at a new one, Lizzie sharpening one or an intruder who carried a sharp implement of some kind, or had a new one.

Sharpness of a new hatchet is a very valid point. I've never encountered a new one sharp enough to cut hair...maybe hack it up and smash it into the wound but not cleanly sever it.

That's the point I keep making, Debbie. In some cases I am sure axes/hatchets, etc. were sold unsharpened. Even if Lizzie owned or bought one, how sharp would she have thought to keep it? Being able to use or experienced in using a hatchet is not the same as maintaining one. Most of us women aren't really on top of sharpening things. I know how but am not real good at it. Whatever was used by whoever at 92 Second it was emphasized over & over it was extremely sharp. I doubt mine would chop off hair for example.

What if, months before, in another town, Lizzie had bought a decorative hatchet and asked the seller to really sharpen it for her on a whet-stone. Did they do that then? If she asked for it to be extra-sharp as tree branches had to be chopped, it could have been done.

Yes it could, and given the notoriety of the case I'd think the seller would remember it.

OFF TOPIC: JACK THE RIPPER SPOILER

I've plowed my way through Naming Jack the Ripper tonight, and below is the narrative Vita for Dr. Jari Louhelainen who appears to be A-1 legitimate. I'm through with the book and their scientific proof is fascinating...Louhelainen appears to be using methods designed to remove contaminants and extract the innermost DNA deep within the weave of the shawl. He also uses a multitude of other test methods that involve lighting, spray analysis, every kind of modern scientific test imaginable. Most interesting is they found
1) the shawl was made in Russia in the early 19th century.
2) the blood stains are indicative of medium velocity arterial spray due to stabbing or beating.
3) the shawl contains semen stains.
4) presence of epithelial cells in the areas stained by semen.
5) the shawl contains evidence of internal body fluids from the intestines, Louhelainen calls it "split body parts."
6) fresh non-fragmented DNA amplifies more readily than ancient DNA so relatively recent contamination can be ruled out.
7) the MtDNA belonging to both Catherine Eddowes' descendant and the ancient MtDNA from the blood on the shawl both show a rare genetic variation that is found in 1 of every 290,000 people. This means from a pure statistical point of view that the descendant is 1 out of approximately 223 people in the UK to carry this variation, and Catherine Eddowes would have been 1 of 136 in 1892. In present day London that would be 1 out of 25; in 1888 London it would be 1 out of 15.
8) DNA from the semen was amplified 500x and provided a 99.2% match to the Kosminski descendant when sequenced one way and when sequenced the other way (backwards) a 100% match. Louhelainen explained that the anomaly did not mean there was a difference: it simply meant that the test did not take at that one point in the sequence. The 100% is what counts.
9) One yet unexamined cell appears to be a kidney cell. That hasn't been worked up yet.
10) Louhelainen is careful is how he words his findings: ‘Hence the analysis strongly suggests that the shawl could contain the DNA of the Jack the Ripper victim Catherine Eddowes.’
11) The "Ripper's" DNA is haplogroup T1a1 which is typical in people of Russian and Polish Jewish ethnicity.
12) There was only one match for the Ripper's MtDNA in the Nat'l Center for Biotechnology DNA database which contains millions of DNA sequences, and that was from a Russian, including Polish, Jew.
13) The Ripper had dark hair and very likely had acne although this is in the early stages of being identified via DNA testing.

Given this plus Robert House's book Jack the Ripper and the Case for Scotland Yard's Prime Suspect, I think they've actually identified him. No, it's not a nuclear match, but all odds are on Kosminski.


Narrative Vita:
(Dr. Louhelainen) works on unsolved forensic cold cases for Interpol, Western Australia Police and Merseyside Police, and he is one of the supervisors for a Roman dig in Chester, the site where the Cistercian Poulton Abbey once stood. There are hundreds of skeletons on the site from the medieval period, so this is a long-term project for him. The aim is to establish who these people were, and where they came from. He is also involved in a research project analysing remains from the Mary Rose, the warship from the reign of Henry VIII. He was recruited to the TV programme when Robert Napper asked a contact of his who would be the best person, and was told, ‘If there’s anyone in the world who can do it, it’s Jari.’

Edwards, Russell, (2014-09-09). Naming Jack the Ripper (Kindle Locations 2076-2077). Lyons Press. Kindle Edition.

