Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Henry Flower]

Hello Henry.

"there's not much more to be said absent a proper scientific paper from Dr Louhelainen."

And now it looks like that will not happen. He claims:

1. He is too busy.

2. He lacks funding.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Yeah, because if I, as a forensic cold-case specialist, had finally solved the most famous unsolved murders in the history of the species, that would be my excuse too. Oh, sure, I would publish my historic findings, but I'm teaching all next week, and at the weekend I'm washing my hair and sterilising my pipettes, and then the wife wants me to lay some decking on the patio. Oh jeez, where does the time go..

Sure.....

Hmmmmm.

Cheers,

HF

[Lechmere]

If you publish a suspect book via a mainstream publisher, then guess what?
They will pretty much insist that it is presented as case closed and the definitive answer.
Is anyone actually unaware of that?
Can the author realistically be blamed for presenting his own case as definitive?
This is the real world we are dealing with, not a fantasy land in a self important discussion forum in the nether reaches of the virtual world-wide interweb.

Secondly, I would suppose that Dr Jari Whatshisname has read the book, lack of references an' all. Despite his properly cautious scientific approach with sensible (and almost certainly telling) caveats, he has not contradicted Russell or distanced himself from the claims.

Lastly the flowers could in reality be Parma Violets or Deadly Nightshade and it would not affect the case one way or another.

[Henry Flower]

not a fantasy land in a self important discussion forum in the nether reaches of the virtual world-wide interweb.

Oh poor Lechmere! Yet another regular who looks down on the forums and is forced here against their will, presumably at gunpoint.

Do you need help, Lechmere? Have you been forced here? Maybe you can't admit it openly, maybe you're in danger. Blink twice if you're here against your will.

[Mabuse]

Info on the Shawl

Hello. First time poster, (very) long time reader of casebook, here.

I have several things I would like to say, and I don't think they've been adequately touched upon in this tremendously long thread, but forgive me if they have and I've missed them. I will not submit a very long post right now, though.

First thing: it's worth noting that I'm in contact with a younger member of the family who kept the "shawl" for so long. They say there's very little to add to what has been publically stated, but I think they can clear up a few things for us nonetheless.

According to them, the shawl was kept in the sea chest for ages, for many years in the former owners attic, and over 50 in his mother's attic. It was very rarely if ever brought out, and was not a discussion piece. This is not an item that they brought out to show people. It seems to have been regarded as somewhat macabre. It was never washed.

They say they obviously cannot confirm that it belonged to a Ripper victim, but that is indeed what they have always been told.

The story of the "Sunday Best" being kept in the same chest is false, my contact found this term very funny. However, other unspecified items of clothing were kept there, but nothing so very special. The previous owner was apparently "quite scared of" the shawl and kept it at the bottom of the chest.

My contact did not get a very good look at the shawl due to its rare removal from the box, and cannot confirm that it had any obvious "blood spatter".

To their knowledge, Amos did not keep any other souvenirs from crime scenes, but there may be a follow up to this, as it is a curious question that may get asked around the family.

This individual readily admits that the story of how Amos acquired the shawl is dubious, and they themselves are skeptical of it, nevertheless this is the family tradition as it has been passed down.

Due to the nature of this contact - a random comment I made about this new JtR development on another forum being added to quite by chance by the individual in question - I am not going to push it and badger them with a whole lot of questions. I'm satisfied that this person is telling the truth. If they let me know any other salient details I'll pass them along

[robhouse]

Hello. First time poster, (very) long time reader of casebook, here.

I have several things I would like to say, and I don't think they've been adequately touched upon in this tremendously long thread, but forgive me if they have and I've missed them. I will not submit a very long post right now, though.

First thing: it's worth noting that I'm in contact with a younger member of the family who kept the "shawl" for so long. They say there's very little to add to what has been publically stated, but I think they can clear up a few things for us nonetheless.

