Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Mabuse]

The issue is covered in the BBC radio interview, Helena. The key is the way in which the stain fluoresces under forensic lighting. The one under scrutiny was consistent with semen.

OK ... huh.

I think I might have found something. I was looking for how long - how old - a semen stain can be for this fluorescence test to be valid. I found this:

"Under those specialized lights, semen will fluorescence [sic] due to the presence of molecules such as Flavin and Choline-conjugated proteins. The color of this fluorescence will vary from blue to yellow, depending on the light equipment used. There are many molecules (natural and artificial) that will fluoresce in a similar way as semen, and therefore, this detection technique is highly presumptive. Furthermore, not all semen stains will fluoresce under such specialized lights. Exposure of the sample to factors such as heat, humidity, oxidizing agents, and microorganisms such as bacteria and mold can affect this fluorescent activity. Semen fluorescence can also be masked by certain types of fabrics and fabric treatments."

Source.

This paper seems to be relevant. PDF warning.

It seems to suggest that absorption into the cloth reduces the effectiveness of this identification method. But it is absorbed material Dr Louhelainen is apparently analysing.

What am I missing?

[mickreed]

OK ... huh.

I think I might have found something. I was looking for how long - how old - a semen stain can be for this fluorescence test to be valid. I found this:



Source.

This paper seems to be relevant. PDF warning.

It seems to suggest that absorption into the cloth reduces the effectiveness of this identification method. But it is absorbed material Dr Louhelainen is apparently analysing.

What am I missing?

Mabuse, you lot in WA still have hours to go before bed-time.

Me, I'm going to turn the light out and will read this great-looking article au demain.

Cheers all

[Mabuse]

I dunno, I think my brain needs a rest. It's analog.

[Henry Flower]

It seems to suggest that absorption into the cloth reduces the effectiveness of this identification method. But it is absorbed material Dr Louhelainen is apparently analysing.

What am I missing?

Surely Dr Louhelainen is using surface fluorescence to identify a stain as possibly being semen, then analysing absorbed material from that area, better to eliminate the likelihood of surface contamination. I don't see any inherent contradiction there. And I can't imagine that a surface such as fine silk has powers of absorbancy that would mask the fluorescence in any case.

[Garry Wroe]

I was arguing that the likelihood of an innocent explanation is much greater when you're only dealing with a small proportion of the world's population, i.e, a small section of East London.

I understand you perfectly, Mick, and am in agreement. But the issue remains the same. Dr Jari's recovery technique involves deep fibre testing, thus overcoming the 'noise' that may be present on surface areas due to casual transference. The deep fibres he tested were said to have contained arterial blood. The implication is obvious: arterial blood is likely to have had a connection with the murder and therefore Mitre Square. What bothers me is that we appear to have no confirmation that the stains tested by Dr Jari were, in fact, arterial blood.

It looks like I’m going to have to buy the book.

[Henry Flower]

Hi Henry,
Just logged in & read this.....you made me splutter coffee all over my computer!

Anyone have an old shawl I could mop the stains up with?

Amanda

Good point Amanda - maybe they weren't blood stains after all. Maybe Kosminski came out with his best one-liners and made Kate spill something on her shawl. Some of the greatest comedians have been Jewish after all.

[Chris]

Yes, I saw that piece. It's not quite the way you state. At least, I didn't think so. For a start the author used her own haplogroup and not Kate's (because we don't know Kate's), and even if I believed her maths (I'm hopeless at maths) I'd find a big hole straight away. The figure 1.2 billion MIGHT be right in a real global sense, (or it might not), but if those two people lived in the same house, the likelihood would be virtually 100% certain.

The problem is the article depends on guesswork about what Dr Louhelainen did, based on a news report, and a lot of the guesses turned out to be wrong. But there are some interesting figures on the prevalence of haplogroup T1a1.

[Chris]

There are four photographs of the 'shawl' spread full length (with the detached piece lying at the cut end) on the floor (blue carpet or carpet tiles I believe) with nothing between it and the floor. In other words it is spread unprotected and in contact with the floor surface.

Oh dear - so it was as bad as it sounded, after all.

