Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Roy Corduroy]

. I specifically said that IF the DNA findings were solid - meaning that the DNA of Eddowes and Kosminski was on the shawl - then the provenance wouldn't be as important as some people perceive it. We would have to accept that somehow an apron with the DNA on it of a murder victim and a leading suspect in her murder passed into the hands of Amos Simpson's family, despite the fact that there was no immediate acceptable explanation of how that happened.

In other words, you can't dismiss the DNA evidence (assuming it is solid) just because the received provenance is crap.

Hi Paul,

I don't understand. The DNA tests are done and written up. Either it's solid or not. What am I missing here?

Roy

[RockySullivan]

Anyway even if the shawl was proved to eddowes DNA it doesn't have Koz just another Ashkenazi

[mickreed]

As a matter of fact I have NEVER believed Kosminski was guilty, as anyone who knows me can attest, and I had no hand in writing the article you cite, nor do I know the other authors. I talked with oneof them on the telephone and they gave me an authorial credit. My position is and always has been that Kosminski was the primary suspect for research.

Fair enough Paul. You are given equal billing as one of the four authors though and so the reader wouldn't know what you've just stated.

Thanks for the clarification.

[RockySullivan]

Are those statistics actually accurate for the probability of eddowes DNA? 1 in 300k?

[christoper]

Anyway even if the shawl was proved to eddowes DNA it doesn't have Koz just another Ashkenazi

It sounds as though enough sample has been recovered that given the money, time and effort--it may be possible to give a very precise match on the seminal fluid.

[mickreed]

Really? I know Paul better than most and frankly I find his obsession with balance sometimes infuriating.

This statement simply isn't true

Yours Jeff

Cheers Jeff. Well I cited the 1992 article in which Paul is listed as a co-author and which ends:

In summary, the evidence points to the serial killer Jack the Ripper being Aaron Kosminski.

So I don't think it was an unreasonable claim on my part. Paul has now said in a post just now, that he wasn't an author, but was merely given credit as one by people he didn't know.

I accept that unreservedly, but worry about the other authors all the more.

[Theagenes]

What! No source citations? - bloody hell! I've pre-ordered the Kindle version but there's a fortnight before I'll get it, so my frustrations over lack of support apparatus are all ahead of me.

Thanks for the hope bit. Everything's fine. I should have something on Dr Hebbert for you soon.

Mick

No kidding! Grrr!

[wolfie1]

Kozminsky DNA

Since I imagine few people will read my massive stream of consciousness post above I want to repeat an important point that made at the end and that I don't want to get lost.

According to Louhelainen they recovered genomic or nDNA from the semen stain which means they should have Y chromosome DNA information. For genealogical purposes Y-DNA works much like mtDNA except that it is passed down from the father rather than the mother.

From all accounts the AK relative that "matched" the DNA of the semen was a descendant of Matilda, which means it had to be an mtDNA match, because being female she couldn't pass on Y-DNA. So they presumably have both Y-DNA and mtDNA from the semen.

This means that if a patrilineal descendant of Woolf or Isaac (who could pass on the Y-DNA) could be found and tested that could be a near definitive match possible (or eliminate AK conclusively). And it would only cost a couple hundred bucks.

Wolfie, do any any of the Kosminski relatives you know fit that bill?

I am aware that the Kozmisky family in Australia had sons, from the male head of house, so yes potentially there could be direct male lineage DNA here.

[mickreed]

Hi Paul,

I don't understand. The DNA tests are done and written up. Either it's solid or not. What am I missing here?

Roy

Quite a lot, actually. The DNA tests haven't been written up in any detail, and certainly not by the scientific team which has yet to publish the peer-reviewed paper.

Jari, in the BBC radio interview, was at some pains to distance himself from the certainty expressed by Edwards on the results.

[Theagenes]

I am aware that the Kozmisky family in Australia had sons, from the male head of house, so yes potentially there could be direct male lineage DNA here.

There would need to be a direct male line from son to father to grandfather, etc. going back to Isaac or Woolf Abrahams/Kosminski. If so then that descendants Y chromosome DNA could be potentially be matched with the DNA from the semen.

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,

I don't understand. The DNA tests are done and written up. Either it's solid or not. What am I missing here?

Roy

Roy,
That is not the case, which is why some people are questioning the validity of the findings. The science needs to be thoroughly evaluated before it is dismissed or accepted. But if it is accepted we cannot then dismiss it because the provenance is bad.

[dropzone]

Jari, in the BBC radio interview, was at some pains to distance himself from the certainty expressed by Edwards on the results.

He sounded uncomfortable, and said he had no idea so many people would take what he considered a minor side job so seriously.

[Chris]

No considering London had a population of 6 million + in 1900

Irrelevant.

In everyday life, when trying to find evidence to work out whether the answer to a question is "Yes" or "No", what kind of evidence do you take into account?

Suppose you had a magic coin, which - if the answer was "No" - would come up heads only 1 time out of every 290,000 times you tossed it. Are you saying that tossing that coin would give you no useful information?

[christoper]

Well, not just touched the shawl, but bled on and ejaculated on, respectively, according to what has been presented (you could argue the semen I suppose).

But yes, according to the DNA evidence as it stands, assuming no later contamination, you have a shawl that has the blood of Catherine Eddowes or one of certain matrilineally related relatives (siblings, daughter, etc.) who bled on it, then Kosminski or one of his male relatives ejaculated on it.

Proven 100%? No I guess not, but should it be dismissed and ignored? Is it worth digging a bit deeper? Do think modern cops would be interested in something like that? Just sayin.'

Now as I said, "assuming no later contamination," so let's address that. It doesn't matter who touched unless they have the same mtDNA as Eddowes, so it couldn't be just any relative of Eddowes. It would have to be her daughter Annie, or one of Annie's children, or one of Annie's daughter(s)'s children, etc. Now is there any evidence that anyone has that this could have happened? This is a serious question and does need to be addressed. THere has been talk of Eddowes descendants at an event where the shawl was on display. Adam Wood has posted that they did not have an opportunity to come in contact with it. And even if they did what is their exact relationship to Eddowes, because that is critical? Does anyone know of any other time that an Eddowes relative could have come in contact with it?

Like you pointed out--touching wouldn't do it--the close relative would have had to bleed on it. And bleed a lot--as apparently some areas are quite soaked.

And apparently some of the spatter hit the cloth with medium to high velocity--so it seems that rellie would have to have been stabbed or shot in the vicinity of the cloth.

And it couldn't have happened recently--because the DNA is degraded to an extent that it is obviously quite old. It becomes very improbable for any scenario except that this was indeed at the murder scene of KE.

[Chris]

Are those statistics actually accurate for the probability of eddowes DNA? 1 in 300k?

That's what the book says.