Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[mickreed]

What direction do you believe this thread is going in?

Up its own apex.

[wolfie1]

Up its own apex.

[Amanda Sumner]

I also asked how quick death would be after such an injury. Dr Browne said that death was 'immediate'. I wondered what that meant - instantaneous (I doubt it); 5 seconds, 30 seconds, 2 minutes?

Death would have been immediate. All tissue was severed to the bone.
Both major vessels were cut, wind pipe and gullet. The heart may have continued to pump for a very short time after, but she was dead.

[Mabuse]

One thing I love about this thread has been the widespread implicit assumption of utter incompetence on the part of Drs Louhelainen and Miller...

I expect he kinda knows what he's doing - at least to the extent that he has heard of contamination and has seen blood stains of various ages on fabrics before. That kind of thing. The kind of expertise that we sort of trust when it doesn't concern the blessed Whitechapel Murders.

Just a hunch.

I don't see anyone implying Louhelainen and Miller are incompetent.

Louhelainen and Miller are humans. Just because they are scientists does not mean they are infallible. In the case of Dr Louhelainen, we already know he does not have the full picture of the chain of custody of this shawl. Therefore he might not have been able to adequately screen out contamination vectors, because he didn't know about them.

One does not need to be a DNA expert to recognise this, and the expertise of the scientists does not invalidate the observation.

Dr Louhelainen dismissed issues of Edwards being photographed handling the shawl without gloves due to the fact the photographs were taken after the tests. This ignores the prior handling the shawl received in over a decade being passed around, laid on the floor of the Crime Museum, having a pot plant propped on it, held up in a pub (where there are liquids everywhere) for a photo, put up for auction, wrapped up in cardboard and sent in the post, being in a box with other bits of unspecified clothing for over 70 years ... I guarantee he does not know about all of that.

These guys can only be as good as the information they're given. And it does look like the information they've been given is incomplete.

That's because Edwards seems to be shooting an arrow and painting a bullseye around it.

With that situation, caution about these matters is entirely reasonable.

[mickreed]

Yes. According to the book, the segment from the "shawl" that matched Karen Miller's mitochondrial DNA contains a rare mutation, designated 314.1C, which is found in only 1 in 290,000 people worldwide.

Yes Chris, but it's not that simple. Most of us have 315.1C at that position in the HVR2 region. 314.1C is indeed quite rare globally. I haven't yet been able to confirm the 1 in 290,000 figure, but it may be right.

However, if someone has it and their rellies are all around, it might be quite common in the local area. According to Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation:

Exact Matches: An exact match indicates another participant has the same mtDNA values that you entered. An exact match may mean that you share a common maternal ancestor in genealogical time (the last 500 years).

So Karen Miller's apparent exact match with the shawl DNA mean that the mutation may have occurred any time since the 15th century - and indeed possibly earlier, since these are only ever estimates, and indeed it could have occurred much later.

Let's split the difference and say it occurred around 1700. Then any person who descended from that woman in the direct maternal line would share that mutation. Kate would have had it, her sister(s), her daughter's her sisters daughters, her great-grandmother's daughters and so on.

Since mtDNA does not follow surnames, there could be Smiths, Reeds, Jones, etc all with the same mutation

Someone, I forget his name, did a genealogy on the Ripper victims. If Kate Eddowes was from a long line of Londoners, then there could be loads of people there, with that mutation.

[mickreed]

That's because Edwards seems to be shooting an arrow and painting a bullseye around it.

On the money, Mabuse. I know a lot of people, including me, have stressed that they have no doubt about the expertise and integrity of the scientists.

If Jari was told, as we seem to be being told, that the shawl was at the crime scene., then given his apparent findings, it would be reasonable to say - and this is all I've seen or heard him say - that his results do not contradict those suggestions.

What he should have been told was:

'I've heard that this might have been at a crime scene in 1888, I have no idea whether that is true or not, and BTW, the item has been kicked around for a hundred plus years, in and out of various venues, stared at by all and sundry, handled by an unknown number of all and sundry, used as a pot plant base, and that's only what I know for sure.'

What might he have said then?

[Fisherman]

On the money, Mabuse. I know a lot of people, including me, have stressed that they have no doubt about the expertise and integrity of the scientists.

If Jari was told, as we seem to be being told, that the shawl was at the crime scene., then given his apparent findings, it would be reasonable to say - and this is all I've seen or heard him say - that his results do not contradict those suggestions.

What he should have been told was:

'I've heard that this might have been at a crime scene in 1888, I have no idea whether that is true or not, and BTW, the item has been kicked around for a hundred plus years, in and out of various venues, stared at by all and sundry, handled by an unknown number of all and sundry, used as a pot plant base, and that's only what I know for sure.'

