Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Archaic]

DNA extraction methodology has to be seen to be as clean as its provided sample used.

The Edward III situation for example had an iron clad story behind it.

I'm not sure I understand your first sentence. The cleanliness (or lack thereof) of the samples to be tested doesn't determine the DNA extraction methodology. It's the other way round. There are rigorous scientific standards which must be adhered to throughout the process of collection and analysis.

DNA extraction and analysis should be performed in a sterile environment to avoid further contamination of the samples being analyzed. The subject samples are often already contaminated and degraded when they arrive at the lab, which poses a huge risk of further contamination- not only of the subject item or samples, but of the lab itself.

I haven't read the book, but I'm quite curious about the nature of the so-called "vacuuming" method that was used to obtain samples. Is it a recognized and accepted method of mtDNA collection? Were standard laboratory procedures followed?

Were multiple control samples tested, and were they kept separately under proper sterile conditions in the lab throughout the entire course of the testing? From the various book reviews it sounds as though this fundamental procedure wasn't followed at all, which would be a terrible shame and might preclude any further testing.

What amplification method was used? PCR and Short Tandem Repeats? Given the level of contamination and degradation, what measures did the researcher take to avoid errors of amplification?

If the shawl is really "of Eastern European origin, c. 1820-1840s" that means it would have been between approximately 40 and 68 years old before the year 1888, and could have passed through many hands in "Eastern Europe". How many of those hands might have been of Polish Jewish origin like Kosminski? It's a relatively small genetic pool.

A shawl date of "1820-1840s" introduces several entire generations of Eastern European DNA contamination before the murder of Catherine Eddowes...surely a significant concern to the DNA expert?

Are the answers to these questions documented in the book? If not, will there be a peer-reviewed scientific paper offered at some time in the future that will explain the methodology, analysis and results? I believe another poster said Jari has scheduled some kind of statement or press report in the near future? I'm looking forward to it.

Will the shawl ever be offered to the Victoria and Albert Museum or other recognized antique textile experts for formal unbiased examination and appraisal? (I have my own ideas, and I'd gladly pay to read that report!)

Best regards,
Archaic

PS: I think you meant Richard III.

[mickreed]

Expert opinion is that Aaron Kosminski suffered a form of Schizophrenia

If your making this statement perhaps you could explain what other condition he had and put that theory to expert analysis

Until then I'll stick with the probability that he had schizophrenia

Truce, Jeff? Life's too short.

All I do, mischievously, is to take your words, which were very, very, precise in saying that Kosminksi had schizophrenia, and reword them to say, that he may have had it, or he may not.

I could do the same with your claim that 'expert opinion' says he had it, by saying that some expert opinion says he had it.

But, at least now you basically agree that it is not a certainty, but you prefer to stick with what you see as the probability. That's fine, no problems with that. I don't have a theory, so there's nowt to put to expert opinion.

Mate, I deal with evidence to create an argument, a case if you like, and have done so for nearly 40 years. I know about the vagaries, inconsistencies, and pitfalls of (historical) evidence. I'm far from alone in that. Two of your colleagues, Paul Begg, and John Bennett, know about it too. Their work shows that awareness. And probably you do too.

It just doesn't across in your posts, which is why some of us take tilts at you.

[Chris]

"Occam's Razor is another name for the principle of parsimony."

No, it isn't. The former is an ontological claim "Entia non sunt multiplicanda--sine necessitate." The latter is a logical claim.

Whether it's logical, ontological, or even entomological, I just wish someone would apply it to this thread!

The only interesting thing I've read here in the last couple of days is that the body of Edward III was identified using DNA ...

[mickreed]

G'day Archaic

Well put

I haven't read the book, but I'm quite curious about the nature of the so-called "vacuuming" method that was used to obtain samples. Is it a recognized and accepted method of mtDNA collection? Were standard laboratory procedures followed?

Yes, about 10 days ago, it seems like a life time, I posted something that seemed to refer to this vacuuming technique, or something very similar.

http://www.m-vac.com/why-mvac

I also posted some comments about it

Jay Henry, director of the Utah State Crime Lab, sees some possibilities in using the M-Vac on old samples after some time has passed, or for collecting the "touch DNA" — genetic material that's left over when someone touches or leaves saliva on a surface. But he was skeptical about using the vacuum on surfaces that many people have likely touched, which he said could produce muddled test results.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55142624-78/dna-vacuum-vac-crime.html.csp

Now, if this is really the same, or very similar, to that used on the shawl, it doesn't look as though it was 'invented by Jari Louhelainen, as Edwards claims.

If the shawl is really "of Eastern European origin, c. 1820-1840s" that means it would have been between approximately 40 and 68 years old before the year 1888, and could have passed through many hands in "Eastern Europe". How many of those hands might have been of Polish Jewish origin like Kosminski? It's a relatively small genetic pool.

