Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[GUT]

Menstrual blood can be differentiated from non-Menstrual blood. It's purpose is to clean out the uterus of unused cells--so it contains cells that other blood does not. Interestingly--it is chock full of stem-cells--check this out--

http://healthland.time.com/2011/03/0...ange-but-true/

G'day Chistopher

I know it's different, but would that show up f it was merely a DNA test? don't know. That is also why I included the other possible sources.

To imagine that Eddowes would be unlikely to have some open wound is, in my opinion, a stretch.

[Chris]

Why have you?

You took the words out of my mouth, Rob.

[Mycroftacd]

reply

I don't think anyone will ever, with any degree of certainty, but the shawl in Mitre Square. But, how important is that to establishing this thing as 'genuine', and proof of Kosminsk's guilt. Granted, many dominoes must fall in order for anyone in their right mind to get to a place where the shawl is evidence of Kosminski as the killer of Eddowes and, by extension, Jack the Ripper.

But, if this shawl is independently tested and shown to contain:

1. DNA from Katherine Eddowes (and not DNA from Eddowes' descendents who may have handled the shawl)
2. DNA from blood belonging to Katherine Eddowes
3. DNA from Aaron Kosminski (and not DNA from the as of now unnamed Kosminski relative who may have handled the shawl)
4. DNA from semen belonging to Aaron Kosminski

This would put a contemporary Ripper suspect with a Ripper victim (with bodily fluids flying about). There's no reason to believe that Kosminski and Eddowes knew one another. Their only link - so far as we know - is this: Suspect. Victim.

It would be nice to have a some reasonably reliable and independently verfied history of the garment. A substantiated age, region of origin, etc., that aligns with what's presented by the author. This - at least to my thinking - is not imperative so long as you have all the above (numbered 1-4) and you don't have tests showing definatively that the thing was made sometime after 1888.

Now. Before I take the requisite lambasting...do I think that the shawl is genuine? I don't know. But, based on what we've seen over the years, probably not. I doubt it. I'm sure we'll have a reasonably good idea is the coming months/years.

True if proven, reguarding the bodily fluids but not that both few around at the same time and Kozminski seems to have been a mobile public fountain of them. As for the link, don't think "john", prostitute can be dismissed out of hand. She looks to have been at least some times "on the game" and his chariter doesn't seem to me to place him beyond the possibility of his being a customer.

[Tom_Wescott]

If the science checks out then there are only two options, as far as I see it:
1. The shawl was at the crime scene in Mitre Square, and Kozminski was the Ripper.
2. Willful and deliberate fraud by both the author and Dr. Louhelainen.
So at this point, I don't really see any sense in continuing to debate until the scientific results are reviewed and either verified or shown to be in error.
RH

The blind acceptance of "science" by so many is shocking. There's so much data on the Mitre Square murder and exactly zero percent of it put this shawl there. James Kelly digs through Kate's hat looking for spare change because he doesn't have food or a place to stay, but he doesn't think to ask about her expensive giant-ass shawl that's missing? And where was this shawl when they were pawning his boots? Oh, that's right, Kozminski dropped it! Did he drop it before or after he cut off Kate's apron to take?

Come on, folks. It's a great tale, but all the mitochondrial DNA in the world cannot put that shawl in Mitre Square, in the hands of Kozminski, or in Eddowes' blood. My understand (and I could be wrong) is that Edwards did not have actual DNA drawn from Kate herself or from Aaron himself. I would imagine that if the ACTUAL DNA of these people were tested, there'd be nothing to write a book about.

My point is that regardless of the DNA evidence, you still need some historical evidence. Some kind of provenance for this shawl. If that ain't in the book, then the rest doesn't matter at all.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

Doing the rounds...

The 'shawl' has been doing the rounds for the past 23 years and has never got off the ground with any credibility.

The Parlours promoted the 'shawl' tale in their 1997 book, they met Edwards and formed a friendship. The Parlours bought the two framed pieces of 'shawl' from an antique dealer. Edwards later, in 2007, bought the main parts of the 'shawl'. Apart from an odd article by the Parlours all went quiet on the 'shawl' front until it now appears, as if by magic, as a solution to the case.

No matter how you spin the story, there is no way on this earth that the 'shawl' provides the answer as to the identity of the killer. An identity that will always remain unknown.

[Theagenes]

Perhaps. But I am not subscribing to this exactly. I do not know enough about it to come to a conclusion either way. We shall see what develops, but I admit I am a bit surprised that the result has been generally dismissed out of hand by people who have neither read the book, nor know anything about the science behind this.

