Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Monty]

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

Eat cake an accept it?

Contrary to the myth, the majority of researchers I know are happy to accept the naming of the killer, as they truly do not care.

All they seek is the truth.

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

Sorry. Missed that.

Great minds think alike.

Regards,

Simon

[Amanda]

Misunderstood

Eat cake an accept it?

Contrary to the myth, the majority of researchers I know are happy to accept the naming of the killer, as they truly do not care.

All they seek is the truth.

Monty

Hi Monty,
I see your point but I was referring to the comments regarding this new 'evidence' in particular, which many people on here seem to be dismissing as unlikely to be true. We have to wait and see what other scientists have to say on the matter before disregarding the claims.

You can't deny that knowing the true identity of the Ripper would take away some of the fun. That's the whole point of this casebook, so that everyone can air their individual views. No suspects, no fun.

Amanda

[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.

I agree but will it ever get done? Where are they and who would pay for it?
Incidentally, to descend from the scientific to the personal, are you Theagenes of Patras, the Cynic philosopher, Theagenes of Thasos the famous sportsman or Theagenes of Megara, the tyrant - or any of the other Theageneses?
Prosector

[Theagenes]

I agree but will it ever get done? Where are they and who would pay for it?
Incidentally, to descend from the scientific to the personal, are you Theagenes of Patras, the Cynic philosopher, Theagenes of Thasos the famous sportsman or Theagenes of Megara, the tyrant - or any of the other Theageneses?
Prosector

lol! Theagenes of Thasos, the boxer and pankratiast. When I first started posting online in the mid 90s it was on a martial arts group and I was a grad student in classical archaeology at the time. It seemed like a good combination of those those two interests and that's been my go-to username online ever since. However, I'm probably more like Theagenes the Cynic these days.

[moonbegger]

Ok , So the story so far ..

Simpson takes into his possession an alleged shawl once in the possession of the Mitre Sq murder victim Kate Eddows .. ( regardless of how he come by it , be it given to him or picked up from the mortuary floor ) he had it and believed it to be authentic .

Simpson apparently attaches his own story of how it came to be in his possession , adding a little garnish , involving him in a way that he never actually could have been .

Mr Edwards then introduces the theory that the shawl was not a possession of Eddows , but belonged to her killer , and for some reason got left at the murder scene ..

Upon close examination and DNA testing , blood splatter, and remnants of other body organ stains, they concur a remarkable resemblance to that of Kate's decedents . Then upon discovering seamen on the same cloth and running the same tests regarding AK's decedents they reach a similar conclusion in turn pointing a guilty finger at AK ..

Am I in the ball park here ???

cheers , moonbegger .

[Debra A]

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.

That would make more sense than what appears in the book, Chris. It also provides a reason why we are not told of a haplotype match with 'M' and it's significance in terms of her Jewish ancestry. It makes sense if an mtDNA haplotype couldn't be determined with the shawl DNA as you suggested, so a Y DNA haplotype was looked for instead, hence, no ability to cross reference.
That would mean potential for Y DNA Kosminski direct male line descendant match, if correct.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

"All they [researchers] seek is the truth."

I do hope you had your tongue firmly in your cheek.

If Ripper researchers really were simple seekers of the truth the subject wouldn't be bogged down by so much trench warfare plus all the extraneous crap which refuses to dislodge itself, such as the royal conspiracy, the Maybrick diary, the marginalia, the shawl . . . the list goes on and on.

Ripperologists are compulsive hoarders. They never throw anything away, because the slightest thing, no matter how seemingly trivial, unlikely or irrelevant, might one day come in handy as ammunition for destroying a different argument.

Ironically, Patricia Cornwell summed it up best—

"Ripper students would sooner have the mystery than the solution."

How right she was.

Regards,

Simon

[moonbegger]

hello Amanda ,

You can't deny that knowing the true identity of the Ripper would take away some of the fun. That's the whole point of this casebook, so that everyone can air their individual views. No suspects, no fun.

They said the same thing about Robin Hood

[Theagenes]

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.

Thanks for the link. This was very interesting and I highly recommend everyone listen to this interview. So it seems that he was only able to get mtDNA from the blood, but did get genomic DNA from the semen and seemed to imply that with more time and funding he could have done much more with the data, including potentially get a full sequence using amplification, but the book deadline didn't allow him to do as much as he wanted. But I also got the impression that is still much than can be done given more time and funding. It sounds like that connection with Kosminski at least can be potentially further solidified with more work -- but probably not Eddowes.