According to them, the shawl was kept in the sea chest for ages, for many years in the former owners attic, and over 50 in his mother's attic. It was very rarely if ever brought out, and was not a discussion piece. This is not an item that they brought out to show people. It seems to have been regarded as somewhat macabre. It was never washed.

They say they obviously cannot confirm that it belonged to a Ripper victim, but that is indeed what they have always been told.

The story of the "Sunday Best" being kept in the same chest is false, my contact found this term very funny. However, other unspecified items of clothing were kept there, but nothing so very special. The previous owner was apparently "quite scared of" the shawl and kept it at the bottom of the chest.

My contact did not get a very good look at the shawl due to its rare removal from the box, and cannot confirm that it had any obvious "blood spatter".

To their knowledge, Amos did not keep any other souvenirs from crime scenes, but there may be a follow up to this, as it is a curious question that may get asked around the family.

This individual readily admits that the story of how Amos acquired the shawl is dubious, and they themselves are skeptical of it, nevertheless this is the family tradition as it has been passed down.

Due to the nature of this contact - a random comment I made about this new JtR development on another forum being added to quite by chance by the individual in question - I am not going to push it and badger them with a whole lot of questions. I'm satisfied that this person is telling the truth. If they let me know any other salient details I'll pass them along

Thanks. A useful post (finally).

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
One wonders if the author, actually penned the idea of Michaelmas from the fictional book 'Michaelmas Girls', by John Brooks Barry? mid 1970's.
Regards Richard.

[mickreed]

Hello Henry.

"there's not much more to be said absent a proper scientific paper from Dr Louhelainen."

And now it looks like that will not happen. He claims:

1. He is too busy.

2. He lacks funding.

Cheers.
LC

Well Lynn, you may be paraphrasing a bit too freely, even eagerly, but if these reports are true, it's a real blow. Maybe Christer could get some info on this since he's in contact with Jari.

As we know this was only ever a sideline for Jari done in his spare time. Who knows how much time it would take to put the article together. I know from my own academic work in history, and indeed from stuff I've done for the Ripperologist and other places, to do the job properly is very time-consuming.

Maybe there could be a role for crowd-funding on the financial side. I'd certainly bung a few quid in that direction.

[mickreed]

Hello. First time poster, (very) long time reader of casebook, here.

I have several things I would like to say, and I don't think they've been adequately touched upon in this tremendously long thread, but forgive me if they have and I've missed them. I will not submit a very long post right now, though.

First thing: it's worth noting that I'm in contact with a younger member of the family who kept the "shawl" for so long. They say there's very little to add to what has been publically stated, but I think they can clear up a few things for us nonetheless.

According to them, the shawl was kept in the sea chest for ages, for many years in the former owners attic, and over 50 in his mother's attic. It was very rarely if ever brought out, and was not a discussion piece. This is not an item that they brought out to show people. It seems to have been regarded as somewhat macabre. It was never washed.

They say they obviously cannot confirm that it belonged to a Ripper victim, but that is indeed what they have always been told.

The story of the "Sunday Best" being kept in the same chest is false, my contact found this term very funny. However, other unspecified items of clothing were kept there, but nothing so very special. The previous owner was apparently "quite scared of" the shawl and kept it at the bottom of the chest.

My contact did not get a very good look at the shawl due to its rare removal from the box, and cannot confirm that it had any obvious "blood spatter".

To their knowledge, Amos did not keep any other souvenirs from crime scenes, but there may be a follow up to this, as it is a curious question that may get asked around the family.

This individual readily admits that the story of how Amos acquired the shawl is dubious, and they themselves are skeptical of it, nevertheless this is the family tradition as it has been passed down.

Due to the nature of this contact - a random comment I made about this new JtR development on another forum being added to quite by chance by the individual in question - I am not going to push it and badger them with a whole lot of questions. I'm satisfied that this person is telling the truth. If they let me know any other salient details I'll pass them along

Yes, good and useful post. Nothing wrong with having a family tradition. Your contact seems very wise to be sceptical and if s/he is representative of the rest of the family, then that scepticism could, reasonably, have found its way to Russell Edwards and into the book.

