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

[JeffHamm]

Hi,

I've just finished reading the Louhelainen and Miller article as it relates to the geographical profiling that I've been working on. DNA analysis is potentially identifiable information (nuclear DNA uniquely identifies someone, other than identical twins, triplets, etc), while mitochondrial DNA identifies a common maternal lineage (and Y-chromosome analysis identifies a common paternal lineage). They ran a number of tests to try and detect forgery, modern hoax, etc, and based upon their analysis they were confident the material in the stains was historical (not recent). It should be remembered that the point of their research was not so much about Jack the Ripper but about whether or not it was possible to extract, and test, DNA from historic materials, like the shawl in question. So ruling out a modern hoax is important to the research they are conducting, linking it to Jack the Ripper and a suspect is just a tangent in that respect. If the sample they had was some old bed sheets from the Victorian era that seemed to have biological material on them they would still need to verify the biological material was from the same era and not a recent deposit.

Anyway, there were a few questions I wanted clarification on so I'm still awaiting a reply from Dr. Louhelainen, but thought I would share my thoughts here as well. First, I was wondering if semen was found on both the larger and smaller portion of the shawl (it is specified as being on the smaller section, but on the larger section there are some stains identified under UV and cross-polarization lighting, but they are not specifically stated as being semen). With regards to interest in the Jack the Ripper series, it seems to me that there is hardly enough time for completion of the murder in Mitre Square, let alone time to masturbate at the scene of the crime itself. However, if JtR took the piece of the shawl (which I'm assuming was wrapped around her waist, probably under her clothes, hence it being referred to as an "apron" in the police inventory - yes, if it's a forgery all this is unnecessary, but let's just go with it for now), then it appears he stopped at Goulston Street and masturbated into the shawl, and then discarded it. That would make sense for a killer like JtR as it is the kind of post-offense behaviour that is often seen. That would mean the small section is the piece found in Goulston Street and the large section was found with Eddowes. It also means there shouldn't be semen on the larger section, so I've asked for clarification on that.

The other thing I've asked about is that, while the mtDNA match between the blood stains and the Eddowes' maternal decendant show matches at all 6 marker locations, the semen mtDNA and Kosminsky's maternal descendant only match at 7 out of 9 markers (two are missing from the evidential sample). They say that the suspect sample had 2 blocks that could not be identified with high confidence, but the others were a match. That could mean one of 4 things, though. 1) the 2 markers that would have made it 9 for 9 were detected at a "possibly present" level, but that's not enough to mark them as present in a scientific article. 2) the 2 markers that would have made it 9 for 9 were basically absent altogether, so they weren't detected with high confidence or any confidence at all 3) two of the 7 out of 9 markers are at a lower level of confidence than the other 5 (so we potentially only have 5 out of 9 matches) 4) there are 2 other markers that were "possibly detected" in the evidential sample but not at a sufficient confidence level for inclusion in a scientific article (which means there is potentially 2 more mismatches between the Kosminsky relation and the evidence sample.

Of those 4 possible outcomes, only the first allows for this to indicate a match with Kosminsky as the age of the sample could explain why some of the markers fall short of criterion for inclusion. In the discussion they point out that 2 or more mismatches indicates exclusion, and they already have 2 mismatches (markers present in the family member, but not the evidence sample). If, however, there's simply no indication that those two markers are present at all (option 2), then that's 2 mismatches which is exclusion. While one might try the age of sample argument, that leaves one in the situation where it is then also possible some other marker was missed, and had it been found that would have led to exclusion as well since it's missing in the family comparison line. Option 3 adn 4 both mean that although we've already met the exclusion criterion, it is possible that it is exceeded by an even greater margin.

For the purpose of his research none of the above really matters because the paper isn't really about JtR but rather it's about whether or not one can get DNA from historic case material like this, whether it matches or clears Kosminsky is neither here nor there for the science of the article.

Barring some sort of clever forgery/hoax, which I do not think the researchers would be in on, this would appear to match the shawl to Eddowes and to her killer. If his reply isn't to confirm "option 1", then I would think this actually clears Kosminsky, but it might identify the population from which Jack the Ripper is likely from (ie. Easter European, Celtic, etc). The nuclear DNA had markers for brown eyes and brown hair, so that can be used to exclude suspects if we have such information on any of them. Even narrowing down the population sub-group that JtR belongs to would knock out a few suspects.

