Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Tom_Wescott]

But still, I have a question for SPE or Tom Wescott, or anyone else profoundly unconvinced by this shawl. It's a question about methodology, or about hierarchies of evidence I suppose.

Hi Henry. Thing is, Eddowes' DNA has not been found on the shawl. Now, if a party completely independent of Edwards and his doctor were to obtain a sample of Eddowes' DNA from her corpse and compare it to the blood on the shawl and get a 100% match, and then this was peer reviewed by another party with nothing to gain/lose, I would sit up and go 'Hmmmm'. But that hasn't happened.

I would fully expect Eddowes' mtDNA to be on the shawl after years of people, including her descendants, handling it. As for Kozminski's DNA, he doesn't have that either. In fact, I haven't read the name of the man who donated what is supposed to being Koz's DNA. Did I miss it? Who is he? And can he prove he's Koz's descendant? Another grave to dig up.

And this shawl has not been believed to have been connected to the Eddowes murder for 125 years. That's another mistake. I couldn't tell you when the first recorded mention of it was as being Eddowes' shawl, but I believe it was during my life time.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Theagenes]

Things are certainly feisty here this evening.

I listened just now to the BBC science podcast featuring the interview with Jari Louhelainen, in which he came across as honest, cautious, and professional. He also explained that a colleague with a particular expertise had done the work on the semen - which adds a third party who must be included in any accusations of deliberate fraud or colossal incompetence. He expressed regret that the book had appeared before his work could be presented in a proper peer-reviewed publication, and also that his research was, as he saw it, incomplete, due to the constraints of time and funding. Having listened to him explain things rather more cautiously and more fully than Mr Edwards or the Mail on Sunday have done, I was left wishing that Mr Edwards and his book did not exist, and that someone slightly less flashy had acquired the shawl, and done things properly and thoroughly.

(snip)

You echo my thoughts exactly after hearing the interview. It was particularly frustrating to learn that Louhelainen had gotten genomic DNA from the semen, but wasn't able to continue with further amplification that could have potentially produced a full sequence, because Edwards and the publisher wanted to rush this book into publication. Unbelievable.

[GUT]

You echo my thoughts exactly after hearing the interview. It was particularly frustrating to learn they they had gotten genomic DNA from the semen, but couldn't be bothered with further amplification that could have potentially produced a full sequence, because they wanted to rush this book into publication. Unbelievable.

Which really tells you where their priorities lie, money v finding the truth.

I also have to question the time frame to complete the DNA testing v the time to write the book.

Surely the two could have both continued simultaneously with any amendments to the book when DNA testing was completed.

[Tom_Wescott]

This is the Jack the Ripper version of the Patterson/Gimlin film (for those who know what that is). But it's not our first. There was the Royal theory in the 70s. It swept the world by storm and arguably created Ripperology. It was all nonsense. There was also the Diary. It swept the world by storm but alas it was a fake. Then we had Cornwell and Sickert. Swept the world by storm, but alas it was a house of cards. How do you know when a Ripper theory is bunk? You start with the provenance of the evidence.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Theagenes]

Which really tells you where their priorities lie, money v finding the truth.

I also have to question the time frame to complete the DNA testing v the time to write the book.

Surely the two could have both continued simultaneously with any amendments to the book when DNA testing was completed.

Just to be clear (and I edited my post to reflect this), Louhelainen clearly was not happy that he wasn't allowed to continue his work, but Edwards was the one paying the bills and presumably had a contractual deadline with the publisher. While Louhelainen remained professional and polite it wasn't hard to read between the lines that he wasn't entirely happy thrilled about the way this published.

Edit: It also sounded like he might have been fishing for other funding sources (i.e. other than Edwards) to continue it and publish properly in a peer-review journal.

[Henry Flower]

Thank you Tom for your reply.

I do agree absolutely with you on the fact that right now they don't have those definitive matches, and indeed they may never do. It was a genuinely hypothetical question about whether or not such a definitive match would trump written lists and sketches.

And I know there's more to it than that. It's extremely hard for me to imagine that this thing was in Mitre Square given that nobody, nobody at the time, made any mention of it at all.

To be frank, it's the certainties that I find alarming. My mind doesn't deal in certainties. I cannot say that I know for sure the shawl was never there. I can say I cannot see how it was there and yet was never mentioned, and it's not even a given that confirmed and positive post-exhumation DNA matches would allow me to overcome that obstacle without reservation.

Which troubles me. Which is why I asked the question I did. I find a peculiar but disturbing thrill in imagining a scenario in which two very different types of evidence clash irreconcilably over a particular item, each with unanswerable claims to our acceptance.

And I very much like your imagined response: sitting up and going 'Hmmmm'

PS - your postscript on the shawl was fascinating and illuminating, thank you again.

[Tom_Wescott]

Another pair of shoes

I try to put myself in Rob House's shoes. If it was being alleged that Le Grand's DNA was on the shawl, or Pearly Poll's, or John Satchell's, would I be so quick to say the same things I'm saying? I'd like to think so, but probably not. I'd probably be just as cautiously optimistic of it as Rob is being. I'm just being honest here.

