A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Aldebaran]

If the first part of the suggested provenance cannot be proved, then the highly contentious DNA findings are totally irrelevant, because they do not conclusively prove what Edwards and his expert say they do, and therefore cannot point specifically to Kosminski.

So forget Kosminski as a suspect based on everything Edwards and his expert say. In fact forget him as a suspect based on all that has been put forward to date.

You say "DNA findings are totally irrelevant, because they do not conclusively prove what Edwards and his expert say they do, and therefore cannot point specifically to Kosminski."

I don't know what Edwards has claimed because I have not yet read his book. But I don't know how you can contend that something those experts have concluded was wrong. So far, the first expert has not retracted his conclusion that the DNA obtained from the blood on the shawl was not a match to that of the Eddowes relative. If I am missing something there, perhaps someone can supply a quote. I have tried to explain that, while at first he said their shared haplogroup was rare, he later had to admit that it was not. Yet that does not mean it wasn't a match. But that is a separate issue from Kosminski and his DNA, which was the result of work by a second expert. The haplogroup discovered in the other body fluid matched to that of a Kosminski relative. It is rare among Jews and non-Jews alike. So, yes, the odds are good there that it does point to Kosminski. What information do you have in order to aver this is wrong or that the DNA is faulty in some way?

As for me, I was not the one to point to Kosminski as a suspect. That happened more than a century ago and some still maintain he is the best suspect. Yet I was quite clear in stating in a recent post that the DNA [while
I believe it to be that of Kosminski, which is hardly irrelevant] does not confirm him to have been Jack the Ripper or even a copy cat killer. The best it can do is suggest he had contact with that shawl. I doubt Kosminski will be dismissed as a suspect yet.

That shawl! If it had been found on Eddowes, it would have been handled by countless persons by now and perhaps hopelessly contaminated by the DNA of others. On the other hand, the fact that it was put away and not much bothered with allowed it to be viable for testing. Sometimes one just can't win. Regardless, not one person participating in this thread has given me what I asked for--a theory about why or how these body fluids would be on an old shawl if not connected to the murder of a prostitute.

[Aldebaran]

I have seen a picture of the shawl being held by three people before Russell Edwards brought it. None had gloves on. Would that have made a difference?
I did scan R E's book quickly but did not see if they had discounted anybodys DNA, did they say, does anybody know?
For using my tiddly bit of info on Kosminski (Providence Street) all I asked of Mr Edwards was a signed book. I never got it and after reading the book I dont think I mind.

Pat.........

Pat, all I can say is that testers, when looking for DNA that is not freely given by a living subject in a vial of blood or saliva, always seek the area that is the least likely to have been contaminated by handling. For example, when samples were taken from Egyptian mummies, that came from boring straight into their bones. The insides of teeth are a good source as well. If the shawl had a lining, the best place to take a sample [and they can be quite minute] would be from between the cloth and the lining. Or as deep inside the fiber of the cloth as possible, the part least likely to have come in contact with human hands.

[Aldebaran]

I see I wrote one word too many when I stated "I don't know what Edwards has claimed because I have not yet read his book. But I don't know how you can contend that something those experts have concluded was wrong. So far, the first expert has not retracted his conclusion that the DNA obtained from the blood on the shawl was not a match to that of the Eddowes relative."

It should say "the first expert has not retracted his conclusion that the DNA obtained from the blood on the shawl was a match to that of the Eddowes relative."

[lynn cates]

honest

Hello Aldebaran. It has never been conclusively shown that there was ANY semen on the fabric.

Please be aware, moreover, that not every scientist is honest.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

"expert"

Hello (again) Aldebaran.

"That shawl! If it had been found on Eddowes . . . "

. . . should have been included in the inventory. It was not.

As for the "expert," not only did he get the haplogroup wrong, he also made a beginner's error in math. Have you kept up with the discussion? These items were pointed out over a year ago.

Cheers.
LC

[GUT]

Hasn't this all been done to death, if you read the threads it's a dud, go to woe

No shawl at the site
No Simpson at the site
No copper would knock off evidence of virtually nil value
Wife keeps it covered in blood and semen for years without washing it
Problems with the typing


And even if you are prepared to suspend credibility, how do you prove that both the semen and blood were put on the shawl at the same time? Answer you can't!

Again suspend credibility Koz the chronic masturbatur masterbates shortley thereafter wearer if shawl sits in the spot, what do we have, semen on shawl, owner then killed a short while later, blood and semen on shawl, (now I don't buy it for one second because the table cloth/shawl or whatever it was is never recorded as bellowing to the victim or being among her possessions) but there is a perfectly good explanation consistent with innocence.

