Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[GUT]

G'day Chris

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".

But let's add for completeness that these changes can happen in one generation.

[The Good Michael]

Why would a schizophrenic wish to take a trophy?

The voices?


Mike

[Henry Flower]

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.

That was my impression also, precisely. He seemed to be issuing what, in tabloid football parlance, is always called "a come-and-get-me plea".

[Chris]

But let's add for completeness that these changes can happen in one generation.

Of course, if something mutates once in a thousand generations there has to be one generation that it mutates in.

The fact remains that when we are considering a difference of only 5 or 6 generations the probability of a mutation occurring is extremely small, which is what I said in the first place!

[christoper]

Hello Christopher.

Why would a schizophrenic wish to take a trophy?

Cheers.
LC

I don't think I ever used the word trophy in regard to the Ripper taking organs.

These were not a trophy to keep.

The killer removed and took with him certain organs from the victims, which he ate--something that paranoid schizophrenic killers have been known to do.

As to why--I'm not a profiler--I've heard that it might have something to do with digging in to the body cavity making them feel that they know the inner workings of the victims and eating parts of them makes the victims part of the killer forever. But honestly--I don't claim to understand why they do it.

do however know that some of schizophrenic's have done it.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Christopher.

Why would a schizophrenic wish to take a trophy?

Cheers.
LC

That's a question for Oscar Pastorius.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

Of course, if something mutates once in a thousand generations there has to be one generation that it mutates in.

The fact remains that when we are considering a difference of only 5 or 6 generations the probability of a mutation occurring is extremely small, which is what I said in the first place!

No actually you asked me for proof that it could mutate in one or two generations. It can.

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

Any buddy of Rob House's is a buddy of mine. And I don't see reason to think Edwards' lied about who the samples were taken from.

I just think it's a bit silly that people hear DNA and think 'conclusive' without taking into consideration the item the DNA was taken from or the agenda of the people behind the project.

Bottom line is that you can have all the DNA you want, but if it's on an item that has zero connection to the Ripper murders, you have nothing. And I'd like to know if DNA from the shawl was tested against descendants of Tumblety, Druitt, Le Grand, Sickert, etc. How the hell did he make the jump to Koz?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Poch]

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.

I know who he is and I appreciate everything he has given the community, I have read much he has written on this website alone. That doesn't really change anything. Feel free to have a stab at my post count though if that helps you sleep.

Stewart, you apparently took one element of that quite personally, but read your post history for this thread and try to see where I was coming from. If you're honest with yourself you will see the general sentiment to some degree I believe.

[Tom_Wescott]

G'day Chris




But let's add for completeness that these changes can happen in one generation.

I'll say. At least once a generation we get a huge news story about absolute proof of someone's guilt in these murders.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[christoper]

Of course, if something mutates once in a thousand generations there has to be one generation that it mutates in.

The fact remains that when we are considering a difference of only 5 or 6 generations the probability of a mutation occurring is extremely small, which is what I said in the first place!

Spontaneous, random mutations happen at a slow rate. However, such mutations are trivial compared to the mutations that occur due to other factors (environmental, occupational exposures). Talking about the mutations that occur spontaneously does not give us any idea of the total mutations from all processes that might occur. spontaneous mutations are only a small factor.

With that said--5 generations should be an easy match--unless they all have been working in the coal mines or something of that ilk. One reason maternal DNA mutates less rapidly than paternal is that traditionally it has been men exposed to more of the nasties--working in steel mills that kind of thing.

[GUT]

I'll say. At least once a generation we get a huge news story about absolute proof of someone's guilt in these murders.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

G'day Tom

Well we've sure had a few this generation. And two of them by D N A. That holy grain that to some proves everything. Just call me bamboozled, how some attacked Cornwell over her DNA but now defend this DNA.

[Poch]

G'day Tom

Well we've sure had a few this generation. And two of them by D N A. That holy grain that to some proves everything. Just call me bamboozled, how some attacked Cornwell over her DNA but now defend this DNA.

I don't defend it at this juncture, but I'd definitely like to see the outcome of further tests, peer review etc. Science moves fast and DNA tests done even 10 years ago can't really be compared to what happens today. I think anyone outright defending these tests as they stand are hopefully either geneticists themselves or otherwise they're just grasping lol. I do admit to find it fascinating, I just wish I knew more on the subject, I was never one for biology even in secondary school though, never did like cutting open frogs

[Tom_Wescott]

G'day Tom

Well we've sure had a few this generation. And two of them by D N A. That holy grain that to some proves everything. Just call me bamboozled, how some attacked Cornwell over her DNA but now defend this DNA.

The sad irony is that it's more likely the Ripper touched some of those letters Cornwell pawed than that he touched that shawl. At least those letters actually existed in 1888.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

succinct summary

Hello Tom.

"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."

No, it hasn't.

Cheers.
LC