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

[KRS]

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.

[phantom]

Ruled out, that might be an overstatement, but it would seem to be an odd series of coincidences, which is why I think it adds warrant, but not "proof" Kosminski was the killer, particularly given the eyewitness testimony the police claimed for Kosminski.

I actually said “seemingly rule out”.
And you’d still need someone bleeding and ejaculating on the shawl because as I said it is from those stains that the mtDNA has apparently been collected.

[KRS]

I also can’t see how it can be a question of contamination.

Dr Louhelainen claims that he found mtDNA from blood stains (and matched it to a descendant of Catherine Eddowes) and from a kidney cell that he extracted from semen stains (and matched it to a descendant of Kosminski).

They’re very specific claims that would seemingly rule out contamination by touch, sneezing or whatever at some Ripper Con.

I’ve read the manuscript ‘Forensic Investigation of a Shawl Linked to the “Jack the Ripper” Murders’ and Dr Louhelainen also states the methods he used to eliminate contamination.

Ruled out, that might be an overstatement, but it would seem to be an odd series of coincidences, which is why I think it adds warrant, but not "proof" Kosminski was the killer, particularly given the eyewitness testimony the police claimed for Kosminski.

[phantom]

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.

I know the whole shawl thing has been done to death here.

But if it can be proven the shawl has DNA from Catherine Eddowes (and Kosminksi) then conundrums about provenance become a moot point and would surely mean the gist of the Amos Simpson story is true.

I also can’t see how it can be a question of contamination.

Dr Louhelainen claims that he found mtDNA from blood stains (and matched it to a descendant of Catherine Eddowes) and from a kidney cell that he extracted from semen stains (and matched it to a descendant of Kosminski).

They’re very specific claims that would seemingly rule out contamination by touch, sneezing or whatever at some Ripper Con.

I’ve read the manuscript ‘Forensic Investigation of a Shawl Linked to the “Jack the Ripper” Murders’ and Dr Louhelainen also states the methods he used to eliminate contamination.

Dr Louhelainen’s manuscript has been peer reviewed prior to publication. This would suggest that those scientific peers do not believe he has made a mistake with his methodology.

I totally respect that everyone has their opinion and for those who write this whole thing off hey no worries.

Dr Louhelainen has impeccable credentials and work experience in his field and I do wonder if we’re prejudiced against his claims partly because of the Patricia Cornwell experience (which has never been subject to peer review and is also addressed in his paper) and partly because of negative perceptions some people have of Russell Edwards.

In the various past “Shawl” posts on this forum people demanded that his results were peer reviewed and he always consistently said he would when things died down a bit.

[KRS]

I've always favored the Kosminski family of theories. Proof, given the problems of provenance, is an interesting term to use. The fact that it is mDNA rather than nuclear DNA and the amount of time between the killings and the tests means this should not be treated as "proof" Kosminski was the ripper. There are still a few difficulties in the timeline. However, it does add warrant to the theory that Kosminski was the ripper. I see many arguing that there is a lack of evidence for the crime, but it seems to me the problem is that most of the actual evidence in the case is no longer extant; those who had the evidence in the case; at least some of those in the know thought Kominski was the ripper, and while there are issues in the reporting it should not be discounted by moderns infected by chronological snobbery. It would seem to me, Kosminski should be treated as a more likely candidate today than last week.

Think of it this way, there is an artifact that has somehow been associated with the ripper should have markers matching the mDNA of one of the best suspects in the case. On the one hand the breaks in the chain of evidence mean we should not over estimate it, but it is a rather interesting coincidence; that would bear a small resemblance to a Gettier problem.

[Beowulf]

Just heard this on the news today.

Well, I just want to say congratulations Rob House.

Your book Prime Suspect was quite in depth, the research you did was wonderful and the fact that your further research later on showed Kozminski lived in the area within blocks of the murders shed light that furthered my belief you were hot on the trail all along.

Would love to see another book on this by you. Anytime that comes out I'll be there.

Again, congratulations.

[c.d.]

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.

[The Baron]

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

[Trevor Marriott]

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[robhouse]

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

[Harry D]

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?

[theshamanisright]

Hi all

It was peer reviewed prior to publication.

Some info regarding the peer review process here:

https://www.arcjournals.org/journal-of-forensic-science/peer-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.

[phantom]

Hi all

It was peer reviewed prior to publication.

Some info regarding the peer review process here:

https://www.arcjournals.org/journal-of-forensic-science/peer-review-process

Regards

[Dr. John Watson]

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.

[rjpalmer]

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.