My position is quite simple... Either the science is flawed, or it is an elaborate hoax perpetrated by both Edwards and louhelainen, or its case closed. I don't see any other options. I will be happy when it becomes clear what the truth is. But if the science is validated, then the provenance becomes a secondary consideration in my opinion. Whatever the result (and I am equally open to any of the three) it will not change my theories regarding kozminski, which I am aware you disagree with.

RH

Given what little we know at this point, this seems to be to be the only reasonable position to take.

In reading through 160 pages of this thread I haven't seen a single poster who simply accepts Edwards's claims uncritically. I have seen plenty of posters who have been quick to dismiss them uncritically and who ridicule anyone who doesn't immediately jump on their bandwagon.

[christoper]

G'day Chistopher

I know it's different, but would that show up f it was merely a DNA test? don't know. That is also why I included the other possible sources.

To imagine that Eddowes would be unlikely to have some open wound is, in my opinion, a stretch.

My book hasn't come yet--so I don't know exactly what assays were done.

I just thought it is an interesting factoid to know! Here in the US we have had huge political controversies over stem cells--this could end the debate--but not many people know about it.

Any kind of blood assay would show a difference in composition--but if all they did was DNA sequencing/molecular bio type stuff--that wouldn't show a difference.

[Stewart P Evans]

Because...

Why have you?

Because I don't believe in people giving ill-informed opinions when they are not aware of the full story. I also didn't make the statement that you made about seeing no sense in continuing the debate. You are a man obsessed with a single theory.

[Rob Clack]

The blind acceptance of "science" by so many is shocking. There's so much data on the Mitre Square murder and exactly zero percent of it put this shawl there. James Kelly digs through Kate's hat looking for spare change because he doesn't have food or a place to stay, but he doesn't think to ask about her expensive giant-ass shawl that's missing? And where was this shawl when they were pawning his boots? Oh, that's right, Kozminski dropped it! Did he drop it before or after he cut off Kate's apron to take?


Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

This point I am about to make doesn't make much difference for me because I don't think Stride was a victim but for those who do:

Why wasn't it left with her?
And why isn't her dna on it as well?

None of it adds up.

Rob

[Stewart P Evans]

Who...?

You took the words out of my mouth, Rob.

Who pulled your chain?

[Hunter]

Ironically, Patricia Cornwell summed it up best—
"Ripper students would sooner have the mystery than the solution."
How right she was.

Ironic indeed, as she provided the solution. So I guess she would say that.

As others have as well or at least provided their take on this sequence of events. And with that, I believe Simon has a book coming that is supposed to provide a different spin on this series of murders?

[GUT]

My book hasn't come yet--so I don't know exactly what assays were done.

I just thought it is an interesting factoid to know! Here in the US we have had huge political controversies over stem cells--this could end the debate--but not many people know about it.

Any kind of blood assay would show a difference in composition--but if all they did was DNA sequencing/molecular bio type stuff--that wouldn't show a difference.

Thanks Chistopher

That's what I thought, but really wasn't sure, my knowledge of DNA only comes from discussing certain aspects of it with experts.

And yes one would think that it would be hard to argue against using those stem cells.

But I guess there's always a fringe element.

[lynn cates]

good

Hello Cris. Great post. Sound as always.

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

My understand (and I could be wrong) is that Edwards did not have actual DNA drawn from Kate herself or from Aaron himself. I would imagine that if the ACTUAL DNA of these people were tested, there'd be nothing to write a book about.

The point is that mitochondrial DNA mutates very slowly, and the mitochondrial DNA he did have for comparison is - to an extremely high probability - identical with the mitochondrial DNA of Catherine Eddowes and Aaron Kozminski.

It's just no good for people to come here and rubbish the scientific evidence on the basis of zero understanding and zero willingness even to assimilate the facts. It tends to confirm all the worst stereotypes of Ripperologists - as cranky obsessives out of touch with the real world.

Of course there are huge problems with the provenance of the shawl, and I don't believe for a minute that the family tradition about Amos Simpson as presented by David Melville-Hayes can be true.

But on the other hand there are some very striking scientific findings that demand an explanation. I don't know what the explanation is, but we'd better try to find out, otherwise we'll convince no one - and I don't believe in the end we'll even convince ourselves.

[Stewart P Evans]

And...

You took the words out of my mouth, Rob.

And I used to think that you were one of the sensible ones. But as you are an old buddy of Mr. House and a Kosminski obsessive I shouldn't be surprised.