Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kosminski Evidence Interpretation Please

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

  • Kosminski Evidence Interpretation Please

    This is an exert from the Wikipedia on Aaron Kosminski and the shawl evidence. I literally copied and pasted and didn't change anything in case you all wished to look up something linked and related. Anyways can someone please put in plain English what is meant by "if samples have two or more nucleotide position differences, they can be excluded as coming from the same source or maternal lineage, except when heteroplasmy is encountered." There is no suggestion that heteroplasmy is present." what is heteroplasmy, how would they determine if it was Present in Aaron? Does that alone eliminate him and make it so that he couldn't be the Ripper or is that a minor thing in the grand scheme?

    2019 Louhelainen Study


    Louhelainen's 2014 findings were criticised as they had not been subject to peer review by other scientists or investigators.[38][50] In March 2019, the Journal of Forensic Sciences published a study analysing the mitochondrial DNA from cells extracted from a shawl claimed to have been found near the body of victim Catherine Eddowes, as well as samples from maternal relations of the victim and suspect (Kosminski). This study, conducted by scientists at Liverpool John Moores University and the University of Leeds, stated in its conclusion that "the presence of mtDNA on the shawl matches the female victim's mtDNA derived from stains on it and that mtDNA also on the shawl matches the suspect candidate's mtDNA". However, Figure 7 of the same paper shows two differences between the suspect candidate's mtDNA sequence and the sequence obtained from the shawl, and in their conclusion the authors state that "According to the SWGDAM 2013 guidelines, if samples have two or more nucleotide position differences, they can be excluded as coming from the same source or maternal lineage, except when heteroplasmy is encountered." There is no suggestion that heteroplasmy is present.[3]

  • #2
    Hi clark2710,

    I'm no expert, so someone with more knowledge about this may correct me, but from what I've just been reading I think heteroplasmy (as used here in the cotext of mDNA) means someone's mitrocondria are not all the same, but are showing a mix of mDNA. Each of our cells has lots of mitochondria, and the norm is for the vast majority of them to all contain the same mDNA sequences. But, it could be that a mutation occurs and is only showing up in some of the person's mDNA (apparently, most of us will have small amounts of this, but heteroplasmy would mean that a large proportion are showing the variant version). When it does arise, it complicates things. However, the paper rules that out, so we don't need to worry about it.

    And yes, the paper points out that the data they have in fact rules out Kosminski - there are 2 differences in the sequences). I contacted the author about this when the article first came out, however, did not get a response. I should try again, but I'm not hopeful. The other problem is, there is nothing that corresponds to the piece of cloth that is "the shawl" (which is probably a table runner and not a shawl) listed among the items found with Kate Eddowes.

    - Jeff

    Comment


    • #3
      The compelling results of this is that the blood on the “Shawl” can be conclusively traced to Catherine Eddowes family line. The issue is that does not mean it is Catherine Eddowe’s blood. Just that it is blood that came from the maternal lineage of Eddowes. I’m not accusing anyone of anything, just stating it might well not be Eddowes herself’s blood.

      There are two other major flaws with the science:
      - The specimen could have been subjected to contamination. Let’s just say anybody could have ‘enjoyed’ themselves into the fabric to create the semen stains at any point over the past 130 years. There is no test to date the two stains being made at the same time
      - This scientific test is notoriously problematic for the male tracing. In simple terms, male mDNA does not give us much reliable data as female mDNA. At best it tells us that it was from a man with brown eyes, possibly of Eastern European descent but the report has never been very clear on that conclusion. The scientist did a DNA test on a distant relative of Kosminski and found there were lots of similar markers with the results of the semen stain. The argument is why would there not be if the depositer of the the stain was of Eastern European descent. It does not and cannot pinpoint Kosminski conclusively

      Then there is the provenance....
      Last edited by erobitha; 03-14-2021, 09:21 AM.
      Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
      JayHartley.com

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by erobitha View Post
        Then there is the provenance....
        Well, yes. That's where we should have started.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

          Well, yes. That's where we should have started.
          And ended.

          Comment


          • #6
            Wasn't there an article about the shawl in one of the journals in the 90s or early 00s with a photo of one of Catherine Eddowes descendants wearing the shawl?
            " Queen Vic lured her victims into dark corners with offers of free fish and chips, washed down with White Satin." - forum user C4

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Aelric View Post
              Wasn't there an article about the shawl in one of the journals in the 90s or early 00s with a photo of one of Catherine Eddowes descendants wearing the shawl?
              If so, that spells disaster for any theorizing that it must have been Catherine herself who put her maternal dna on the shawl.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Aelric View Post
                Wasn't there an article about the shawl in one of the journals in the 90s or early 00s with a photo of one of Catherine Eddowes descendants wearing the shawl?
                Edwards has since changed his story claiming it wasn't owned by Eddowes at all but Kosminski himself:

                "Okay. I have to be careful here as I’m tied to a confidentiality agreement for a huge private project I am undertaking. This is what I can tell you: The two men in charge of the case named him through marginalia and memoirs. During my investigation process, I found that the shawl wasn’t owned by Catherine, but rather the murderer himself. There was traces of semen found on the shawl which could have only been placed there by him. At this stage I can’t give any more information as I’m tied to a contract."
                https://www.racehochdorf.com/essays/...ussell-edwards
                Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
                JayHartley.com

                Comment


                • #9
                  Wow, a flashback to the Great Shawl Debate!

                  This new info that the shawl belonged to Kosminski is... I don't buy it, I'm afraid.
                  Pat D. https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/reading.gif
                  ---------------
                  Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
                  ---------------

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X