And yes, if something were to show it's a forgery, then of course none of this has baring on the JtR murders. At the moment, though, they've tested for that possibility and all indications are that the blood and semen stains are very old samples.

- Jeff

[Beowulf]

One more thought, and an addition to the last, naturally I prefer the absolute reality of things. If the DNA evidence proves not to be trustworthy then so be it but I still think Kosminski is most likely the ripper.

If he is/was and he was Jewish well then the Goulston Street message... which many seem to have interpreted as prejudice against Jews ie "It's another way of saying, "Jew are to blame for everything." It was definitely meant as an anti-Semitic insult to the Jews that were increasing in population in Whitechapel in London in the late 1800's". https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...4224801AAB0S5r

...may it not instead have been that Kosminski was in fact saying, 'there is a good reason to blame them, because I am guilty and I am a Jew' and so he felt he was justifying the public hostility against them.

Maybe he was sick of the hostility, feeling it unjust and thought 'well then, I'm going to give you good reason for it' and lashed out at English women in anger? (afterthought).

"The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing".

[Beowulf]

The obvious mistake in the 'contaminated' theory is if the shawl were contaminated then the odds of the DNA being traced to Kosminski's family would not be very likely. "Researchers compared fragments of mitochondrial DNA which the magazine noted is inherited from one's mother to samples from living relatives of Eddowes and Kosminski and found they matched those of Kosminski's relative". https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...YMRltShElltXHA

[c.d.]

I agree that the provenance of the shawl is pretty iffy at best and that the shawl has most likely been contaminated by a number of people handling it. Now I might be a bit naive as to the ways of the world but are there a lot of women's shawls out there that have semen on them?

[KRS]

Thanks Phantom - I don't have the relevant details of the Data Protection Act in front of me, but maybe you've seen the following comment in an article by David Adam in Science who is responding to Louhelainen's report?

"The authors say in their paper that the Data Protection Act, a U.K. law designed to protect the privacy of individuals, stops them from publishing the genetic sequences of the living relatives of Eddowes and Kosminski. The graphic in the paper, they say, is easier for nonscientists to understand, especially “those interested in true crime.”

"Walther Parson, a forensic scientist at the Institute of Legal Medicine at Innsbruck Medical University in Austria, says mitochondrial DNA sequences pose no risk to privacy and the authors should have included them in the paper. “Otherwise the reader cannot judge the result. I wonder where science and research are going when we start to avoid showing results but instead present colored boxes." (Emphasis added)

The cynical might point out that the last time Louhelainen's results hit the airwaves, multiple errors were discovered in his report, which led to the relevance of the mDNA match being greatly overestimated and thus misreported in the press. How can we judge the current results are accurate?

Further, if this is published in a forensic science journal, why is Dr. Louhelainen concerned with the readers of "true crime"? Who is the intended audience of this journal?

Does he want it both ways--a paper in a "peer reviewed" scientific journal, but in a format that has been dumbed down for "true crime" enthusiasts? Dr. Parson's concerns seem to be wholly legitimate.


By the way, I've just received an email from a trusted genealogist confirming the identity of the blood donors. I was also informed that the woman's name is Karen Miller, not Kate.

I did a little poking around on my own at ancestry.com and it appears that the mother of David Melville Hayes (the cloth's original owner) can be traced back to Amos Simpson. As you no doubt know, Amos Simpson was the policeman who supposedly "recovered" the shawl/table runner from the crime scene.

But, as already pointed out by many researchers, Amos Simpson was an acting Sergeant in the Met in far-off Cheshunt in 1888, twenty-odd miles from Mitre Square, and so would have played no role in the Eddowes' crime scene, the details of which, at any rate, are well documented.


I realize this joint paper was published in a forensic journal, but the claims were broadcast widely in the media. So, let me just ask. If Dr. Louhelainen is going to dip his toe into historical research, and state as a fact that the shawl was "recovered" by Amos Simpson from a crime scene, do you think a historian should have also played a role in this peer review process? If not, why not? He is making historical claims in the paper as well as scientific ones, is he not?

Thanks

Actually, my own understanding of the case is that very little is actually very well documented, information from newspaper accounts from the time have some issues with reliability. This is one of two central problems in the Ripper case (the second being modern intellectual bad habits).