A shawl date of "1820-1840s" introduces several entire generations of Eastern European DNA contamination before the murder of Catherine Eddowes...surely a significant concern to the DNA expert?

And that is a brilliant point.

Are the answers to these questions documented in the book?

It seems not.

If not, will there be a peer-reviewed scientific paper offered at some time in the future that will explain the methodology, analysis and results? I believe another poster said Jari has scheduled some kind of statement or press report in the near future? I'm looking forward to it.

We don't know. And yes, I've heard Jari is going to put something on his web site. It may only be Chinese whispers, though.

Will the shawl ever be offered to the Victoria and Albert Museum or other recognized antique textile experts for formal unbiased examination and appraisal? (I have my own ideas, and I'd gladly pay to read that report!)

Who knows? Even if it does, I doubt it will happen until the publisher has sold as many books as possible

[mickreed]

The only interesting thing I've read here in the last couple of days is that the body of Edward III was identified using DNA ...

I'd have thought you medievalists would have known that.

[Tom_Wescott]

A shawl date of "1820-1840s" introduces several entire generations of Eastern European DNA contamination before the murder of Catherine Eddowes...surely a significant concern to the DNA expert?

Damn good point.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Whether it's logical, ontological, or even entomological, I just wish someone would apply it to this thread!

The only interesting thing I've read here in the last couple of days is that the body of Edward III was identified using DNA ...

Oh my I seem to have made a mistake with a name that before Archaic kindly pointed it out- nobody worried about.

Then you pop along and cant resist a dig.

Well dig this Chris....

I would like your brilliant observations on Dr Mike Suttons rather revealing review and in particular all 11 points plus he made.

You are going to have trouble defending both the actions of Mr Edwards and the Finnish doctor.

Because peer review from outside of this forum might just have got you stumped.

Because to thi7 lowly umpire Dr Sutton cried out ....Howzat!!?

0ut. Plumb.

No flim flam Chris. Straight answers to Dr Mike Sutton's points if you please.

Thanking you kindly from the list of 'book readers' (and I didnt need the help of a wild horse nor open my wallet)

[Phil Carter]

Hello Archaic,

You wrote (forgive the selections used - I agree almost entirely with you)

" There are rigorous scientific standards which must be adhered to throughout the process of collection and analysis. "

My response- Totally agree and that is what my poorly written sentence meant.

"Were standard laboratory procedures followed?"

My response-From what I understand and read- this is a question which I too ask.

"Were multiple control samples tested, and were they kept separately under proper sterile conditions in the lab throughout the entire course of the testing? From the various book reviews it sounds as though this fundamental procedure wasn't followed at all, which would be a terrible shame and might preclude any further testing. "

My response- agreed. And the last sentence would cause "impasse"... just like the Diary. Unlike the Diary though- we have an author changing the base story in many ways AFTER the book gets released.

Thanks for the heads up re Richard III. The name "Edwards" has been my focus- that was probably the reason for the error. Understandable.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Damn good point.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom,

Agreed- and well done Bunny. Thats 48-68 more years of handling to consider.

best wishes

Phil

[mickreed]

Because to thi7 lowly umpire Dr Sutton cried out ....Howzat!!?

0ut. Plumb.

No flim flam Chris. Straight answers to Dr Mike Sutton's points if you please.

Thanking you kindly from the list of 'book readers' (and I didnt need the help of a wild horse nor open my wallet)

Go on Chris, I dare you. In fact I double dare you.

Personally Phil, I find this pretty tedious. I know it's tempting to get all silly on the forums. I even find myself succumbing on occasion.

But Mike Sutton is just a reader/reviewer. He may, or may not, know what he's talking about. He's apparently a Reader in Criminology at Nottingham Trent University, not necessarily an expert in DNA testing and analysis. So where's the peer review in that?

His Wikipedia entry has the following which may, or again, may not, have anything to do with him, but if was about me, I'd want to fix it.

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. (August 2010)
This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. (August 2010)
This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (August 2010)
This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. (August 2010)
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (July 2010)
The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for academics. (July 2010)

Another web site has this about him:

In 2014 Mike proved, using Big Data analysis and his own IDD research method, that Darwin and Wallace committed the greatest science fraud in history by plagiarizing the work of Patrick Matthew.

Mike also busted the Zombie Cop (100 yard) beat patrol myth. Mike bust the famous Spinach Myth, the Crime Opportunity Theory Myth, In 2013 the Moral Panic (Creation) Myth , the Founded Founding Fathers Myth (f) the Merton Myth and The Selfish Gene Myth. Mike Discovered that: True Origin of the Word Nerd was in 1799. He discovered the true origin of 'Humpty Dumpty' ). Mike bust the myth that Darwin coined the term 'living fossil'. He discovered the true origin of the word "quiz". He found the first publication of the word 'okay.' Mike discovered 'the whole nine yards' supermyth and discovered the originator of the name and concept of the Peace Corps.

http://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton

If I could be bothered, I might follow up on the 'famous Spinach Myth', but frankly I doubt Sutton warrants it.

