Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[ajcol]

The problem with his theory about Mann he offerd us no hard evidence and the story was so shakey you could drag a shawl through the gaps

Why on earth would you do that? - think of the amount of contamination - you'd have everyone and his dog's DNA on it!!!!!

On a slightly less frivolous note tho' I liked the way he didn't declare his theory as the "definitive" proof (as I recall - or did he? I really must watch it again!) just backed it up with certain facts that may or may not support that particular theory - I don't think that after all this time we're actually going to get any definitive ID ..... apart from that provided by the Y-Fronts, of course.

[Theagenes]

---


The Metropolitan Police District, and the City of London Police District, 1888 (Red Outline); 'Metropolitan London', 1888 (Navy Outline) (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

In Accordance with the Census of England & Wales, 1891:

'Greater London', i.e. the Metropolitan Police District and the City of London Police District (Red Outline)
- Area: 443,421.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 692.85 Square Miles
- Population: 5,633,806
- Population Density: 8,131 Persons per Square Mile

- {The Metropolitan Police District}
--- Area: 442,750.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 691.80 Square Miles
--- Population: 5,596,101
--- Population Density: 8,089 Persons per Square Mile

- {The City of London Police District}
--- Area: 671.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 1.05 Square Miles
--- Population: 37,705
--- Population Density: 35,910 Persons per Square Mile

---

'Metropolitan London'*, i.e. The Administrative County of London (Inclusive of the City of London) (Navy Outline)
- Area: 74,771.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 117.88 Square Miles
- Population: 4,232,118
- Population Density: 35,902 Persons per Square Mile

* As Defined, in 1888, by the Boundaries of Jurisdiction, of the Metropolitan Board of Works

Again:

Greater London, 1891: 5,633,806

Metropolitan London, 1891: 4,232,118

So, in accordance with the chance estimation that Chris has cited, …

… we should assume that something on the order of 18 - 20 persons living within the 700-square-mile region that is bounded by red color-shading, in 1888, were possible sources of the supposedly apparent blood stains.

Call it 19!

The figure of 400,000 that keeps popping up isn't worth the latex glove that I trust Mr. Marriott wore during the extraction process.

This is quite possibly a massive development, and it isn't going to simply wither away.

If my doctor told me that I had lung cancer, I would indeed demand second and third opinions. But I wouldn't stomp my feet whilst childishly demanding an explanation in light of the fact that I didn't smoke.

I wanted to repost this because it's very important and I missed it the first time through as I was in the middle of composing a ridiculously long response to Trevor (god knows why).

The 1 in 290,000 chance for the mtDNA of the blood being someone else than Catherine Eddowes is extremely important. This is apparently due to a rare mutation in the mtDNA present both in the shawl blood and in Karen Miller her descendant. Now mutations in mtDNA in general are typical and it's these small mutations that form the basis for classing different lineages in haplogroups. But the group that has this mutation is apparently very small. So small in fact that if this number is correct (and I really wish it had come from Louhelainen directly rather than in Edwards' book) then it means based on the population figure we have that only about 100 people in all of England and Wales would have it at the time of the murders and of those only about 20 or so in London. Basically Eddowes and her extended family.

Now these are just estimates so we don't know the exact number, but let repeat this -- effectively what this is saying that the blood on the shawl is so rare that it could have only been put there by Eddowes or certain relatives of hers. Because of how mtDNA is passed down we can actually identify a number of the individuals that would be in this group of 2 dozen or so Londoners that could have produced the blood on the shawl.

First there is Catherine Eddowes and her 11 siblings -- they would have all inherited the mutation from their mother (the mother died in 1851 so she's out).

Then there are the children of her sisters. Of Catherine 11 siblings at least two were sisters Eliza and Elizabeth. I don't know if there were other sisters -- I'm going by the Casebook entry. So if Eliza, Elizabeth, or any other sister of Catherine had children their mtDNA would have the mutation.

Catherine's 3 children - Annie, George, and another son.

If Catherine's mother had any sisters then their children would also have the mutation.

So that's basically what you are looking at for people that could have produced the blood on the shawl at the time of the murders. Catherine and her extended family.

EDIT: if you want to argue for contamination after the murders then that number of people would increase over time with each generation (although some lines would die out with no female children), but it would still have to be some from one of these lines that did the contaminating.

[Theagenes]

That would have been during the 102 years between 1888 and 1990, approximately. Likewise, any Kosminski DNA could have ended up there at any time.