But, this is why I say it is interesting, and not that it is "proof." That is, I suggest it adds some warrant to an already existent case that has been made for Kosminski independent of this evidence. As I noted, it is a rather interesting coincidence that an artifact which has been associated with the crime in family history just happens to have mtDNA that matches the victim, and mtDNA from another section identified as semen that matches one of the most cited suspects by the police. This double identification, as I noted above is sort of unique. None of this is certain, though when it comes to abductive reasoning, one must either claim fraud, that this is evidence from the crime scene that indicates Kosminski is the killer, or one is multiplying causes which is usually not considered ideal in abduction.

Would I say this closes the case, no. It will receive the same debates as we have over the GSG or the Lusk letter. My contention is only that it should not be dismissed easily or quickly.

[rjpalmer]

In the paper 'Forensic Investigation of a shawl linked to the "Jack the Ripper" murders' written by Dr Jari Louhelainen and Dr David Miller, both descendant's details were indeed withheld from the paper to protect their anonymity.

It's also a publishing requirement. I draw your attention to some info I posted earlier re: peer review/publishing process.

Thanks Phantom - I don't have the relevant details of the Data Protection Act in front of me, but maybe you've seen the following comment in an article by David Adam in Science who is responding to Louhelainen's report?

"The authors say in their paper that the Data Protection Act, a U.K. law designed to protect the privacy of individuals, stops them from publishing the genetic sequences of the living relatives of Eddowes and Kosminski. The graphic in the paper, they say, is easier for nonscientists to understand, especially “those interested in true crime.”

"Walther Parson, a forensic scientist at the Institute of Legal Medicine at Innsbruck Medical University in Austria, says mitochondrial DNA sequences pose no risk to privacy and the authors should have included them in the paper. “Otherwise the reader cannot judge the result. I wonder where science and research are going when we start to avoid showing results but instead present colored boxes." (Emphasis added)

The cynical might point out that the last time Louhelainen's results hit the airwaves, multiple errors were discovered in his report, which led to the relevance of the mDNA match being greatly overestimated and thus misreported in the press. How can we judge the current results are accurate?

Further, if this is published in a forensic science journal, why is Dr. Louhelainen concerned with the readers of "true crime"? Who is the intended audience of this journal?

Does he want it both ways--a paper in a "peer reviewed" scientific journal, but in a format that has been dumbed down for "true crime" enthusiasts? Dr. Parson's concerns seem to be wholly legitimate.


By the way, I've just received an email from a trusted genealogist confirming the identity of the blood donors. I was also informed that the woman's name is Karen Miller, not Kate.

I did a little poking around on my own at ancestry.com and it appears that the mother of David Melville Hayes (the cloth's original owner) can be traced back to Amos Simpson. As you no doubt know, Amos Simpson was the policeman who supposedly "recovered" the shawl/table runner from the crime scene.

But, as already pointed out by many researchers, Amos Simpson was an acting Sergeant in the Met in far-off Cheshunt in 1888, twenty-odd miles from Mitre Square, and so would have played no role in the Eddowes' crime scene, the details of which, at any rate, are well documented.


I realize this joint paper was published in a forensic journal, but the claims were broadcast widely in the media. So, let me just ask. If Dr. Louhelainen is going to dip his toe into historical research, and state as a fact that the shawl was "recovered" by Amos Simpson from a crime scene, do you think a historian should have also played a role in this peer review process? If not, why not? He is making historical claims in the paper as well as scientific ones, is he not?

Thanks

[Busy Beaver]

Could there possibly be mug shots of any of the Ripper victims still lying about somewhere undiscovered? The daily mail every now and then pulls some right blinders. with pictures of criminals from all over the country. There could be a picture of Eddowes with her shawl taken after one of her many drunk and disorderly episodes.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Her property would likely as not have either been handed back to her next of kin or Kelly or they might have disposed of it after the inquest. I doubt it would have been kept there would have been no point it would not have been of any evidential value

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That's a fair point Trevor

[Trevor Marriott]

Wearing at the time of her murder:

