Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[GUT]

By all means post the evidence that backs up that opinion.

Well you could do worse that starting with:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-is-constantly-changing-through-the-process-6524898

And note in particular the reference to "Spontaneous Mutations".

As I said I don't claim to be an expert just have spoken to a number of them on the issue of DNA.

Or perhaps Stephen Oppemheimer's explanation mght suffice:

This is where DNA point mutations come in. When mtDNA is inherited from our mother, occasionally there is a change or mutation in one or more of the ‘letters’ of the mtDNA code – about one mutation every thousand generations. The new letter, called a point mutation, will then be transmitted through all subsequent daughters. Although a new mutation is a rare event within a single family line, the overall probability of mutations is clearly increased by the number of mothers having daughters. So, within one generation, a million mothers could have more than a thousand daughters with a new mutation, each different from the rest. This is why, unless we share a recent maternal ancestor over the past 10,000 years or so, we each have a slightly different code from everyone else around us.

From http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/eve.html

You will note that the good Dr says:

So, within one generation, a million mothers could have more than a thousand daughters with a new mutation, each different from the rest.

As I understand it there is about 1 in 1000 chance that there will be a mutation in mtDNA in a generation.

[Hunter]

It is possible to hold that opinion in the same way you believe Borden and Simpson are guilty--very likely, not an absolute fact.

There is much more existing evidence to implicate Borden and Simpson than there is anyone implicated in the Whitechapel murders.

[Rob Clack]

So... what's your point, Rob? Strides DNA (or a female descendant) apparently wasn't tested.

Yeah that's about it. So your not bothered about inadequate testing? Well that's fine, some of us here like things to be done properly before someone announces to the world that they have solved the mystery of who Jack the Ripper was.

Folks need to get off the sauce before they post or get a lot more of it before they press the send button.

Thanks for the advice. But I am a tea drinker. What's your excuse?

[Poch]

Evening everyone..

Mr Edwards made an appearance on The Alan Titchmarsh show this afternoon..ITV @ 3pm. If you are in the UK it will probably be on catch up or You Tube if you are not.

He didn't bring the table runner. What was shown was a short film of the cloth being tested under lab conditions..that is when he explained they went deep into the cloth to get the DNA!!!

I felt Mr Edwards had just a very basic knowledge of JTR. I think Mr Titchmarsh gathered that too.

Just thought it was a good moment to slip this info into the conversation this evening,for those who weren't on the boards this afternoon.

I think so. He actually alludes to this point in the book and doesn't really make any bones about being a relative newcomer to the scene. Thanks for posting about the show, I might try to catch it, just to put names to faces and all that. If people are interested and it's not on youtube, I could always rip it and put it up.

[Stewart P Evans]

Don't ever accuse...

...
It's not really on becuase all it does is spread disinformation and derails proper discussion.
...

Don't ever, ever, accuse me of 'spreading disinformation', I regard such a comment as defamation of character. It is something I would never do.

[spyglass]

Stride I'd agree with. However, there are those who do not put a question mark over Kelly.

I also keep an open mind about this case. I do not believe Kosminski to have been the killer. In my opinion he doesn't fit the bill. I believe the notion that there were at least three individuals responsible for killing Nichols through to Kelly, is bleedin bonkers

Regards

Observer

I didnt say I go along with those ideas, in fact I do believe 1,2 and 4 were killed by the same hand.
But trust me, questions and opinions on Kelly being a seperate victim have been raised many times on this site over the last ten years

regards.

[GUT]

Don't ever, ever, accuse me of 'spreading disinformation', I regard such a comment as defamation of character. It is something I would never do.

G'Day Stewart

Just when I thought I was out ... they pull me back in.

I am sorry that a Johnny come lately who wouldn't know you from a rock should accuse you of such a thing. I for one greatly appreciate your knowledgeable input.

[el_pombo]

Hi Pombo

Welcome. I hope you enjoy yourself here.

On your penultimate point, the police were satisfied that the victims were murdered where they were found.

Thank you, Robert.

I am aware that this has been already thoroughly researched and it's generally accepted as a fact that the victims were murdered where they were found.

I have always asked myself, however, how the murderer had the time to perform the mutilations without being noticed, and although it has already been proven possible, I think an alternative explanation should not be totally disregarded.