Pity it didn't.

But thanks again.

[Lechmere]

No Mr Flower I am no forced here, but neither do I elevate discussion on here to some rarefied plane where answers are demanded of private individuals and where people should be vilified for supposed transgressions of what self important people on here regard as what is right and proper.
Most of the discussion about this book is by people who haven't read it - or worse, people who are willing to spend hours discussing something about which they have the gall to brag that they will not read or buy!
And then those self same people lecture any who read their prose about the rights and wrongs of Russell Edwards' enterprise.
Nearly everything said on the various shawl threads is divorced from reality - how the real world operates.

[Severina]

Would Russell Edwards have to give permission to Dr. Louhelainen to publish in a peer reviewed journal, or to conduct further tests?

I'm asking because if Mr. Edwards has privately funded all the testing thus far, I wonder if he therefore has ownership (and control) of all the specimens, data, and test results.

I have no idea if he does or not, or how such things work. I'm just raising it as a question because it might be factor in whether or not more complete testing is ever done.

[mickreed]

Would Russell Edwards have to give permission to Dr. Louhelainen to publish in a peer reviewed journal, or to conduct further tests?

I'm asking because if Mr. Edwards has privately funded all the testing thus far, I wonder if he therefore has ownership (and control) of all the specimens, data, and test results.

I have no idea if he does or not, or how such things work. I'm just raising it as a question because it might be factor in whether or not more complete testing is ever done.

Who knows, but I would think it unlikely. I imagine any self-respecting academic (and I have no doubt that Jari is that) would not embark on a project like this with his hands tied like that.

What we do know, direct from Jari, is that he only took the job on as a challenge to see what was possible. He did it in his spare time, but using hi employers laboratory. He involved friends of his in other institutions.

I doubt that Edwards could put a block on publication unless there had been some very loose dealings at the outset. It's possible that it could have been loose since Jari knew so little about JTR, but I doubt it.

[mickreed]

Nearly everything said on the various shawl threads is divorced from reality - how the real world operates.

The real world is a place where people kill each other in horrific ways, rip each other off, rob, rape and pillage.

Are you suggesting that such actions should be condoned as well.

Or just the right for someone to claim far too much for his book just to make a few quid.

Integrity. Ever come across that?

[Garry Wroe]

Stewart, no offense but you've clearly demonstrated you have not read the book and that you are not likely too either and yet post after post from you seems to speak from authority on the subject. It's not really on becuase all it does is spread disinformation and derails proper discussion.

With respect, Poch, Stewart does speak with authority on the subject – the subject of the Whitechapel Murders. Courtesy of his intimate knowledge of the case he has demonstrated the absurdity of the notion that Amos could have intercepted the shawl as Kate’s body was being transferred to the mortuary. He has also demonstrated the extreme unlikelihood that Amos could have been on City territory on the night in question, and has provided crucial information regarding the shawl’s provenance and history. In point of fact Stewart is doing what any responsible historian would do when evaluating a theory. He is testing the theorist’s claims on the basis of the established evidence. And on that score the provenance of the shawl fails miserably.

[Mabuse]

I would like to make comments about Kosminski and his mental illness.

I have had quite a lot of experience with people suffering from schizophrenia, in fact I've been a carer for two such individuals in my family while they were very ill.

While I am not a psychiatrist, I have had extensive guidance and training from mental health professionals in dealing with the disease, obviously.

I'm worried that some people here have made some pretty broad statements about schizophrenia and some of the speculation about the way it manifests don't appear to be accurate. Apologies if I've misunderstood comments.

Most people suffering from schizophrenia are not violent. They are more often quiet and withdrawn. Drugs and alcohol might increase the risk of violence, and people with psychotic or paranoid signs might under some circumstances become violent.