• Black straw bonnet trimmed in green and black velvet with black beads. Black strings, worn tied to the head.
• Black cloth jacket trimmed around the collar and cuffs with imitation fur and around the pockets in black silk braid and fur. Large metal buttons.
• Dark green chintz skirt, 3 flounces, brown button on waistband. The skirt is patterned with Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies.
• Man's white vest, matching buttons down front.
• Brown linsey bodice, black velvet collar with brown buttons down front
• Grey stuff petticoat with white waistband
• Very old green alpaca skirt (worn as undergarment)
• Very old ragged blue skirt with red flounces, light twill lining (worn as undergarment)
• White calico chemise
• No drawers or stays
• Pair of men's lace up boots, mohair laces. Right boot repaired with red thread
• 1 piece of red gauze silk worn as a neckerchief
• 1 large white pocket handkerchief
• 1 large white cotton handkerchief with red and white bird's eye border
• 2 unbleached calico pockets, tape strings
• 1 blue stripe bed ticking pocket
• Brown ribbed knee stockings, darned at the feet with white cotton

No mention of a Shawl. Also, wasn't most if not all City police archives/records lost in the blitz. Would this not be also true of the shawl, if there was one,[ I am assuming here it would be kept with their files/records on the murders].
Regards Darryl

Her property would likely as not have either been handed back to her next of kin or Kelly or they might have disposed of it after the inquest. I doubt it would have been kept there would have been no point it would not have been of any evidential value

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

Wearing at the time of her murder:

• Black straw bonnet trimmed in green and black velvet with black beads. Black strings, worn tied to the head.
• Black cloth jacket trimmed around the collar and cuffs with imitation fur and around the pockets in black silk braid and fur. Large metal buttons.
• Dark green chintz skirt, 3 flounces, brown button on waistband. The skirt is patterned with Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies.
• Man's white vest, matching buttons down front.
• Brown linsey bodice, black velvet collar with brown buttons down front
• Grey stuff petticoat with white waistband
• Very old green alpaca skirt (worn as undergarment)
• Very old ragged blue skirt with red flounces, light twill lining (worn as undergarment)
• White calico chemise
• No drawers or stays
• Pair of men's lace up boots, mohair laces. Right boot repaired with red thread
• 1 piece of red gauze silk worn as a neckerchief
• 1 large white pocket handkerchief
• 1 large white cotton handkerchief with red and white bird's eye border
• 2 unbleached calico pockets, tape strings
• 1 blue stripe bed ticking pocket
• Brown ribbed knee stockings, darned at the feet with white cotton

No mention of a Shawl. Also, wasn't most if not all City police archives/records lost in the blitz. Would this not be also true of the shawl, if there was one,[ I am assuming here it would be kept with their files/records on the murders].
Regards Darryl

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello KRS and Phantom:

So am I right in saying that :

1. The identities of the two living blood donors, supposedly relatives of Kosminski and Eddowes, have not been made public for confidentiality reasons? So no independent researchers have confirmed their identities? Is that correct, or am I mistaken?

2. Further, that the actual details of the mDNA results have also not been published, but were instead "translated" into colored boxes in order to maintain the 'confidentiality' of the mDNA sequences?


So, if I understand it correctly, the precise details of the results have not been published in order to protect the identities of two donors, whose names have also not been made public.

And you have no problem with this?

As one of my friends likes to say, 'what could possibly go wrong?'

Another issue with this shawl and its alleged connection to Eddowes is that had she been wearing it at the time she was murdered I would expect there to have been significant blood on it bearing in mind women wear shawls around their neck and shoulders, and having regard to the fact that her throat was cut i would have expected there to have been significant blood transference. Now before everyone says well it could have been washed. Even with washing a number of times modern forensic methods would likely as not be able to still detect blood, so another nail in the shawl coffin.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[phantom]

Hello KRS and Phantom:

So am I right in saying that :

1. The identities of the two living blood donors, supposedly relatives of Kosminski and Eddowes, have not been made public for confidentiality reasons? So no independent researchers have confirmed their identities? Is that correct, or am I mistaken?

2. Further, that the actual details of the mDNA results have also not been published, but were instead "translated" into colored boxes in order to maintain the 'confidentiality' of the mDNA sequences?


So, if I understand it correctly, the precise details of the results have not been published in order to protect the identities of two donors, whose names have also not been made public.

And you have no problem with this?

As one of my friends likes to say, 'what could possibly go wrong?'