Sorry but until someone addresses these issues the shawl is a dead issue to me.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Which book, please? I am not going by any book in my observations--just by my knowledge of DNA and what I know of the Eddowes murder from a dissertation on this very site.

Signed,
Lux Perpetua

Hi, Aldebaran.
I was referring to the Russell Edwards book, 'Naming Jack the Ripper'.
This thread and several others on Casebook were started in direct response to the book and the claims that it makes.
You might do well to read through this entire thread. In doing so you'll discover that many of the issues you are bringing up have been already addressed.
On this page, post #908 from Chris http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=315772 deals with the sperm cells issue, for example.
Other threads pertaining to the book and DNA -
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8296 (430 pages)
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8384 (continuation of previous thread, 46 pages)

I'm not intending to stifle any conversation. Evidential ground quite often gets retrodden around here and it can be useful to re-evaluate one's stance from time to time.

Yours, Caligo

[Elamarna]

This suggestion that the shawl belonged to Eddowes is unbelievable

There is no evidence that there was ever a shawl in her possession.
There is no evidence to show a shawl was ever seen or found in Mitre Sq
There is no evidence to show Pc Simpson was ever in or near Mitre Sq that night
There is no evidence to show anyone other than PC Watkins was ever alone with the body whilst it was in the square, and he was alone only for a few moments.

If I were you I would not waste anymore time trying to prove or disprove this, as its already been disproved, even without the DNA aspect.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The evidence never lies, but doesnt always tell the truth

Hi Trevor


Agree 100% with that summary.

And I Say that from a pro Kosminski favoured suspect point of view

Steve

[MsWeatherwax]

Hi, Aldebaran.
I was referring to the Russell Edwards book, 'Naming Jack the Ripper'.
This thread and several others on Casebook were started in direct response to the book and the claims that it makes.
You might do well to read through this entire thread. In doing so you'll discover that many of the issues you are bringing up have been already addressed.
On this page, post #908 from Chris http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=315772 deals with the sperm cells issue, for example.
Other threads pertaining to the book and DNA -
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8296 (430 pages)
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8384 (continuation of previous thread, 46 pages)

I'm not intending to stifle any conversation. Evidential ground quite often gets retrodden around here and it can be useful to re-evaluate one's stance from time to time.

Yours, Caligo

Thank you for posting this - fascinating stuff.

Although I had read a fair bit of this thread, I was certainly unaware that there is a possibility that part of the fabric of the shawl had been dyed using woad. If the estimates that Edwards provides for the origin of the shawl are correct, there is a clear possibility that it could be contaminated with urine. Shocker.

[Aldebaran]

Hello (again) Aldebaran.

"That shawl! If it had been found on Eddowes . . . "

. . . should have been included in the inventory. It was not.

As for the "expert," not only did he get the haplogroup wrong, he also made a beginner's error in math. Have you kept up with the discussion? These items were pointed out over a year ago.

Cheers.
LC

As it happened, I read this thread from the beginning. And, no, he did not get the haplogroup wrong. That was not the error and "beginner's math" is hardly involved. If one can't criticize responsibly, perhaps one should refrain from doing so.

[Aldebaran]

Hi, Aldebaran.
I was referring to the Russell Edwards book, 'Naming Jack the Ripper'.
This thread and several others on Casebook were started in direct response to the book and the claims that it makes.
You might do well to read through this entire thread. In doing so you'll discover that many of the issues you are bringing up have been already addressed.
On this page, post #908 from Chris http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=315772 deals with the sperm cells issue, for example.
Other threads pertaining to the book and DNA -
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8296 (430 pages)
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8384 (continuation of previous thread, 46 pages)

I'm not intending to stifle any conversation. Evidential ground quite often gets retrodden around here and it can be useful to re-evaluate one's stance from time to time.

Yours, Caligo

That seems to be a problem here, people being quick to assume things. If I am interested in the DNA aspect of the JTR case, why would I not have read the entire thread? This website is searchable and I looked for all I could find. Then I discovered a group of persons, most of them not knowing what they are talking about, having a lot of opinions critical of those who are actual molecular biologists. I am not one of the latter, but I have spent years studying this science due to an interest I developed in 1999. I would have thought it was fairly obvious that I have learned something--but evidently no one has noticed anything of the kind. Sorry, but this is one of the most ignorant threads on an otherwise excellent website. It reminds me , in the case of an unsolved crime, of the general public murmuring, "Those coppers couldn't catch a cold" even though they really know little to nothing about police procedure. But I'm glad you don't seek to stifle conversation.