You are very correct in saying that the police would be very interested in the DNA bit. And you are quite correct that it should result in them digging deeper - that is how it should work.

But they should ALSO get very suspicious about the provenance bit, if they were policemen worth their salt. They should know that a piece of cloth with no provenance at all would have been subjected to contamination over the 100+ years it had been lost to the world.

We are not moving along just the one axis here.

All the best,
Fisherman

That's certainly true, but just saying "it could have been contaminated" doesn't really mean anything. I can't have been contaminated by just anyone. It would have to be someone in direct matrilineal descent from Catherine (or one of her sisters maybe).

What are the chances of that prior to the shawl's first appearance in 1990?

After 1990 when this shawl became public and was claimed to be Eddowes it seems like there would be more of chance, at events like the one that has already been discussed.

I don't want to downplay the contamination aspect at all, because it's extremely important, but it really has to be looked in terms of who are the few people that actually carry the mtDNA that could contaminate it and did that opportunity ever arise? What about when the 2007 documentary was filmed? Was Karen Miller involved in that?

[jerryd]

I wanted to repost this because it's very important and I missed it the first time through as I was in the middle of composing a ridiculously long response to Trevor (god knows why).

The 1 in 290,000 chance for the mtDNA of the blood being someone else than Catherine Eddowes is extremely important. This is apparently due to a rare mutation in the mtDNA present both in the shawl blood and in Karen Miller her descendant. Now mutations in mtDNA in general are typical and it's these small mutations that form the basis for classing different lineages in haplogroups. But the group that has this mutation is apparently very small. So small in fact that if this number is correct (and I really wish it had come from Louhelainen directly rather than in Edwards' book) then it means based on the population figure we have that only about 100 people in all of England and Wales would have it at the time of the murders and of those only about 20 or so in London. Basically Eddowes and her extended family.

Now these are just estimates so we don't know the exact number, but let repeat this -- effectively what this is saying that the blood on the shawl is so rare that it could have only been put there by Eddowes or certain relatives of hers. Because of how mtDNA is passed down we can actually identify a number of the individuals that would be in this group of 2 dozen or so Londoners that could have produced the blood on the shawl.

First there is Catherine Eddowes and her 11 siblings -- they would have all inherited the mutation from their mother (the mother died in 1851 so she's out).

Then there are the children of her sisters. Of Catherine 11 siblings at least two were sisters Eliza and Elizabeth. I don't know if there were other sisters -- I'm going by the Casebook entry. So if Eliza, Elizabeth, or any other sister of Catherine had children their mtDNA would have the mutation.

Catherine's 3 children - Annie, George, and another son.

If Catherine's mother had any sisters then their children would also have the mutation.

So that's basically what you are looking at for people that could have produced the blood on the shawl at the time of the murders. Catherine and her extended family.

EDIT: if you want to argue for contamination after the murders then that number of people would increase over time with each generation (although some lines would die out with no female children), but it would still have to be some from one of these lines that did the contaminating.

For the record: Annie, Thomas and then George. George is listed erroneously on some websites as second born. Thomas Conway was in fact second born to Catherine Eddowes and Thomas Conway (Quinn). Not that it matters a whole lot in this thread, but ya never know.

[Michael W Richards]

I´ve had this suggested before. But just HOW should we take it into account? By favouring Kosminski and predisposing that any gentile killer suspect will have to be more far-fetched?

Once we give more credence to Kosminski, we also make the conscious decision that Swanson (or Anderson, to be more correct) was more likely to be right than wrong.

I myself am of the opposite meaning. I believe that Anderson - as so many others - was prejudiced, and that he shoehorned a suspect into a frame as best as he could.

MacNaghten would have been privy to Andersons thought on the matter, but he nevertheless went for Druitt. Why would we not work from a presumption that the killer was more likely to be a gentile, knowing that?

Once again, I myself will happily declare that I do not invest much in MacNaghtens assertions either, but nevertheless!

The best,
Fisherman

Well said Fisherman, Im glad someones not afraid to state that point out loud here. To my eye Anderson gave us every indication by virtue of his quotes that he viewed the burgeoning Immigrant Jewish population as an invasion of sorts.

As to the shawl, even if the pronouncement is correct about this shawl and the individual case, that doesn't mean squat towards a solution that explains the Canonical theory.