Hi rjpalmer


In the book 'Naming Jack the Ripper' Russell Edwards states that the descendant of Catherine Eddowes he obtained a DNA sample from is a lady named Kate Miller. There's a lengthy chapter about it beginning on p.185.

On p.275 he states that the descendant of Aaron Kosminski is related to him via Matilda Lubnowski-Cohen. He goes on to say "I am not naming her here, nor giving any personal information about her, because she does not want to be exposed to cranks and weirdos..."

Can't blame her there.

In the paper 'Forensic Investigation of a shawl linked to the "Jack the Ripper" murders' written by Dr Jari Louhelainen and Dr David Miller, both descendant's details were indeed withheld from the paper to protect their anonymity.

It's also a publishing requirement. I draw your attention to some info I posted earlier re: peer review/publishing process.

I think the peer review process would be concerned with the integrity of Dr Louhelainen's methodology rather than verifying family trees.

Are you suggesting that the wrong descendants have been identified?

Maybe you could check out Kate Miller's family tree.

Re: Kosminski's (alleged) descendant you could try contacting Dr Louhelainen and/or Russell Edwards to obtain that info.

And if they're hesitant about divulging that info to you, I'd propose recommending that they give the information to a trusted researcher(s) such as Paul Begg, Keith Skinner, Neil Bell for instance, on the condition that they verify the descendant's relationship to Kosminski while preserving her identity from the public.

[rjpalmer]

Hello KRS and Phantom:

So am I right in saying that :

1. The identities of the two living blood donors, supposedly relatives of Kosminski and Eddowes, have not been made public for confidentiality reasons? So no independent researchers have confirmed their identities? Is that correct, or am I mistaken?

2. Further, that the actual details of the mDNA results have also not been published, but were instead "translated" into colored boxes in order to maintain the 'confidentiality' of the mDNA sequences?


So, if I understand it correctly, the precise details of the results have not been published in order to protect the identities of two donors, whose names have also not been made public.

And you have no problem with this?

As one of my friends likes to say, 'what could possibly go wrong?'

[KRS]

I had held to David Cohen for a very long time; I read Fido's book The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper in the 90s when I picked it up from a sale (first book on the Ripper I had read since Knight in the late 80s in high school, but still a great read, and first rate research.) Everything I've read since led to Cohen as my primary suspect, Kosminski as my secondary suspect. Douglas's The Cases that Haunt Us was a secondary sort of corroboration for my own thinking as well.

I think some of the issues with the Kosminski theory with moderns is that we have our own set of prejudices, including a number of negative assumptions about the intellect of anyone living before the middle or end of the twentieth century, due to some of the epistemological problems inherent in post-modernism particularly as it influences the humanities.

House is on my list of reads, but my time is rather limited to be a serious "armchair ripperologist." Still, I like to keep up. It will be interesting to see how this develops.

[phantom]

Right, actually I was thinking you illustrated the point I made above. Yes, the artifact in question has an issue with the chain of evidence, and yes mtDNA is not as certain as nuclear DNA, but it is an interesting set of coincidences that the findings would seem to match Kosminski theory of the crimes. Not intended as a criticism.

It means Kosminski is replacing David Cohen in my notes as most likely suspect, but it isn't eliminating all the others. It is an interesting set of coincidences if a piece of cloth that family lore claims came from a ripper victim has mtDNA that just happens to match the victim and another sample of mtDNA that happens to match one of the leading police suspects in the case. Certain, no. But also something that should not be dismissed as some of the other tests performed that did not have the same set of double mtDNA matches.

No worries here. And I hear you.
I haven’t boarded the K-Train just yet either, still waiting on the platform.

Personally, I used to think that Kosminski was just another shambling lunatic foreigner who the Police tried to stitch up.

I wasn’t convinced by the David Cohen theory either, although I was impressed by the argument in favour of his candidacy made by John Douglas in ‘The Cases That Haunt Us’ even though I think he confused aspects of Cohen with Kosminski.

It’s only been in recent years that I have unbiasedly acknowledged Kosminski as the strongest police suspect and that’s only really because we have Anderson declaring and Swanson implying that he was the murderer. IMO the strongest case for Kosminski is made by Rob House in ‘Jack the Ripper and The Case for Scotland Yard’s Prime Suspect’.