What might he have said then?

Perkele?

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

I'm not suggesting that I believe the shawl was ever there but if it was then we would have to entertain the possibility that the semen later discovered on the shawl was deposited at around the time of the crime and possibly by the killer.
Therefore, although we may not be able to accurately date either the blood or the semen, the semen would at the initial moment of the discovery of the shawl in the square have been fresh.
What direction do you believe this thread is going in?

I suspect this whole thread is running a marathon before a decent pair of running shoes have been sized and fitted , let alone laced up ..

the semen would at the initial moment of the discovery of the shawl in the square have been fresh.

I can theorize and spin conjecture back and forth with the best of them Caligo , but this is conjecture based on conjecture based on further conjecture ..

IF it is ever proven conclusively that AK's seamen is indeed present on the garment , and IF it is ever proven conclusively to have Kates blood upon it .. and IF it can ever be connected to her murder in Mitre Sq , then we can talk about why it would be impossible for him to knock one off within the time frame we know he was limited to ..

cheers , moonbegger

[mickreed]

Perkele?

The best,
Fisherman

Having looked Perkele up, Christer, you're probably rightm except it would have been

PERKELE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GUT]

Perkele?

The best,
Fisherman

G'day Fisherman

Are you allowed to swear.

[mickreed]

Someone, I forget his name, did a genealogy on the Ripper victims. If Kate Eddowes was from a long line of Londoners, then there could be loads of people there, with that mutation.

Hey Chris

Of course, I'm hoist by my own petard. I forgot that Kate was from Wolverhampton, and so it seems was her mother.

Mmmm! Back to the drawing board.

[John G]

Mick,

Do you feel its at least a major coincidence that the two genetic fragments analysed on the shawl come from a rare mutation and a rare haplogroup, that relate to Eddowes and Kosminski respectively? For example, Eddowes shares the mutation and Kosminski the haplogroup. I'm not saying this is a 1.2 billion to one coincidence, as has been suggested, but its surely pretty unlikely.

And regarding coincidences, its not as if Eddowes and Kosminski are linked only by the genetic evidence. i believe they lived only 200 yards from each other and, of course, a witness claimed to have seen them together just before Eddowes body was found.

As I said earlier, i'm pretty skeptical usually but there's only so much coincidence that I can take before becoming suspicious!

[Fisherman]

G'day Fisherman

Are you allowed to swear.

I am. I swear!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

a witness claimed to have seen them together just before Eddowes body was found.

Steady on, John G...! I fail to see that any witness claimed such a thing. I think you may have a combination of an inventive newspaper article and a fresh theory about another suspect on your hands - but no witness claiming to have seen either Eddowes or Kosminski.

Lawende said that the woman he saw wore the same type of clothes as best as he could remember, but Joseph Levy said nothing about recognizing or being able to ID either of the two persons in Church Passage.

The best,
Fisherman

[mickreed]

Mick,

Do you feel its at least a major coincidence that the two genetic fragments analysed on the shawl come from a rare mutation and a rare haplogroup, that relate to Eddowes and Kosminski respectively? For example, Eddowes shares the mutation and Kosminski the haplogroup. I'm not saying this is a 1.2 billion to one coincidence, as has been suggested, but its surely pretty unlikely.

And regarding coincidences, its not as if Eddowes and Kosminski are linked only by the genetic evidence. i believe they lived only 200 yards from each other and, of course, a witness claimed to have seen them together just before Eddowes body was found.

As I said earlier, i'm pretty skeptical usually but there's only so much coincidence that I can take before becoming suspicious!

G'day John.

My worry is that I'm not sure that we really know what the DNA info is. As I've repeatedly said, I can't get the book in Australia until 30 September, so I'm reliant on what others are saying.

Jari, the scientist seems to be much less definite in his statements than Edwards. I'd expect that. If the 314.1C mutation is definitive, then that is fairly unusual, although just how unusual in the particular place at that particular time needs research.

Now, the haplogroup T1a1 ascribed to the 'Kosminski' DNA is not particularly unusual. It IS unusual amongst Ashkenazi Jews, but not amongst the general population.

Witnesses? So far as I know (and I've been wrong before) nobody has ever said they saw Eddowes and Kosminski together. Lawnde and Levy saw a man and a woman. The woman fitted Eddowes description. The man wore a peaked cloth cap, looked a bit rough and shabby, and was about three inches taller than Kate.

Had someone said, 'I saw Aaron Kosminski with her just before the murder', surely he'd have been pulled in.