Cheers

[Theagenes]

For the record: Annie, Thomas and then George. George is listed erroneously on some websites as second born. Thomas Conway was in fact second born to Catherine Eddowes and Thomas Conway (Quinn). Not that it matters a whole lot in this thread, but ya never know.

Thanks, I was just cribbing off the Eddowes entry here. In any case all three would have had the mtDNA mutation in question, but only Annie would have passed it on to the next generation.

Does anyone have a family tree for Annie's descendents? That would tell us the most likely people whose DNA could have possibly contaminated the shawl.

[Jeff Leahy]

That's certainly true, but just saying "it could have been contaminated" doesn't really mean anything. I can't have been contaminated by just anyone. It would have to be someone in direct matrilineal descent from Catherine (or one of her sisters maybe).

What are the chances of that prior to the shawl's first appearance in 1990?

After 1990 when this shawl became public and was claimed to be Eddowes it seems like there would be more of chance, at events like the one that has already been discussed.

I don't want to downplay the contamination aspect at all, because it's extremely important, but it really has to be looked in terms of who are the few people that actually carry the mtDNA that could contaminate it and did that opportunity ever arise? What about when the 2007 documentary was filmed? Was Karen Miller involved in that?

Interestingly I had the same conversation with Jake Luukenan who coming from Finland is well known for cutting through the crap.

The shawl has been displayed at various conferences and public meetings. The descendants of Cathrine Eddows were at the Wolverhampton conference, although i don't believe the Shawl was at that conference.

By clearly the shawl has been generally on public displays for some years previous to Russel Edwards buying it..

I doubt that it was not treated with reverence but certainly handled by many.

I personally have handled the TLSOMOL by Anderson. With gloves yes. But these artefacts have been handled And i doubt every handling has been record or can be remembered.

Yours Jeff

[Phil Carter]

I have finished the book now and the only evidence that the alleged semen stains were that is that they fluoresced with a greenish glow under UV light. So do lots of things. No spermatozoa were found and, as I have pointed out before, epithelial cells include skin, and cells from the airways, the mouth and nose, the bladder (and that's squamous epithelial cells -if you include all the other epithelial cells in the body you have to also include the gut, the blood vessels etc.). I can see no evidence whatever for masturbation or semen being in any way associated with this piece of cloth. Equally, there's no evidence that it wasn't. There's just no evidence.

As for the identification of a single cell as having come from a kidney, that is in my view impossible. You would need tissue consisting of several cells, possibly several hundred depending on which part of the kidney they were from, to positively identify them as kidney cells.

I also doubt whether any identifiable cells from 126 years ago could have survived on or in a piece of cloth. If there were cells they are much more likely to have been from more recent contamination.

Prosector

Hello Prosector,

At last! I have been waiting for this.
No evidence. In other words- the tests do NOT substantiate any claim re Aaron Kosminski himself having left semen on the cloth. ONLY a UV light was used to make any claim valid re semen. Many more forms possible. And SHOULD there be Kosminski (incl family) DNA on the cloth you state IYO thir more likely to have appeared recently.
In addition it is impossible to name any single cell to have derived from a kidney.

Now if I read this correctly this actually means is the possibility of fraudulent action re the Kosminski DNA (passing off present day DNA as 126 years old) and additionally re the Eddowes kidney cell- impossible opening up the possibility of present day contamination passing it off for something it isnt.

Correct?


best wishes

Phil

[Theagenes]

Interestingly I had the same conversation with Jake Luukenan who coming from Finland is well known for cutting through the crap.

The shawl has been displayed at various conferences and public meetings. The descendants of Cathrine Eddows were at the Wolverhampton conference, although i don't believe the Shawl was at that conference.

By clearly the shawl has been generally on public displays for some years previous to Russel Edwards buying it..

I doubt that it was not treated with reverence but certainly handled by many.

I personally have handled the TLSOMOL by Anderson. With gloves yes. But these artefacts have been handled And i doubt every handling has been record or can be remembered.

Yours Jeff

Yes, I get that. But again, while plenty of of people may have handled it, only a small number of people could have have contaminated it with the mtDNA that was found in then blood stain and matched with Karen Miller's mtDNA. That group of people is probably pretty much limited to Karen Miller herself, her mother and her siblings.

[lynn cates]

Put it to bed.

Hello Chris. From that interview, it sounds like they had the bed of Procrustus.