Schizophrenia is more like a range of disorders rather than one specific type of mental illness. Its sufferers do, however, fit in to broad patterns of symptoms and behaviour. It also can co-exist with other disorders, as has already been noted, but the variety of these other disorders can be very wide indeed.

I've also had very interesting discussions with several people with this disease when they are feeling less ill in which they've described the nature of their hallucinations, intrusive thoughts and other symptoms.

In regards to what we know of Aaron Kosminski, I think we can say he was a schizophrenic. He sounds like a paranoid type schizophrenic (this is actually not an accurate term any more but I'll use it for clarity). He had auditory hallucinations, was compelled to eat discarded food and drink water from the tap. I think it is safe to assume he feared people were tampering with his food, trying to poison him or some-such. He lost a dangerous amount of weight by the time he died due to these delusions.

The idea of schizophrenics being homicidal is a false one. A very small percentage of schizophrenics are physically violent. Most violent crimes are not committed by people who have schizophrenia.

It is absolutely true, however, that there have been schizophrenic serial killers. That Kosminski had schizophrenia doesn't mean he wasn't Jack the Ripper, I'm just moving toward a point that will become a bit clearer in my next post.

[Garry Wroe]

It doesn't matter that the provenience of this shawl is questionable. It is an object that has long been associated with the Whitechapel murders, rightly or wrongly, and now the technology exists to test that hypothesis, weak as it may be.

Sorry, Theagenes, but it does matter. It matters a great deal. All of the DNA testing in the world counts for nothing if Kate Eddowes’ DNA never came into contact with the shawl. So if, for example, the shawl was manufactured post 1888, the supposed bloodstains from which DNA was extracted could not have emanated from Kate. This, in turn, would render Dr Jari’s conclusions entirely redundant. The same would apply if the shawl’s manufacture postdated Aaron’s 1891 committal to Colney Hatch.

But even if the shawl predates 1888 the story of how it came into the possession of Amos is so absurd that it confounds all common sense. This was a garment that had no known connection to Kate. It was almost certainly not at the crime scene when Watkins chanced upon the body and was not included in the inventory compiled at the mortuary. On top of this Amos had no known connection with a crime scene that not only fell outside his own division, but was not even under Met jurisdiction.

In his BBC radio interview Dr Jari described how he ‘authenticated’ the shawl. He compared the mtDNA derived from one of Kate’s descendants to that contained within a presumed bloodstain on the shawl, uncovered a match, and from there used this mtDNA match as the basis for assuming that the shawl had been present at the Mitre Square crime scene.

As someone trained in scientific research methodology I have to say that this is poor science. In fact, it isn’t science at all. It is speculation based upon the assumption that the mtDNA recovered from the bloodstain was Kate’s. At present there is no compelling scientific evidence to support this contention. The mtDNA in itself is insufficient to prove that Kate came into contact with the shawl. Even if she did, this wouldn’t prove that the shawl was at the crime scene.

Like I said: poor science.

On top of this we have the preposterous suggestions as to how the shawl came to be in Amos’s possession. The only plausible explanation I can come up with is that the shawl was seized during Aaron’s arrest by the Met. If it was stored in an evidence room it might have been ‘borrowed’ by a policeman who was aware of Anderson’s Aaron-related suspicions and later given or sold to Amos by the officer concerned.

But this would be problematical in itself. If the shawl was recovered from Aaron’s home it may well have been contaminated by the DNA of a brother or some other family member. Hence the conclusions of Mr Edwards and Dr Jari are, I would suggest, more than a little premature.

So, back to my initial contention. In the absence of full DNA profiles from Kate and Aaron the shawl becomes pivotal. At the very least its precise date of manufacture must be established to determine whether it could have been at the Mitre Square crime scene as claimed by Mr Edwards. If it couldn’t, the mtDNA evidence has to be called into question, as would Mr Edwards’ assertion that he has ‘definitively, categorically and absolutely’ identified Jack the Ripper.

Now, where have I heard that one before?