But it's not any of my stable of suspects that are being alleged to have contributed their DNA to the shawl. It's Kozminski. And Rob has something I don't, and that's belief in Kozminski's guilt in the Ripper murders. So it makes perfect sense to me that it would make perfect sense to Rob to see Koz's DNA mingled with a victim's. The fact that Rob IS being so cautious in accepting the evidence because he shares my concerns about the shawl's provenance is, to my mind, something to be commended.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Thank you Tom for your reply.

I do agree absolutely with you on the fact that right now they don't have those definitive matches, and indeed they may never do. It was a genuinely hypothetical question about whether or not such a definitive match would trump written lists and sketches.

And I know there's more to it than that. It's extremely hard for me to imagine that this thing was in Mitre Square given that nobody, nobody at the time, made any mention of it at all.

To be frank, it's the certainties that I find alarming. My mind doesn't deal in certainties. I cannot say that I know for sure the shawl was never there. I can say I cannot see how it was there and yet was never mentioned, and it's not even a given that confirmed and positive post-exhumation DNA matches would allow me to overcome that obstacle without reservation.

Which troubles me. Which is why I asked the question I did. I find a peculiar but disturbing thrill in imagining a scenario in which two very different types of evidence clash irreconcilably over a particular item, each with unanswerable claims to our acceptance.

And I very much like your imagined response: sitting up and going 'Hmmmm'

PS - your postscript on the shawl was fascinating and illuminating, thank you again.

Thanks for that. Had I known the shawl was to become the cause celebre that it has, I would have provided a more detailed appendix on it and why it wasn't Eddowes'. It's not just that it wasn't in Mitre Square, but that it wasn't on her prior to that, either, or missed by James Kelly after the murder. It simply wasn't hers. And the idea that Koz carried it around is laughable.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[wolfie1]

Which really tells you where their priorities lie, money v finding the truth.

I also have to question the time frame to complete the DNA testing v the time to write the book.

Surely the two could have both continued simultaneously with any amendments to the book when DNA testing was completed.

And what is worse, is that the author now effectively also owns the DNA on the shawl, as well as the object itself. The testing regime was privately funded for a commercial aim. Similar to Pharmaceutical labs creating a cure all for a disease not yet in the public imagination.

[lynn cates]

trophy

Hello Christopher.

Why would a schizophrenic wish to take a trophy?

Cheers.
LC

[Patrick S]

G'day Patrick

How about prostitute and client, [gee that wouldn't lead to the same result would it.]

It absolutely would. Though, now you have a jack the ripper victim doing business with the man the police suspected was jack the ripper. Gee. Sounds innocent enough.

[Henry Flower]

Tom, you're not convinced by Patterson/Gimlin?!

Next you'll be telling us the Cottingley fairies were faked!

You cynic!

[Chris]

Hi Henry. Thing is, Eddowes' DNA has not been found on the shawl. Now, if a party completely independent of Edwards and his doctor were to obtain a sample of Eddowes' DNA from her corpse and compare it to the blood on the shawl and get a 100% match, and then this was peer reviewed by another party with nothing to gain/lose, I would sit up and go 'Hmmmm'. But that hasn't happened.

If for some reason you think Catherine Eddowes's mitochondrial DNA would be likely to differ from Karen Miller's, you need to explain why - given that they are only five generations apart, and that GUT has helpfully told us that mutations occur at the rate of "about one mutation every thousand generations".

I'll say again, for the avoidance of doubt, that I don't know what the explanation for the match is, but I know it's extremely unlikely to lie in any difference between the mitochondrial DNA of Catherine Eddowes and Karen Miller.

As for Kozminski's DNA, he doesn't have that either. In fact, I haven't read the name of the man who donated what is supposed to being Koz's DNA. Did I miss it? Who is he? And can he prove he's Koz's descendant?

As has already been made clear, it's not a man. It's a female descendant of Aaron's sister Matilda, who wishes to remain anonymous. For what it's worth - perhaps not much, judging by some people's opinions of me - I can vouch for the fact that she is a descendant of Matilda.

[GUT]

Tom, you're not convinced by Patterson/Gimlin?!

Next you'll be telling us the Cottingley fairies were faked!

You cynic!

G'day Henry

Cottingley Fairies Faked [try and say that three times fast].

Now I know I can't take you seriously!

[The Good Michael]

The naysayers say that the mtDNA results cannot be conclusive without peer review or further studies or other DNA testing done on other victims' clothing. Others say that we can't come to any conclusions without reading the book.

I say if we don't absolutely understand mtDNA reliability and viability, and we don't understand all the possible mutations and how our very own DNA would match up to Kosmini's or Eddowes'; if we don't take the time to really understand some of the science and its flaws and merits, reading the book will just suck us into whatever the author wants us to believe about the subject, much like talking to a Jehovah's Witness would (no offense to them).

So, I'm reading up on DNA, and it isn't easy, but I won't be pulled into potential lies and misguided suspect-driven enthrallment.

Mike