Cheers.
LC

[Theagenes]

Originally Posted by Prosector View Post
I have finished the book now and the only evidence that the alleged semen stains were that is that they fluoresced with a greenish glow under UV light. So do lots of things. No spermatozoa were found and, as I have pointed out before, epithelial cells include skin, and cells from the airways, the mouth and nose, the bladder (and that's squamous epithelial cells -if you include all the other epithelial cells in the body you have to also include the gut, the blood vessels etc.). I can see no evidence whatever for masturbation or semen being in any way associated with this piece of cloth. Equally, there's no evidence that it wasn't. There's just no evidence.

As for the identification of a single cell as having come from a kidney, that is in my view impossible. You would need tissue consisting of several cells, possibly several hundred depending on which part of the kidney they were from, to positively identify them as kidney cells.

I also doubt whether any identifiable cells from 126 years ago could have survived on or in a piece of cloth. If there were cells they are much more likely to have been from more recent contamination.

Prosector

Hello Prosector,

At last! I have been waiting for this.
No evidence. In other words- the tests do NOT substantiate any claim re Aaron Kosminski himself having left semen on the cloth. ONLY a UV light was used to make any claim valid re semen. Many more forms possible. And SHOULD there be Kosminski (incl family) DNA on the cloth you state IYO thir more likely to have appeared recently.
In addition it is impossible to name any single cell to have derived from a kidney.

Now if I read this correctly this actually means is the possibility of fraudulent action re the Kosminski DNA (passing off present day DNA as 126 years old) and additionally re the Eddowes kidney cell- impossible opening up the possibility of present day contamination passing it off for something it isnt.

Correct?


best wishes

Phil

Seriously? That's your takeaway from Prosecutor's carefully-worded, very cautious and measured assessment? An accusation of fraud? Wow!

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes, I get that. But again, while plenty of of people may have handled it, only a small number of people could have have contaminated it with the mtDNA that was found in then blood stain and matched with Karen Miller's mtDNA. That group of people is probably pretty much limited to Karen Miller herself, her mother and her siblings.

Hi Theagnes

I won't pretend to fully understand. I hope you will give ripperologists who specialise in other areas your patience.

I'm Stil a little unclear how this contamination question is? Or the probability of contamination?

It does however seem relevant if I'm being asked to except the science.

Bear in mind that people like myself have no expertise in this area. We have been told by experts that the shawl was one thing…and now being asked to except it is something else.

Those of us who are enthusiasts about the case can only accept expert analysis and opinion (The Marginalia being a point in fact)

So any advice you can give would be gratefully received.

Yours Jeff

[Phil Carter]

Seriously? That's your takeaway from Prosecutor's carefully-worded, very cautious and measured assessment? An accusation of fraud? Wow!

Now YOU really have to read slower - I said "the possibility of fraudulent action"

THAT IS NOT AN ACCUSATION. It is an observation of possibility.

laugh at that whilst you learn to read text properly


Phil

[Fisherman]

Theagenes: That's certainly true, but just saying "it could have been contaminated" doesn't really mean anything. I can't have been contaminated by just anyone. It would have to be someone in direct matrilineal descent from Catherine (or one of her sisters maybe).

If Louhelainen is on the money, and if nothing´s been tampered with, that´s true - then we are looking for close relatives. But we need to add women prior to Catherine Eddowes too, would we not?

What are the chances of that prior to the shawl's first appearance in 1990?
I wouldn´t propose to know. Do you?

After 1990 when this shawl became public and was claimed to be Eddowes it seems like there would be more of chance, at events like the one that has already been discussed.

I think we must keep an eye on both time periods, actually.

I don't want to downplay the contamination aspect at all, because it's extremely important, but it really has to be looked in terms of who are the few people that actually carry the mtDNA that could contaminate it and did that opportunity ever arise? What about when the 2007 documentary was filmed? Was Karen Miller involved in that?

No idea, but I don´t think so - they got no conclusive results and I don´t remember them thinking they may have Eddowes´DNA, so there would be no much reason to involve Karen Miller.

I think we need to wait to get a better understanding of the DNA involved - if somebody funds further research. If the shawl is just tucked away in a bank vault, we may never see those efforts.
Up til that time, there can be no decisions made.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Michael W Richards]

DNA will not solve the Ripper cases anyway, but a new approach to how evidence is considered might.

Ripperologists laugh at anyone who espouses ideas that conflict with the age old theorizing about Jacky Boy, when in fact its that Ripper killer of 5 theory that is the only one that has been proven to be unprovable.

Cheers