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

[richardh]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oej17Zz_CbE&ab_channel=NewsNation

[Elamarna]

I suspect many will wish to question the seemingly irrefutable DNA evidence... for a variety of reasons including of course that if AK was Jack then discussing it serves less purpose.
Can we really challenge the results? His DNA on the shawl....

Hi, it remains a fact that it is others who also believe it was Kosminski who are at the forefront on the arguments against the DNA and the Shawl.
Many of us would love the DNA to be correct, but the overwhelming weight of evidence is that it is not.
As RJ said above, other experts on DNA have raised serious concerns about the paper that was submitted to the Journal of Forensic Science back in 2019.
That the Journal's now issued an "Expression of Concern" is a serious matter.

Steve

[rjpalmer]

I suspect many will wish to question the seemingly irrefutable DNA evidence... for a variety of reasons including of course that if AK was Jack then discussing it serves less purpose.
Can we really challenge the results? His DNA on the shawl....

Hi Dublindocker,

Yes, we can challenge the results--but we don't need to. Prominent scientists have already done so for us.

Check out (it's on-line) the August 2024 issue of The Journal of Forensic Sciences. After several prominent scientists questioned the DNA results, and those involved in the original study couldn't produce their data when asked, and The Journal issued an "Expression of Concern"--a retraction of sorts. Instead of being a rare DNA match, the DNA recovered would match 90% of Europeans.

Further, it is widely believed that the shawl is a hoax; it is not mentioned in the surviving inventory list of Eddowes' belongings. Quite a lot was written about the shawl on this website back in 2018.

Eddowes' Shawl - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

Cheers.

[Dublindocker]

I suspect many will wish to question the seemingly irrefutable DNA evidence... for a variety of reasons including of course that if AK was Jack then discussing it serves less purpose.
Can we really challenge the results? His DNA on the shawl....

[Scott Nelson]

We don't know what his state of mind was at the time of the murders.

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

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.

Welcome aboard! I, too, have never given Kosminski serious consideration for being Jack The Ripper; at the time of the murders, his mind was practically gone. There are so many better suspects.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

No. It's all self-promotion and propaganda. There is nothing new. Edwards might have started out as a crank, but by now he must know he's spreading misinformation. This media blitz is to promote the second edition of his book and he's apparently still planning on coming out with a documentary.

The only major development is bad news for Edwards. Back in August, the Journal of Forensic Sciences (who published the original study on the shawl by Drs. Louhelainen and Miller) published an "Expression of Concern" for those findings.

This is just short of a full retraction. The Journal wanted to see the original data because of concerns raised by several prominent scientists, and Drs. Louhelainen and Miller admitted they couldn't produce it, claiming it has been lost.

See link below.


EXPRESSION OF CONCERN: Forensic Investigation of a Shawl Linked to the “Jack the Ripper” Murders - Louhelainen - 2020 - Journal of Forensic Sciences - Wiley Online Library

Thanks RJ, I suspected as such.

Cheers, George

[rjpalmer]

Is there anything new here?

Hi George,

No. It's all self-promotion and propaganda. There is nothing new. Edwards might have started out as a crank, but by now he must know he's spreading misinformation. This media blitz is to promote the second edition of his book and he's apparently still planning on coming out with a documentary.

The only major development is bad news for Edwards. Back in August, the Journal of Forensic Sciences (who published the original study on the shawl by Drs. Louhelainen and Miller) published an "Expression of Concern" for those findings.

This is just short of a full retraction. The Journal wanted to see the original data because of concerns raised by several prominent scientists, and Drs. Louhelainen and Miller admitted they couldn't produce it, claiming it has been lost.

See link below.


EXPRESSION OF CONCERN: Forensic Investigation of a Shawl Linked to the “Jack the Ripper” Murders - Louhelainen - 2020 - Journal of Forensic Sciences - Wiley Online Library

[GBinOz]

Bump.