Everything that I have heard of Dr Jari Louhelainen is as you have expressed. He is very well-respected. It's extremely interesting about Catherine Eddowes. I must get that book. Of course, people on the JTR Forum would say, and do, that even if Kosminski's sperm cells and DNA, Catherine Eddowes' blood and DNA type plus knife slashes, are present on the shawl, that Kosminski as client and Eddowes as prostitute may have had intercourse on the night in question, but that doesn't prove that he was the killer. That is a spurious argument as far as I'm concerned. Here is a major suspect in the Ripper saga, and his DNA type and sperm cells etc turns up on a shawl together with that of a Ripper victim! If it's not fraud, and it isn't, it's kosher!

There is no denying I do have problems about the shawl's provenance, Sgt Simpson's whereabouts on the date in question and even Kosminski as JTR. (No witnesses heard a foreign accent, he wasn't known as being violent towards women etc.) However, this is, I believe, is a genuine and exciting breakthrough.

OFF TOPIC: JACK THE RIPPER SPOILER

I just finished the book and went back and added everything in my previous post, right to the end. The book is fascinating and paints an excellent statistical picture of Kosminski being the Ripper, especially considering everything else that has been written by Anderson, Swanson, et. al. One of the more interesting comments in the book comes from retired curator Alan McCormack at Scotland Yard's Black Museum (Metropolitan Police Crime Museum) who says he "cannot understand why people still continue to talk about who the Ripper was, because Scotland Yard has always known who he was, and they have documentation to prove it...the murderer was and always has been Aaron Kosminski."

Edwards, Russell, (2014-09-09). Naming Jack the Ripper (Kindle Locations 1654-1656). Lyons Press. Kindle Edition.

Yes, Anderson, backed by Swanson, did believe Kosminski to be the Ripper. Mustn't forget, though, that other police had other ideas. Inspector Aberline, who coordinated the search on the ground, nominated wife-killer George Chapman, (ridiculous, in my opinion), while Sir Melville Macnaghton (who admittedly came to Scotland Yard after the murders) rather liked Montague Druitt as JTR. And Anderson's memoirs, written when he was an old man, were woefully inaccurate.

BACK ON TOPIC:

Lizzie was smart enough to follow the advice of her attorneys, throughout the trial. On Monday, June 19, defense attorney Robinson delivered his closing arguments and Knowlton began his closing arguments for the prosecution, completing them on the next day. Lizzie was then asked if she had anything to say; her response was simply, "I am innocent. I leave it to my counsel to speak for me."

Yes, there have been several trials in which defendants, for vanity or other reasons, have disregarded the advice of their own counsel and gone ahead and given evidence. Sometimes it can work. A person of good appearance, who gives their evidence in a clear, concise and sincere manner, can impress a jury. However, Lizzie showed at the inquest that she was not a good witness. She was indeed sensible to follow Jennings (and it probably was Jennings who guided her) advice.

The story about the bloody shawl is based on conjecture, nothing more. First of all, it's not a shawl at all, but some sort of tablecloth. It's been around for years, handled by who knows how many people; it's obviously been laundered and ironed, who knows how many times. The DNA evidence linking it to a living relative of Catherine Eddowes is questionable; even if it's believable, it only shows the cloth could have belonged to any blood relative of the test subject, not necessarily Catherine Eddowes. Trying to tie the cloth to Aaron Kosminski is even more far fetched. For openers, the author doesn't even name the so-called relative of Kosminski whose DNA supposedly links the shawl to Kosminski. Second, he admits his "expert" could find no DNA in suspected semen stains (no semen was found at the scene of any of the Ripper murders), but says he did find traces in epithelial cells he said came from a penis, and these matched Kosminski's unidentified relative. Beginning to get the picture? Now consider this: Eddowes body was found on her back in a pool of blood with her entire abdomen ripped open, her intestines pulled out and spread beside her. A bloody piece of her apron had been ripped off, and this was subsequently found by police in a doorway several blocks away; written in chalk on the black brick wall above the cloth were the words, "The juwes are the men That Will not be Blamed for nothing." None of the police reports or news stories mention anything about the victim's shawl, although she may have been wearing one. If she was, it would have been soaked in blood and disposed of when her body was washed at the mortuary. The shawl claimed to have belonged to Eddowes shows no evidence of any bloodstains, certainly not the kind that would have soaked deeply into the material; in fact, the author's shawl looks clean and pressed, in surprisingly good condition for an 1888 article of clothing - or table cloth - or whatever it really is. Finally, Aaron Kosminski was never mentioned in any police reports of the time; the last name "Kosminski" was mentioned by a retired officer as a possible suspect long after the fact, and modern researchers have identified his first name as Aaron. He was a young man, likely affected by schizophrenia in his late teens. He was known to mumble to himself and eat what he could find in the gutters. The only violence ever attributed to him was a single occasion when he threatened to cut his sister with a knife. That did not stand in the way of his living at home with his family, more lately with his brother's family. He could hardly have been the nattily dressed sailor seen talking amicably with Eddowes at the entrance to Mitre Square 10 minutes before her body was found. I've debunked this story at http://www.casebook.org, an excellent discussion board dedicated to Jack the Ripper, however the author and his friends have done their best to sell conjecture as fact and the discussion still rages. I suggest you check it out yourself, and also do a little backgrounder on the author.