El pombo: there was a pool of blood next to the body: she was murdered right there...
"Her head was inclined to the left side, her left leg being extended, whilst the right was bent. Both arms were extended. The throat was cut half-way round, revealing a dreadful wound, from which blood had flowed in great quantity, staining the pavement for some distance round. "
Daily News
United Kingdom
1 October 1888
http://www.casebook.org/victims/eddowes.html

Thanks for the information, Gene. This is taken from a press report and not the post-mortem, but yes, the police didn't seem to have much doubt that the victims were murdered where they were found. I wonder if modern forensic techniques would reach the same result.

Eddowes body was still warm when it was found and no stiffening was observed, this means the body would have to be moved from the one place to the other in a matter of minutes - again, possible, but not likely.

You haven't wasted anybody's time and your English is first-rate. Welcome!

Thank you very much!

Hi Pombo. I also think that the fabric is too thin and too light to be of any practical use in transporting corpses, and - though I haven't of course examined it personally - the material doesn't seem to be the kind of absorbent surface you'd want for cleaning a blood-stained knife.

Hence the apron, I guess.

Hi, Henry.

It's true, but maybe it could have been used just to cover the body or a part of the body and hide it from sight while being taken from one place to the other.

This discussion is probably “off topic”. I’m only raising this because it could provide an explanation on why the shawl would have been taken to the crime scene by Kosminski, but I agree it’s very far from being the most probable scenario.

If someday a 100% match for Eddowes and Kosminski is found (very ,very unlikely), we can come back to this.

[Stewart P Evans]

Many thanks...

G'Day Stewart
Just when I thought I was out ... they pull me back in.
I am sorry that a Johnny come lately who wouldn't know you from a rock should accuse you of such a thing. I for one greatly appreciate your knowledgeable input.

Many thanks for that, greatly appreciated. I really should get out of here.

[lynn cates]

diary

Hello Spyglass.

"Even if this did all prove to be true, we only have one murderer connected to one victim only.
And at least the "crackpot" Diary has more legs than this one."

Absolutely.

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

Or perhaps Stephen Oppemheimer's explanation mght suffice:

[B]This is where DNA point mutations come in. When mtDNA is inherited from our mother, occasionally there is a change or mutation in one or more of the ‘letters’ of the mtDNA code – about one mutation every thousand generations.

Yes, that suffices. One mutation in every thousand generations. Here we are dealing with 5 generations between Catherine Eddowes and her descendant and 6 between Aaron Kozminski and his relation (1 up and 5 back down).

Your authority entirely confirms what I said. To an extremely high degree of probability, the comparison samples will be identical to those of Eddowes and Kozminski.

[Hunter]

Yeah that's about it. So your not bothered about inadequate testing? Well that's fine, some of us here like things to be done properly before someone announces to the world that they have solved the mystery of who Jack the Ripper was.

I think you have me pegged all wrong. Rob.... and maybe the reverse is the same.

[GUT]

Many thanks for that, greatly appreciated. I really should get out of here.

G'day Stewart

I haven't been here half as long as you have, but this thread has the potential to drive me to the same decision. The number of people who don't bother to read what has already been explained but then want to become abusive is truly amazing.

[GUT]

Yes, that suffices. One mutation in every thousand generations. Here we are dealing with 5 generations between Catherine Eddowes and her descendant and 6 between Aaron Kozminski and his relation (1 up and 5 back down).

Your authority entirely confirms what I said. To an extremely high degree of probability, the comparison samples will be identical to those of Eddowes and Kozminski.

No read it again one in a 100 births has a mutation, he says if one million women give birth 1000 will have a mutation. Not one mutation in 1000 generations and your question was proof that a mutation can occur in one or two generations.

[Chris]

I could pull some mtDNA off Rumbelow's 'Ripper knife' and by God it will match the mtDNA of at least one and probably a good dozen or more of the members of this site. What does that prove?

It would prove nothing. But if you made the comparison using the same sequence as Dr Louhelainen, the chance probability of a match to Catherine Eddowes would be only 1 in 290,000.

The fact that he found such a match to the shawl requires explanation. I say again, I don't know what the explanation is. But if we can't offer any plausible explanation, then no one is going to believe us. And quite rightly.