This was recently released by Australian Television media:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFI-AH2GxiM&ab_channel=TODAY

The claim is a 100% match. A photo of a young Aaron is proffered and the Ealing Police Station postcard presented as evidence. Russell Edwards claims that DNA matching a descendant of Eddowes and a descendant of Aaron's oder brother has been found on the shawl, and that he now intends to ask for a second inquest so that closure can be achieved and "false" suspects eliminated.

Is there anything new here? The last I heard the DNA methods of testing were peer reviewed as dubious, that the shawl had been handled by said descendants, and the provenance of the shawl as having being removed from the crime scene by Amos Simpson was unproven, and unlikely.

Were I a sceptic by nature I might presume that this has more to do with marketing than history.

Cheers, George

[erobitha]

Newbie alert.

I have always had problems with Kosminski being the Ripper and this peer review has frankly not done much to appease those concerns on the whole.

Good news and bad news here from what I can gather.

GOOD NEWS
From what I understand mtDNA testing can only positively identify specific female individuals via inheritance testing due to certain genes it can detect and that line can be followed back in time. However it does not rule out that the blood could be from a female descendant of Eddowes either, as we have no guarantee the blood sample was that of Catherine Eddowes herself. Just being picky I would guess however, in all likelihood it most probably was her blood and her shawl. Whether it was at the crime scene is another debate. I'm willing to assume it was and therefore assume the Shawl is genuine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitoch...le_inheritance

BAD NEWS
If the purpose of mtDNA testing was to apply the same rules above to the sperm donor (want of a better term) then that has failed, and will always fail. The testing cannot be done in the same manner in which the female inheritance testing can be done, not with humans at least. The best this testing can do is rule out groups of people. For instance, this test says the doner had brown eyes and brown hair. Which means it simply matches any man that may have very similar genetic markers such as brown hair and brown eyes. I imagine the relative of Kosminski who tested had brown hair and brown eyes. This is the bad news. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of men in London at the time most likely had brown hair and brown eyes. Thus, Kosminski HAS NOT been revealed as the ripper. My last point is also this, I am not aware of any dating science that is able to confirm that both the blood sample and semen sample were produced at the same time. I leave you with this thought, it could have been used as a very macabre inspiration for, ahem, self abuse by an individual with similar genetic markers much later on.

I suspect the reason why "confidentiality" (there is zero chance of individuals being publicly tracked down with this data) is being used as an excuse for not confirming all of the above is because Mr Edwards knows very well that the shawl, whilst remains likely an intriguing artefact whose provenance has gained more credibility, is not the the smoking DNA gun that will pin point once and for all who Jack The Ripper was.

[Beowulf]

Rob,

Listened to a podcast called Midnight in the desert (old Art Bell show) the other night. Their guest was Randy Williams who wrote Sherlock Holmes and Autumn of terror. I'm writing in to the host to ask you to do a show, hopefully they can find a contact for you, which I do not have or do not know that you might want to do a show but I think you would be quite interesting.

[KRS]

From The Times of Israel (2014)



Sir Alec Jeffrey's observation about Louhelainen's error was made five years ago, KRS, when the "shawl" first received widespread media attention.

Reading those original press releases, one would have concluded that this rare mutation would only be found in about 3 or 4 East Enders in a million. In reality, 99 out of 100 people in the East End would be expected to have had it, provided they were of European ancestry.

This error may help explain why some of us are more "dismissive" of this "evidence" than you seem to be. I think, at the very least, Dr. Louhelainen should have demonstrated that he was in fact dealing with blood or semen stains.

Further, let me remind you that nuclear DNA is unique. Given a long enough sequence, it is like a finger print. mDNA is not unique; it is more akin to a blood type. Many people might share the same sequence.

How many people? It is difficult to know, because Dr. L only published colored boxes instead of his specific data. Considering the error the first time around, isn't this a little worrisome?

The "usual dismissals of evidence" you refer to doesn't really apply. The shawl has been around for many years and has been considered and discussed at length. Best wishes.