He also said he is planning to publish the results in a proper peer-reviewed article, so that's good. Overall, he distanced himself somewhat from the book and Edwards's over-reaching conclusions, but I feel good about the potential for contamination being minimized as much as possible. He did seem a little annoyed (and I agree) that the rush to publish this popular book got in the way of proper methodology.

He did seem to confirm that he took his samples from the shawl before the samples were taken from the relatives, which is an important point, because it would be a real problem as far as chain of custody if Edwards had possession of the shawl and the relatives' DNA samples before handing it all over to Louhelainen.

[Theagenes]

Ok , So the story so far ..

Simpson takes into his possession an alleged shawl once in the possession of the Mitre Sq murder victim Kate Eddows .. ( regardless of how he come by it , be it given to him or picked up from the mortuary floor ) he had it and believed it to be authentic .

Simpson apparently attaches his own story of how it came to be in his possession , adding a little garnish , involving him in a way that he never actually could have been .

Mr Edwards then introduces the theory that the shawl was not a possession of Eddows , but belonged to her killer , and for some reason got left at the murder scene ..

Upon close examination and DNA testing , blood splatter, and remnants of other body organ stains, they concur a remarkable resemblance to that of Kate's decedents . Then upon discovering seamen on the same cloth and running the same tests regarding AK's decedents they reach a similar conclusion in turn pointing a guilty finger at AK ..

Am I in the ball park here ???

cheers , moonbegger .

Yes, actually that's very much in the ballpark. The big question is just how "remarkable" is that "resemblance" in actuality.

[Monty]

Hi Monty,

"All they [researchers] seek is the truth."

I do hope you had your tongue firmly in your cheek.

If Ripper researchers really were simple seekers of the truth the subject wouldn't be bogged down by so much trench warfare plus all the extraneous crap which refuses to dislodge itself, such as the royal conspiracy, the Maybrick diary, the marginalia, the shawl . . . the list goes on and on.

Ripperologists are compulsive hoarders. They never throw anything away, because the slightest thing, no matter how seemingly trivial, unlikely or irrelevant, might one day come in handy as ammunition for destroying a different argument.

Ironically, Patricia Cornwell summed it up best—

"Ripper students would sooner have the mystery than the solution."

How right she was.

Regards,

Simon

I originally stated majority.

Some would say you like to muddy waters, some would say.

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

And some would be wrong.

Very wrong.

Regards,

Simon

[SJ76]

Kosminski family addresses/crime scenes

Hello,
This may be a bit off topic, but I was looking at the locations of Kosminski family addresses from census reports and notice they are all near the crime scenes.
Mrs. Kosminski (mentioned as AK's mother in one forum) 63 new street
Isaac Kosminski (brother) 76 goulston
Betsy and Wolf Abrahams (sister and brother in law) sion square
Matilda and Morris lubnowski (sister and brother in law) 16 greenfield street
martin kosminski (possible relative) 48 berners st.

viewing a map of the crimes it is quite clear that JTR could commit murder and be off the streets in a matter of minutes by simply walking to a relatives house. Looking at the distribution and reading how he was a shared family responsibility it appears that he could either come and go as he pleased from each residence or hunted from different locations depending on who he was staying with, as there are murders committed literally down the street from each of these addresses.

Also wandered about the possibility that he was leaving these victims at his relatives proverbially front door and am curious of the psychological implications of this.

[SJ76]

Hello,
This may be a bit off topic, but I was looking at the locations of Kosminski family addresses from census reports and notice they are all near the crime scenes.
Mrs. Kosminski (mentioned as AK's mother in one forum) 63 new street
Isaac Kosminski (brother) 76 goulston
Betsy and Wolf Abrahams (sister and brother in law) sion square
Matilda and Morris lubnowski (sister and brother in law) 16 greenfield street
martin kosminski (possible relative) 48 berners st.

viewing a map of the crimes it is quite clear that JTR could commit murder and be off the streets in a matter of minutes by simply walking to a relatives house. Looking at the distribution and reading how he was a shared family responsibility it appears that he could either come and go as he pleased from each residence or hunted from different locations depending on who he was staying with, as there are murders committed literally down the street from each of these addresses.

Also wandered about the possibility that he was leaving these victims at his relatives proverbial front door and am curious of the psychological implications of this