John: Beautiful! I wrote something similar this morning but was probably too sleepy to hit the right button and it disappeared without posting. You wrote it better. Beyond Casebook there is also JTRForums.com of which I am also a member.

I've studied JTR all my adult life and an interest before. I've already said, several times, that I have problems with the provenance of the cloth 'shawl'. I've also intimated that I have doubts about a Met policeman getting away with any cloth near the body. Debbie and I said 'shawl' for convenience on earlier posts. There's plenty of conjecture as to what the cloth is but no solid identification by a textile expert since this recent publicity.

I know that nothing was found near Kate Eddowes body, as per the drawing of her in situ which is still extant.

However, in spite of this, as I posted to you earlier, many members of JTR forums, while being expert at various aspects of the mystery, are heavily invested in the JTR industry, if I can term it as such, and in the mystery continuing. (I have myself got mixed feelings about Jack being unmasked, which I've expressed on this Forum.)

Casting doubts about Dr Louhelainen won't do it, however. Admirable though all this cynicism about the testing is (and there is no doubt that everything about the cloth, and other allegations have to be independently and vigorously re- tested) this man is no charlaton, but a well-respected molecular biologist.

I think there is a tendency when you follow anything as intriguing as the Jack the Ripper and Lizzie Borden cases for a number of years, and join a Forum on this and the JTR ones, for comradeship and a sort of fellowship of ideas to develop, and nobody and nothing else from the outside should get a look-in. (I am just as guilty of this as anyone else!)

This is especially true of JTR forums, when other published authors are on board. Edwards may be a rogue or a money-hungry self-publicist. Lord knows there have been several in the past in Ripperologist land! I don't know. However, I am prepared to read his book, see what he's got to say and decide for myself.

John Watson wrote:The story about the bloody shawl is based on conjecture, nothing more. First of all, it's not a shawl at all, but some sort of tablecloth. It's been around for years, handled by who knows how many people; it's obviously been laundered and ironed, who knows how many times. The DNA evidence linking it to a living relative of Catherine Eddowes is questionable; even if it's believable, it only shows the cloth could have belonged to any blood relative of the test subject, not necessarily Catherine Eddowes. Trying to tie the cloth to Aaron Kosminski is even more far fetched. For openers, the author doesn't even name the so-called relative of Kosminski whose DNA supposedly links the shawl to Kosminski. Second, he admits his "expert" could find no DNA in suspected semen stains (no semen was found at the scene of any of the Ripper murders), but says he did find traces in epithelial cells he said came from a penis, and these matched Kosminski's unidentified relative. Beginning to get the picture? Now consider this: Eddowes body was found on her back in a pool of blood with her entire abdomen ripped open, her intestines pulled out and spread beside her. A bloody piece of her apron had been ripped off, and this was subsequently found by police in a doorway several blocks away; written in chalk on the black brick wall above the cloth were the words, "The juwes are the men That Will not be Blamed for nothing." None of the police reports or news stories mention anything about the victim's shawl, although she may have been wearing one. If she was, it would have been soaked in blood and disposed of when her body was washed at the mortuary. The shawl claimed to have belonged to Eddowes shows no evidence of any bloodstains, certainly not the kind that would have soaked deeply into the material; in fact, the author's shawl looks clean and pressed, in surprisingly good condition for an 1888 article of clothing - or table cloth - or whatever it really is. Finally, Aaron Kosminski was never mentioned in any police reports of the time; the last name "Kosminski" was mentioned by a retired officer as a possible suspect long after the fact, and modern researchers have identified his first name as Aaron. He was a young man, likely affected by schizophrenia in his late teens. He was known to mumble to himself and eat what he could find in the gutters. The only violence ever attributed to him was a single occasion when he threatened to cut his sister with a knife. That did not stand in the way of his living at home with his family, more lately with his brother's family. He could hardly have been the nattily dressed sailor seen talking amicably with Eddowes at the entrance to Mitre Square 10 minutes before her body was found. I've debunked this story at http://www.casebook.org, an excellent discussion board dedicated to Jack the Ripper, however the author and his friends have done their best to sell conjecture as fact and the discussion still rages. I suggest you check it out yourself, and also do a little backgrounder on the author.