I just listened to the podcast on this, my earlier thoughts were based on a misreading of results, I'm seeing and, having gone through peer review in other fields, I would have thought issues needing corrected had been corrected before publication, but I guess the peer review process in the sciences is still in a certain degree of disarray. But I think my point was more to warrant and epistemology than anything else, I still consider the case invaluable, and we seem to assume our beliefs about the facts are more correct than they likely are.

[Tonylondon]

I also think there is a reasonable possibility that kosminsky was trained in Poland as a barber-surgeon which would mean he would have rudimentary knife anatomical skills which is what the experts say was required. There is an indication he did work at a hospital in Poland. No such post existed in the Uk which is why he probably worked albeit briefly as a barber only in London. My only issue was what hapened between the Mary Kelly murder and his incarceration in the lunatic assaylum 3 years later. The sheer ferocity of the Kelly murder may have led to such a mental collapse that left him incapable of killing again and his family looking after him until they finally just had to commit him

[rjpalmer]

It seems to me that 2 isn't out of bounds, but it requires something other than the usual dismissals of evidence because of the double sets of DNA. This might be a line of reasoning demonstrating number 2, though it needs to be demonstrated rather than merely asserted.

From The Times of Israel (2014)



Sir Alec Jeffrey's observation about Louhelainen's error was made five years ago, KRS, when the "shawl" first received widespread media attention.

Reading those original press releases, one would have concluded that this rare mutation would only be found in about 3 or 4 East Enders in a million. In reality, 99 out of 100 people in the East End would be expected to have had it, provided they were of European ancestry.

This error may help explain why some of us are more "dismissive" of this "evidence" than you seem to be. I think, at the very least, Dr. Louhelainen should have demonstrated that he was in fact dealing with blood or semen stains.

Further, let me remind you that nuclear DNA is unique. Given a long enough sequence, it is like a finger print. mDNA is not unique; it is more akin to a blood type. Many people might share the same sequence.

How many people? It is difficult to know, because Dr. L only published colored boxes instead of his specific data. Considering the error the first time around, isn't this a little worrisome?

The "usual dismissals of evidence" you refer to doesn't really apply. The shawl has been around for many years and has been considered and discussed at length. Best wishes.

[KRS]

I recommend listening to the pod-cast on the shawl and the published paper (https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...ssor-turi-king). There are some serious questions concerning the analysis and results. The methodological details on the dna typing, etc, as presented are incomplete, making it hard for experts to evaluate what was done or what was found. In particular, it appears from what was presented there are some serious concerns (one being that when the sequencing was done in one direction they get a different result from when it is done in the other - that's a problem because whether you read a string of letters forwards or backwards, you should end up with the same conclusion and get the same string of letter i.e. if I read ABCD forwards I should get ABCD and backwards I should get DCBA, which is ABCD backwards). The sequencing in the paper doesn't get the same result, so that points to some sort of problem, and not one that can be explained by the age of the sample, apparently - it suggests something wasn't done properly.

There were also concerns about the fact there are two mismatches between the suspect material and the Kosminsky reference sample (their maternal descendant). And the issue of contamination was mentioned a lot. Peer review is supposed to catch these kind of issues, and reviewers should have been asking for more details on the methodology. The concern over publishing mtDNA sequences of living people was noted as "this is not really a problem as 1) mtDNA does not individuate people and 2) this can be done provided the donors are fully informed and consent to that information being made public. And, given the importance of the sequences (finding a match but only in really common sequences would be quite different from finding a match in a very rare mutation, for example), this really should have been done.

- Jeff

That is an interesting point, as I noted, there are three possibilities, 1. additional evidence Kosminski was the ripper, 2. Fraud or incompetence in the testing, or 3. we need to look for a multiplication of causes, which is usually not ideal.

It seems to me that 2 isn't out of bounds, but it requires something other than the usual dismissals of evidence because of the double sets of DNA. This might be a line of reasoning demonstrating number 2, though it needs to be demonstrated rather than merely asserted.