Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[curious4]

So that's a 'mantle' and nothing else can be called a 'mantle? Further, anyone selling a 'mantle' cannot sell anything but 'mantles'? How about this: Woolf sold women's garments. The 'shawl' is a women's garment. Or is it a table runner?

Again, my only point is this: It's a little early to torpedo the idea. It is, at the very least, an interesting point.

Hello Patrick

I think the difference is that you would go to a dressmaker for a mantle, while this type of shawl was most likely factory made.

Best wishes

C4

[Patrick S]

From certain posts I have read (and I cannot confirm the numbers), the likelihood of a match to Kozminski's DNA was somewhere in the ballpark of 1 in 1000... and the likelihood of a match to Eddowes DNA was something like 1 in 3000. If those numbers (or something like that) prove to be verified by other scientists, then I will be happy to feel the case is solved.
RH

I agree one hundred percent. Anyone disagree?

[Observer]

Hi Chris,

Thank you. I knew that bottle marked "Drink Me" would help.

So what the ever-resourceful Russell Edwards is saying is that Eddowes' shawl was mistaken for a chintz dress?

Okay. But if the shawl was taken by Amos Simpson at some point prior to the inventory at the mortuary, how did the press learn about the "chintz dress"?

Regards,

Simon

You had better give me a sup of that bottle.

[Patrick S]

Hello Parick

I think the difference is that you would go to a dressmaker for a mantle, while this type of shawl was most likely factory made.

Best wishes

C4

Thanks. A valid point. Yet not enough for me to discount the potential connection (just yet). I guess the next question would be this: Did Woolf and friends sell exclusively items made on the premises or did they also distribute factory made items?

[Prosector]

An excellent summation -- this really hinges on the DNA. If it holds up and can reasonably establish your points 1-4 then the rest is really incidental.

Theagenes

Thank you for bringing an element of calm and reason to this debate. I don't believe for one moment that Dr Louhelainen is guilty of fraud and I believe that his actual findings are probably correct, although I haven't seen the data yet. The problems come in interpretation. He said on the radio today that the evidence linking Kosminski to the shawl comes from mtDNA (not genomic as he put it - meaning I think nuclear although they are not quite the same). That mtDNA came from a so-called epithelial cell. Now epithelial cells can come from almost any part of the body, the most common being skin cells. Suggesting that they are urethral is a leap of faith. They could be but a squamous epithelial cell can come from the skin, the mouth, nasal passages, bronchi, lungs, bladder - a whole lot of places. As far as I can see there is no evidence that the stains are semen stains and no actual spermatazoa have been found (again, as far as I know).

So in the end what you have is mtDNA that could have come from anywhere between 10 and (according to Dr Wetton), thousands of different people, two of whom certainly shared common ancestors with Karen Miller and the unknown Kosminski relative. All we can do is wait to see the actual evidence when and if it is published in a peer reviewed journal.
Prosector

[Patrick S]

Thanks. A valid point. Yet not enough for me to discount the potential connection (just yet). I guess the next question would be this: Did Woolf and friends sell exclusively items made on the premises or did they also distribute factory made items?

It's a longshot, granted. But, most of these things start as longshots, don't they? If we shot down every longshot right of the chute, then none would come in.

[Theagenes]

It's a longshot, granted. But, most of these things start as longshots, don't they? If we shot down every longshot right of the chute, then none would come in.

Rob can probably comment on this, but from what I gathered from his book, Woolf and the other "sweaters" in the East End were primarily mini-factories who exploited cheap labor then sold wholesale to the higher end shops elsewhere in the city.

[Amanda]

If All's Said and Done..

I'm sure that everyone will agree that if the scientific findings for the case against Kosminski are found to be watertight, we will have to eat cake and accept it.

However, who, in their heart of hearts will really want to hear the words 'Case Closed'?

Piece of Battenburg anyone?

Amanda

[curious4]

https://www.norwichtextiles.org.uk/history/fabrics-_fashions/the-norwich-_shawl-story

I did find this article on Norwich shawls interesting, although I don't think the shawl in question was from Norwich. History, dyes, where they could be bought and so on.

They may have sold them at the dressmakers but I think there they would mainly have sold their own articles. Most likely, if you didn't buy from the factory you would go to a drapers shop.

Best wishes
C4

[Theagenes]

Theagenes

Thank you for bringing an element of calm and reason to this debate. I don't believe for one moment that Dr Louhelainen is guilty of fraud and I believe that his actual findings are probably correct, although I haven't seen the data yet. The problems come in interpretation. He said on the radio today that the evidence linking Kosminski to the shawl comes from mtDNA (not genomic as he put it - meaning I think nuclear although they are not quite the same). That mtDNA came from a so-called epithelial cell. Now epithelial cells can come from almost any part of the body, the most common being skin cells. Suggesting that they are urethral is a leap of faith. They could be but a squamous epithelial cell can come from the skin, the mouth, nasal passages, bronchi, lungs, bladder - a whole lot of places. As far as I can see there is no evidence that the stains are semen stains and no actual spermatazoa have been found (again, as far as I know).