Response to John Watson in Stay to Tea

Curryong wrote:I've studied JTR all my adult life and an interest before. I've already said, several times, that I have problems with the provenance of the cloth 'shawl'. I've also intimated that I have doubts about a Met policeman getting away with any cloth near the body. Debbie and I said 'shawl' for convenience on earlier posts. There's plenty of conjecture as to what the cloth is but no solid identification by a textile expert since this recent publicity.

I know that nothing was found near Kate Eddowes body, as per the drawing of her in situ which is still extant.

However, in spite of this, as I posted to you earlier, many members of JTR forums, while being expert at various aspects of the mystery, are heavily invested in the JTR industry, if I can term it as such, and in the mystery continuing. (I have myself got mixed feelings about Jack being unmasked, which I've expressed on this Forum.)

Casting doubts about Dr Louhelainen won't do it, however. Admirable though all this cynicism about the testing is (and there is no doubt that everything about the cloth, and other allegations have to be independently and vigorously re- tested) this man is no charlaton, but a well-respected molecular biologist.

I think there is a tendency when you follow anything as intriguing as the Jack the Ripper and Lizzie Borden cases for a number of years, and join a Forum on this and the JTR ones, for comradeship and a sort of fellowship of ideas to develop, and nobody and nothing else from the outside should get a look-in. (I am just as guilty of this as anyone else!)

This is especially true of JTR forums, when other published authors are on board. Edwards may be a rogue or a money-hungry self-publicist. Lord knows there have been several in the past in Ripperologist land! I don't know. However, I am prepared to read his book, see what he's got to say and decide for myself.

John Watson - Actually the shawl is termed a shawl by Sotheby's, Christie's and Diane Thalmann who is an expert in antique textiles. It has been dated 1810-1830, not English, quite possibly Polish or Russian due to the Michaelmas daisies and some other intricacies of design. Below are the Eddowes shawl in question and an antique shawl from England 1830 that is for sale on Diane Thalmann's site, http://www.antique-textiles.net/shawls/ Note the similarity in design and structure. John Watson, please take a look!!! Just because they look like table runners, or as you say a table cloth, doesn't mean they are....

Hi Debbie! Can't argue against your excellent research! I was repeating what others have posted on the Ripper Casebook site regarding whether the cloth was shawl. Nor can I intelligently argue against the credentials of the expert who says he found epithelial cells in a stain, having not researched him myself. But I certainly wouldn't accept the opinion of a single expert, especially one hired by the author, as proof of anything. You'd have to provide corroborative reports from at least one independent and recognized expert in that field before I'd accept the opinion as worthy of belief. Putting the DNA evidence aside as unproven, there's absolutely nothing to connect this cloth with either Catherine Eddowes or Aaron Kosminski and a great deal of evidence arguing against any such connection, some of which I mentioned in my earlier post. Bottom line: The cloth may actually be a shawl, and it may actually have once belonged to a distant blood relative of Eddowes, but it didn't belong to Catherine Eddowes and it wasn't carried by her when she was murdered in Mitre Court in 1888.

Thanks for posting that very interesting information and illustrations, debbie. The argument rages on in the two JTR forums and other circles. I haven't read Edwards' book yet and am looking forward to it. We'd better not bung up Lizzie threads with any more speculation about Jack, however, says she, feeling as guilty as Bridget after eating one of Andrew's pickles!

Yes, JtR is now being discussed in Stay to Tea in a thread by that name.