Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[AdamNeilWood]

Hi Adam,

I don't have a copy but it has come up for discussion before on Casebook:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5947

Regards

Rob

Thanks Rob,

Helpful as ever!

Adam

[Rob Clack]

I try to be

Rob

[Debra A]

Indeed,

And Andy Parlour is descended from Polly Nichols family.

Yeah, I can hear cogs whirring. Wonder if Pollys DNA is on it.

Monty

I couldn't see Anna's original post so apologies for tagging this on to your answer to her question, Neil.
In the book it is stated that skin cells transferred from handling the shawl would have disappeared within a year on silk fabric. The case is different for wool apparently.

[Sally]

Link to the BBC Inside Science podcast broadcast yesterday which includes an interview with Dr. Jari Louhelainen:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/inscience

Poster Richardh referenced the podcast yesterday, but it seems to have been largely missed in the continuing maelstrom of posts provoked by Mr Edwards' book.

I share the opinion expressed by some others posting here and on the other site that the science employed here must be the foremost consideration. If the science holds up, then everything else is, as they say, academic.

Dr. Louhelainen himself does not [of course] claim to have found Jack the Ripper; although he does state his confidence in the mtDNA matches confirmed during testing. He also refers to Dr David Miller [University of Leeds] who has extracted gDNA from the semen stains on the shawl.

The press has [again, of course] focussed on the sensationalism of Mr Edwards' claims; rather than on the scientific process which underpins them. The interview with Dr Louhelainen is somewhat more informative.

I think it should be remembered that Dr Louhelainen holds a respectable position in a U.K. academic institution [amongst other things] and cannot reasonably be expected to have put his professional reputation on the line for Mr Edwards' personal quest. The same is of course true of Dr Miller.

[christoper]

Trevor,

Rob suggested the Jodrell took place at another location. Perhaps he abandoned the shawl and the apron piece in Goulston Street.

MrB

I like the way you think! The cloth had to have something about it that tied it to the murders, as the owners were sure it was linked. (like being found with the apron)

[Monty]

I couldn't see Anna's original post so apologies for tagging this on to your answer to her question, Neil.
In the book it is stated that skin cells transferred from handling the shawl would have disappeared within a year on silk fabric. The case is different for wool apparently.

Thanks Debs, didnt know that.

Ok, seeing as Edwards claims to have had support from the family of the "first murder victim", would it be beyond reason this is Andy & Sue Parlour, and there has been contact within a year of the testing?

Monty

[Henry Flower]

Leeds! Semen!

Dr David Miller [University of Leeds]

My alma mater!

That's it. No doubt in my mind now. Case closed! We may as well close down the site and all go home.

Happy memories of being a Leeds student. Even though the shawl has had more semen extracted from it than I ever did as a student.

[Observer]

A bit like the legendary Winky-W*nky bird...?

The Jews are not the men who will not be blamed for throwing sand in the birds eye

[Outlaw]

Donald Rumbelow in the Daily Mirror...

Jack the Ripper murder mystery: Polish immigrant was NOT the killer, says expert on notorious murders

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jack-ripper-murder-mystery-polish-4200936

[MrBarnett]

I think it's very likely that the shawl came from a notorious crime scene. Can anyone think of another reason why the family of a policeman would treasure a piece of old material stained with blood and semen?

The story of Simpson being given permission by his superiors to take the shawl is clearly absurd. And the chances of his being able to remove it from Mitre Square are next to zero. I suppose it could have been found anywhere on the night of Eddowes murder and been connected to that event. But If found in Goulstone street it's connection would have been a certainty. And it would have been found by a Met policeman was dismissed from the force shortly afterwards.

No evidence of course, but as a theory it has fewer holes than the family story.

MrB

[Debra A]

Thanks Debs, didnt know that.

Ok, seeing as Edwards claims to have had support from the family of the "first murder victim", would it be beyond reason this is Andy & Sue Parlour, and there has been contact within a year of the testing?

Monty

Edward's mentions the Parlours in recognition of the help they have given with the story of the shawl.
Anyone who had contact with the shawl within the year it was tested was eliminated by DNA comparison.

[MrBarnett]

I think it's very likely that the shawl came from a notorious crime scene. Can anyone think of another reason why the family of a policeman would treasure a piece of old material stained with blood and semen?

The story of Simpson being given permission by his superiors to take the shawl is clearly absurd. And the chances of his being able to remove it from Mitre Square are next to zero. I suppose it could have been found anywhere on the night of Eddowes murder and been connected to that event. But If found in Goulston Street, it's connection would have been a certainty. And it would have been found by a Met policeman who was dismissed from the force shortly afterwards.

No evidence of course, but as a theory it has fewer holes than the family story.

MrB

[Monty]

Edward's mentions the Parlours in recognition of the help they have given with the story of the shawl.
Anyone who had contact with the shawl within the year it was tested was eliminated by DNA comparison.

Excellent, thanks Debs.

Monty

[Observer]

I think it's very likely that the shawl came from a notorious crime scene. Can anyone think of another reason why the family of a policeman would treasure a piece of old material stained with blood and semen?

The story of Simpson being given permission by his superiors to take the shawl is clearly absurd. And the chances of his being able to remove it from Mitre Square are next to zero. I suppose it could have been found anywhere on the night of Eddowes murder and been connected to that event. But If found in Goulstone street it's connection would have been a certainty. And it would have been found by a Met policeman was dismissed from the force shortly afterwards.

No evidence of course, but as a theory it has fewer holes than the family story.

MrB

I agree with you Mr B. It seems certain detractors are only interested in the story put out by Mr Edwards, it's easy to debunk you see. As you suggest, It's possible that the "shawl" came into the possession of the family via a route other than the one suggested by the family, and Mr Edwards.

Regards

Observer

[Chris]

I dont believe the DNA will ever become conclusive simply because MTD will always stay MTD.

As the BBC interview with Dr Louhelainen made clear, it's not only mitochondrial DNA he has analsyed. It's also nuclear DNA.