Finally, despite his criticisms of Edwards's book, he did say it was 'excellent' and gave it five stars.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Mickreed,

I thought this was a sensible debate. We can do without the sarcasm.

This will never be a sensible debate while you and many others keep suggesting Aaron Kosminski is a viable or plausible suspect.

Mick Reed has gone to great length to re emphasize what I have been saying for a long time and trying to get those who favor Aaron Kosminski to take the blinkers off.

There is not one scrap of evidence anywhere to suggest Aaron Kosminski should be regarded as a suspect let alone a prime suspect.

The Crime Museum at Scotland Yard have been misleading the public for years saying that Aaron Kosminski was the prime suspect, and that they knew who he was but couldn't bring him to justice.

Of course they are going to say they knew the killer, its better than saying "we failed and didn't have a clue" At least some of those officials who were involved were honest enough in later years to say "we didn't have a clue"

Now I also get fed up with those who keep saying that it is right to suggest that the Kosminksi named in the MM and SM is Aaron Kosminski when the antecedents of him do not match those in the MM, and as has already been stated the Kosminski named by MM was later exonerated by him in another document prepared long before the questionable SW could have been written.

So on that basis alone even if the DNA was a "positive" match which it isn't and will never be, it would still not positively identify the killer.

And as another poster suggested at the end of this Shawl debacle one hopes that Aaron Kosminki will be removed from this fairy tale list of prime suspects.

[Phil Carter]

I'd have thought you medievalists would have known that.

Hello Mick,

Fret not my friend- this old ex medium-quick pace bowler knows a bouncer aimed at him when he sees one. I just hooked it out of the MCG. ;-) The umpire signalled a 6 and called 'over'. I do so love cricket terminology,
There will be more yorkers bowled from this side in this debate yet.

best regards

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Now you're splitting hairs, Lynn. Effectively they are same thing.

"Enties should not be multiplied without necessity" or in other words you should have no more assumptions supporting your hypothesis than are necessary for it to possibly be correct. The simpler solution is generally preferable to the more complex one.

Edwards and Jari had access to the DNA samples. Do you think they are both in on this hypothetical hoax? Because according to both of them (Edwards in the book and Jari in his interview), the DNA was extracted from the shawl before the relatives submitted their samples. So for this hoax you are proposing to take place Jari would have to be in on it too. In the case of the DNA match with Kos's relative and the semen stain, David Miller would also have to be in on it.

Two world renown geneticists, experts in their areas of specialization, both professors at major universities, went along with a hoax like this, jeopardizing their careers, in order to help a guy who sells Ripper yo-yos sell a few books as well? Do you really think that's the simplest explanation?

Did Jari give it back to Edwards after he extracted the DNA and before Edwards obtained the control samples ?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Mick,

You wrote-

"Go on Chris, I dare you. In fact I double dare you.

Personally Phil, I find this pretty tedious. I know it's tempting to get all silly on the forums. I even find myself succumbing on occasion."

Yes Mick I see your point. But I am trying to tie Chris Phillips down to directly answering those points which I fear will conveniently
overlooked otherwise.. I believe they warrant a response.
It is apparently more fun to point out me mixing up the name of two kings.

"But Mike Sutton is just a reader/reviewer. He may, or may not, know what he's talking about. He's apparently a Reader in Criminology at Nottingham Trent University, not necessarily an expert in DNA testing and analysis. So where's the peer review in that?"

The peer review of the interested amateur criminologist of which many here are....From OUTSIDE the forums. Thats wiat I refer to.

best wishes

Phil

[mickreed]

The peer review of the interested amateur criminologist of which many here are....From OUTSIDE the forums. Thats wiat I refer to.

Hey Phil,

I'm with you on the book, based on what I know of it. Unlike yourself, I have pre-ordered it, not because I expect anything of any real moment, but because I cannot keep spouting about it unless I do read it. It won't arrive until 30 September. I don't want to buy it, but.

All I try to do, is to encourage people to approach evidence in a more nuanced way than many of them do, in these forums, and in various printed publications.

Now I know that Chris Phillips has read this book in a critically constructive way. I know some of what he thinks about it, but I'm not going to put words in his mouth.

Based on what Edwards has said publicly, and what glimpses I've had of the book on line, I doubt it will be worth anything very much overall,except for, perhaps, one thing.

If, despite the numerous shortcomings of the process, there really is evidence of Eddowes (Note, I don't say KATE Eddowes) family DNA on the shawl, and if that can be shown not to be modern contamination, then given the story of its link to Eddowes, then that is interesting.

As for the rest, I suspect it won't go anywhere.

Cheers mate