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

[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.

[Takod]

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.

[theshamanisright]

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.

[c.d.]

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.

[GUT]

And yet again unless you tie the “shawl” to the crime scene, so what.

[GUT]

I’ll have to find time to read it, then to look at the feedback.

[robhouse]

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/2019/03/does-new-genetic-analysis-finally-reveal-identity-jack-ripper

Rob House