I have ordered the Edwards book and, when it reaches me, I will have an opinion on that. If I seem to be a little late in investigating this compared to the rest of you, it is only because Jack the Ripper has never been a priority in my life, although I am not totally ignorant about the case. I am very much open to learning from others here but close-mindedness does not impress me.

[Aldebaran]

Now--if I recall correctly, I had already posted this URL on the subject in a different thread, but it's worth reposting here. It wasn't written by a reporter for a newspaper but by someone who actually works in the field of genetics.

https://dna-explained.com/2014/09/08/jack-the-ripper/

The one criticism I would have of the piece is that the person did not have much experience with T1a1 in Jewish subjects and reached a faulty conclusion based on a paper, whereas it took me only a few minutes to find people with Jewish ancestresses by searching T1a1 in the Family Tree DNA database, which is the result of people submitting their own samples for testing by the company. Family Tree then groups them by haplogroups [naturally] and also shows the sequences of their mitochondrial or yDNA. Further investigation showed that this haplogroup subclade, T1a1, does exist in about 5% of Eastern European Jewry.

I also dispute the conclusion that Aaron Kosminski must be Jack the Ripper, but I can find no problem with the math on this page. Have a look at it. Maybe you can see an error. If not, the odds are pretty compelling. It would mean that one doesn't really need proof of the shawl's provenance. On the contrary, the proof lies with those who wish to dispute the claims regarding the shawl. Because there is so little likelihood that the DNA found on it doesn't belong to Aaron Kosminski. And probably the shawl had belonged to a murdered woman, too. I have a couple of shawls. Mine don't have any blood on them. Because I am still alive.

[lynn cates]

posting

Hello Aldebaran. Thanks.

In which case you might consider no longer posting.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Now--if I recall correctly, I had already posted this URL on the subject in a different thread, but it's worth reposting here. It wasn't written by a reporter for a newspaper but by someone who actually works in the field of genetics.

https://dna-explained.com/2014/09/08/jack-the-ripper/

The one criticism I would have of the piece is that the person did not have much experience with T1a1 in Jewish subjects and reached a faulty conclusion based on a paper, whereas it took me only a few minutes to find people with Jewish ancestresses by searching T1a1 in the Family Tree DNA database, which is the result of people submitting their own samples for testing by the company. Family Tree then groups them by haplogroups [naturally] and also shows the sequences of their mitochondrial or yDNA. Further investigation showed that this haplogroup subclade, T1a1, does exist in about 5% of Eastern European Jewry.

I also dispute the conclusion that Aaron Kosminski must be Jack the Ripper, but I can find no problem with the math on this page. Have a look at it. Maybe you can see an error. If not, the odds are pretty compelling. It would mean that one doesn't really need proof of the shawl's provenance. On the contrary, the proof lies with those who wish to dispute the claims regarding the shawl. Because there is so little likelihood that the DNA found on it doesn't belong to Aaron Kosminski. And probably the shawl had belonged to a murdered woman, too. I have a couple of shawls. Mine don't have any blood on them. Because I am still alive.

May I ask why you flogging a dead DNA horse ?

As I said in post #1235 if you cannot prove the provenance of the shawl. Any DNA issues that anyone raises thereafter are irrelevant, unless a full DNA profile is extracted from the shawl, which matches a full DNA profile of Kosminski, and Eddowes, and then what would it prove?

You or anyone else can talk about MtD and percentages till the cows come home but it will not prove anything conclusive. Its all a smoke screen created by Edwards, which has sucked people like you in.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies, but it doesn't always tell the truth"

[Aldebaran]

May I ask why you flogging a dead DNA horse ?

As I said in post #1235 if you cannot prove the provenance of the shawl. Any DNA issues that anyone raises thereafter are irrelevant, unless a full DNA profile is extracted from the shawl, which matches a full DNA profile of Kosminski, and Eddowes, and then what would it prove?

You or anyone else can talk about MtD and percentages till the cows come home but it will not prove anything conclusive. Its all a smoke screen created by Edwards, which has sucked people like you in.

Oh? You mean people like me as opposed to people like you who know diddly about DNA? You just don't get. That's the whole problem with you and others, like Cates. You don't understand it, therefore you don't want to deal with it. If you had read the comments on the blog whose URL I gave with any kind of comprehension, you wouldn't even be asking the question "What would it prove?" Just incredible.