[Patrick S]

The problem is the article depemds on guesswork about what Dr Louhelainen did, based on a news report, and a lot of the guesses turned out to be wrong. But there are some interesting figures on the prevalence of haplogroup T1a1.

Nothing will be "proven" either way until this thing is independently tested. Even then, interpretation will be influenced by opinion to some degree. This will likely unfold along the lines of The Maybrick Diary and Cornwell's Sickert investigation: Those who buy-in, those who don't.

Right now, I fall in with the agnostics. Although, I can fairly see the handwriting on the wall. I think the case for the shawl will continue to crumble, although it will not be proven an outright hoax. Thus, in a few years time, Kozminski will go from strong contender to leader in the clubhouse as far as the media and general public are concerned.

[Chris]

What bothers me is that we appear to have no confirmation that the stains tested by Dr Jari were, in fact, arterial blood.

I think that's correct. There was photography under different illuminations, including fluorescence, which showed evidence of different bodily fluids, "such as faeces or intestinal fluid". There was an attempt to apply a presumptive blood test - the Kastle-Meyer test - but that was inconclusive owing to the presence of dye, according to the book. It seems to be the subsequent detection of human genetic material that was taken as confirmation that these were bloodstains.

[Amanda]

Blood stains

I think that's correct. There was photography under different illuminations, including fluorescence, which showed evidence of different bodily fluids, "such as faeces or intestinal fluid". There was an attempt to apply a presumptive blood test - the Kastle-Meyer test - but that was inconclusive owing to the presence of dye, according to the book. It seems to be the subsequent detection of human genetic material that was taken as confirmation that these were bloodstains.

Hi Chris,

Correct me if I'm going off on a tangent here, but could the blood stains just as easily have been menstrual blood or would there have been a difference?

Amanda

[Amanda]

Urban Legend

Let's ask Trevor Marriott about the semen. Wasn't it Trevor who thought that a particular merchant's semen was the key to the whole Ripper mystery?

(That might be slightly garbled - I must admit I haven't read his book, but he shouldn't hold that against me, as Trevor himself is an old hand at not reading Ripper books.)

Hi Henry,
Just noticed a book called 'Jack the Ripper - catch me when you can' by igloo books. The last chapter quotes:
" in a theory propounded by Trevor Marriott who has extensively studied the documents pertaining to the case, Jack the Ripper is only an urban legend".

Funny how Trevor has a lot to say about a chap that didn't exist!

Amanda

[Errata]

Hi Chris,

Correct me if I'm going off on a tangent here, but could the blood stains just as easily have been menstrual blood or would there have been a difference?

Amanda

No difference in terms of DNA, but I find it odd that she would be using a what would then be a brand new shawl to wipe herself with, especially when she had other options.

She was a drinker, and going inside and out on a cold night... I would think a nosebleed

If the scarf and blood is hers of course.

[Garry Wroe]

I think that's correct. There was photography under different illuminations, including fluorescence, which showed evidence of different bodily fluids, "such as faeces or intestinal fluid". There was an attempt to apply a presumptive blood test - the Kastle-Meyer test - but that was inconclusive owing to the presence of dye, according to the book. It seems to be the subsequent detection of human genetic material that was taken as confirmation that these were bloodstains.

Thanks, Chris. I think that that speaks volumes.

I think the case for the shawl will continue to crumble, although it will not be proven an outright hoax.

I hope that we don’t go down that road, Patrick. Leastways not without firm evidence of deception on the part of the author. As far as I’m concerned Mr Edwards has invested a great deal of his time, effort and money into this project and has presented his case in good faith. No-one, to the best of my knowledge, has ever brought this degree of scientific evidence to the table when proposing a suspect. Although at present I remain sceptical of Mr Edwards’ conclusions, I nevertheless applaud him and Dr Jari for their contributions.

Maybe next time.

[Amanda]

Exactly...

No difference in terms of DNA, but I find it odd that she would be using a what would then be a brand new shawl to wipe herself with, especially when she had other options.

She was a drinker, and going inside and out on a cold night... I would think a nosebleed

If the scarf and blood is hers of course.

Hi,
Quite right. What I was getting at was that the blood on the shawl might not necessarily be there as the result of a crime.

Amanda