So in the end what you have is mtDNA that could have come from anywhere between 10 and (according to Dr Wetton), thousands of different people, two of whom certainly shared common ancestors with Karen Miller and the unknown Kosminski relative. All we can do is wait to see the actual evidence when and if it is published in a peer reviewed journal.
Prosector

And this is critical really. It's incredibly unfortunate that he chose to publish this first in a tabloid of all places -- but of course academic journals don't pay anything and cash in hand was probably pretty tempting.

As we know DNA fingerprinting methodology and amplification has rapidly progressed just in the last couple of years. It may be that as the technology improves that it could be possible to get a full or near full genomic sequence from the stains. Once can certainly hope. I believe it was Christopher who suggested that it might be a good idea to take a look at the separate framed pieces and have them tested independently and I think that's an excellent idea.

[eddie1]

Just watched the titchmarsh interview. One interesting thing that was said and I have no idea how the science works. But in ref to the contamination issue. Titchmarsh brought up the fact people have been saying that its been handled and that was he worried about contamination. Edwards reply was they have paid no attention to what was on top of the shawl they have just taken samples from what has seeped in to the cloth and is inbededed deep in the cloth. I have no idea if this makes a difference but if it does. It ends another possible argument against it

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

You're right about the "chintz dress" and "chintz skirt' being one and the same.

Although Inspector Collard[?] compiled the inventory of Eddowes' bits and bobs, in which he detailed a "chintz skirt", the Pall Mall Gazette, 1st October 1888, interpreted a skirt as a dress—

"The following is the description of the deceased issued by the police authorities with a view to identification:- " . . . dark green chintz dress, with Michaelmas daisies, golden lily pattern."

"Issued by the police authorities."

This was the very first detailed description of Eddowes' clothing.

Therefore the shawl/dress/skirt was still in evidence when the inventory of Eddowes' clothing was compiled at Golden Lane mortuary.

The Amos Simpson story is just so much moonshine.

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

As I said, genomic seems to be used elsewhere in the book to mean nuclear as opposed to mitochondrial DNA. But the passage I referred to is (I think) the only use of the term which is in a direct quotation from Dr Louhelainen. It sounds as though the author has misused the term when he's not quoting Louhelainen, in which case there's no contradiction in that quotation!

In fact, judging from the BBC podcast, available here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/inscience - Dr Louhelainen evidently does mean nuclear DNA when he speaks of genomic DNA. He says that's how the hair and eye colour were determined (and he says that from memory the eye colour was brown - which doesn't seem to have been used in the book).

So I am now wondering again whether there has been an error in the book, and whether the T1a1 haplotype is a Y DNA haplotype, not a mtDNA haplotype.

[Patrick S]

However, who, in their heart of hearts will really want to hear the words 'Case Closed'?



Amanda

Honestly, I would! Just because we may know Jack the Ripper's identity, does the case become less interesting? Not for those us of us who've been invested for all these years. Granted, those learning about Jack the Ripper and knowing that Aaron Kosminski was his name from the get-go will find the case far less alluring. But, until we all die off, the fabric of the case, the starring roles played the police officials, the press, the East End itself, the witnesses, the victims, will remain intact.

The interest in Mary Jane Kelly has nothing to do with WHO Jack the Ripper was. Finding photos of Annie Chapman alive and well are no less thirlling if we know who killed her. Reading contemporary accounts of the killings is just as engrossing when we know Kosminski was the killer.

Besides..... Let's say (the LONG SHOT comes in and) Kosmiski is proven to be Edddowes killer. Imagine where that takes us. Did he kill Stride that same night? Let's retrace his movements. Was he "interupted"? Did he write on the wall in Ghoulston Street? Did he kill Chapman? Did he kill Nichols? Kelly? Did he kill Tabram? Smith? Milwood? Willson? What was his particular malady? Can we learn more about his life? His illness?

To me...this could get very interesting. Of course, the reality is quite simple, thus the future easy to predict: NOTHING will be proven. If anything, it will likely be proven a fraud. If it's not proven a fraud it CANNOT be proven beyond a shadow of doubt for ALL people. Thus, this will continue, as it has, until......

someone invents a time machine and we find ourselves hiding in a dark corner of the yard in Hanbury Street as Dark Annie leads some annonymous chap back against the fence and goes about earning her doss money. We jump out with a flashlight, shine it in his face, and yell, "AHA!.....Wait......Who the hell are you?"

[Chris]

Hi Chris,

You're right about the "chintz dress" and "chintz skirt' being one and the same.

Although Inspector Collard[?] compiled the inventory of Eddowes' bits and bobs, in which he detailed a "chintz skirt", the Pall Mall Gazette, 1st October 1888, interpreted a skirt as a dress—

"The following is the description of the deceased issued by the police authorities with a view to identification:- " . . . dark green chintz dress, with Michaelmas daisies, golden lily pattern."

"Issued by the police authorities."

Yes - that's the very report I quoted in my post earlier today:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=307716&postcount=1417