Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kosminski Shawl DNA published as peer reviewed paper in Journal of Forensic Sciences

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

  • Kosminski Shawl DNA published as peer reviewed paper in Journal of Forensic Sciences

    No comment, as I have not read it, nor do I know to what extent it has been peer reviewed. But I am posting here for discussion:

    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019...ty-jack-ripper

    Rob House

  • #2
    I’ll have to find time to read it, then to look at the feedback.
    G U T

    There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

    Comment


    • #3
      And yet again unless you tie the “shawl” to the crime scene, so what.
      G U T

      There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

      Comment


      • #4
        I read the article and found it a little confusing but this seems to be the main point to take away from it:

        Hansi Weissensteiner, an expert in mitochondrial DNA also at Innsbruck, also takes issue with the mitochondrial DNA analysis, which he says can only reliably show that people—or two DNA samples—are not related. “Based on mitochondrial DNA one can only exclude a suspect.” In other words, the mitochondrial DNA from the shawl could be from Kosminski, but it could probably also have come from thousands who lived in London at the time.

        So if I read this correctly it appears that the DNA does not exclude Kosminski but simply puts him in a pool of possible suspects (based on DNA) consisting of a great many people.

        c.d.

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi All,
          First time poster here.
          I'm frustrated we're on the 'Kosminski did it' train again. I've never thought there was much evidence to implicate Kosminski; he doesn't fit the suspect profile and he doesn't seem to have been violent, just sad and sick. All the dna evidence seems to be suggesting is that he can't be excluded- which, as c.d stated, also covers a great many other people.

          Comment


          • #6
            One of the biggest problems with the shawl is that the evidence is contaminated anyway, so anything purloined from it is as worthless in a suspect book as would it well be in a court of law.

            I also don't think it's more likely that the shawl was from Eddowes rather than Smith.

            To top it all off, the man who ended up in possession of the shawl was nowhere near the scene shortly after the murder, and no shawl is mentioned in the belongings of Eddowes.

            It's shawley a fools errand.

            Comment


            • #7
              Did they test the DNA against Pamela Ball? There's a photo of her, in the company of two men, waving the tablecloth runner around like they were preparing to fight a bull.

              Comment


              • #8


                The provenance of the shawl (or table cloth as some believe) in question has never been established, despite claims to the contrary. Unless it can be proven to have been found on the pavement, next to Eddowes' bloody body at the time the body was discovered in Mitre Square, its historic value is nil. Moreover, any traces of DNA found on it, and that presumes the shawl has never been laundered, could have come from any and all of those who handled the shawl over the years before and after its purchase by the author.
                "We reach. We grasp. And what is left at the end? A shadow."
                Sherlock Holmes, The Retired Colourman

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hi all

                  It was peer reviewed prior to publication.

                  Some info regarding the peer review process here:

                  https://www.arcjournals.org/journal-...review-process

                  Regards

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by phantom View Post
                    Hi all

                    It was peer reviewed prior to publication.

                    Some info regarding the peer review process here:

                    https://www.arcjournals.org/journal-...review-process

                    Regards
                    Yes it was peer reviewed, but as other people have mentioned, the science is dubious, who the shawl belonged to is uncertain, and there are a multitude of reasons that Kosminski is a bad suspect.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by theshamanisright View Post
                      Hi All,
                      First time poster here.
                      I'm frustrated we're on the 'Kosminski did it' train again. I've never thought there was much evidence to implicate Kosminski; he doesn't fit the suspect profile and he doesn't seem to have been violent, just sad and sick. All the dna evidence seems to be suggesting is that he can't be excluded- which, as c.d stated, also covers a great many other people.
                      With or without the shawl, "Kosminski" (be it Aaron or another) has more evidence than most. He is referred to by three senior officials, two of which mention an identification. Are we expected to believe Anderson & Swanson lied or misremembered one of the biggest cases they worked on? Macnaghten says Kosminski was a misogynist with homicidal tendencies, and I doubt he pulled that out of his jacksy. Aaron Kosminski did threaten his sister with a knife, and while there's no evidence in the sparse medical notes, that he exhibited violent behaviour, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. When removed from the stimuli that drove him to kill, should we expect any?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I would not have written a book on Kosminski if I did not think he was the most likely suspect we have. That is a different question than whether this DNA analysis, as presented in the paper, is valid and convincing. The last time this was looked into, the analysis presented in RE's book was pretty unconvincing. I think the question is whether anything has changed in terms of the analysis presented, and whether Mr. Louhelainen has addressed the criticisms brought up previously. I have not, thus far, heard anything new except that the paper has been subjected to peer review. I am wondering if this is just a renewed PR effort, or if there is something that (this time around) actually makes the DNA science more compelling. I do not have very high hopes for the latter. But we shall see...

                        Rob H

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by robhouse View Post
                          I would not have written a book on Kosminski if I did not think he was the most likely suspect we have. That is a different question than whether this DNA analysis, as presented in the paper, is valid and convincing. The last time this was looked into, the analysis presented in RE's book was pretty unconvincing. I think the question is whether anything has changed in terms of the analysis presented, and whether Mr. Louhelainen has addressed the criticisms brought up previously. I have not, thus far, heard anything new except that the paper has been subjected to peer review. I am wondering if this is just a renewed PR effort, or if there is something that (this time around) actually makes the DNA science more compelling. I do not have very high hopes for the latter. But we shall see...

                          Rob H
                          Where as I do not subscribe to Kosminki, Aaron or other being the killer. I do agree that this is another PR effort, because the results have not changed. The Mt Dna referred to is part of a DNA profile. It is not primary DNA, the same DNA that can be found in thousands of people which is what is in the latest report. No court would ever convict anybody on MT Dna evidence alone

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                            With or without the shawl, "Kosminski" (be it Aaron or another) has more evidence than most. He is referred to by three senior officials, two of which mention an identification. Are we expected to believe Anderson & Swanson lied or misremembered one of the biggest cases they worked on? Macnaghten says Kosminski was a misogynist with homicidal tendencies, and I doubt he pulled that out of his jacksy. Aaron Kosminski did threaten his sister with a knife, and while there's no evidence in the sparse medical notes, that he exhibited violent behaviour, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. When removed from the stimuli that drove him to kill, should we expect any?
                            In the medical notes about Aaron, they said that he was sometimes Violent.

                            I completely agree with your post.

                            And whether the DNA evidence is convincing or not, Robhouse has to add that chapter to his book.


                            The Baron

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                              Did they test the DNA against Pamela Ball? There's a photo of her, in the company of two men, waving the tablecloth runner around like they were preparing to fight a bull.
                              Maybe that's where the semen came from.

                              c.d.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X