Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Phil Carter]

It's hardly a surprise that you're unable to substantiate your insinuations.

still not biting the bait, what a shame eh?

Did you know Im a pike fisherman Chris?

I know a dodgy worn out wobbler when Im thrown one. I know of one such wobbler in Scandinavian pike fishing circles called the entrapment wobbler. Sussed it out ages ago. I do love pike fishing. Vicious teeth you know.

DO have a lovelx evening Chris!
And have fun working out how to oust this field of shaky book stories :-)

Phil

[mickreed]

Did you know Im a pike fisherman Chris?


Phil

When I fished pike, there were a lot of Crazy Crawlers around. What's changed?

They also used gags. Could do with some here.

[Phil Carter]

Phil, the parade of paperbacks claiming definitive solutions will never end, and you know it. That shouldn't affect you, though. Tom Wescott rejects the shawl out of hand, but says his own excellent book has enjoyed an uptick in sales due to increased public interest in the case.

So instead of trying to stamp it out like some foul contagion that infects the Ripperological community, why not research, publish, ride the wave generated by the next 'solution' charlatan? Sure beats whining about it

Henry,

I WILL NOT assume your interest or not in the field in 1991 and onwards- but will honestly remind you if you were around that it got very very nasty indeed- police involvement to boot.

Im not whining- I can see it fast approaching the level of The Diary debacle.

Ride the wave until the next one?

This isnt a fun game Henry.
Women were murdered and some people think it is ok to take the **ss and make money out of dodgy stories and Jack the Ripper lip balm.

I dont think I want to surf that sort of wave thank you.

Not to my taste. Know what I mean?

regards

Phil

[Chris]

Sorry, Phil, but I just don't understand you.

You know no one here is "backing" the story. What some of us are trying to do is understand the scientific evidence that has been presented. I think that understanding the evidence is what anyone with any kind of scholarly inclination will instinctively try to do.

My expectation is that there will be an alternative explanation of that scientific evidence, which will not be in conflict with the historical evidence about the crime scene.

I don't understand why people trying to understand the evidence should fill you with such hostility. And I certainly don't pretend to understand your comments about bait, pike, fishermen and wobblers.

[Henry Flower]

Henry,

I WILL NOT assume your interest or not in the field in 1991 and onwards- but will honestly remind you if you were around that it got very very nasty indeed- police involvement to boot.

Im not whining- I can see it fast approaching the level of The Diary debacle.

Ride the wave until the next one?

This isnt a fun game Henry.
Women were murdered and some people think it is ok to take the **ss and make money out of dodgy stories and Jack the Ripper lip balm.

I dont think I want to surf that sort of wave thank you.

Not to my taste. Know what I mean?

regards

Phil

Oh please. the moral high-horse thing really doesn't suit you. I've been reading your posts for a long time now Phil, and the bleeding heart thing just isn't you. You've done more than almost anyone else on Casebook to turn the murders of these women into a silly game of riddles and conspiracies. You're not here because you care about them as people in anything more than a generic sense, just like the rest of us, so don't give yourself airs and graces, and don't presume to lecture me on the ethics of the macabre little field called Ripperology.

[Phil Carter]

Oh please. the moral high-horse thing really doesn't suit you. I've been reading your posts for a long time now Phil, and the bleeding heart thing just isn't you. You've done more than almost anyone else on Casebook to turn the murders of these women into a silly game of riddles and conspiracies. You're not here because you care about them as people in anything more than a generic sense, just like the rest of us, so don't give yourself airs and graces, and don't presume to lecture me on the ethics of the macabre little field called Ripperology.

Hello Henry!

Any response in the same tone to this parade of personal attacks could be considered rude. The moral high horse I ride jumps fences like this. And I dont stop to take a swipe at the branches either. Giddy up!

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Sorry, Phil, but I just don't understand you.

You know no one here is "backing" the story. What some of us are trying to do is understand the scientific evidence that has been presented. I think that understanding the evidence is what anyone with any kind of scholarly inclination will instinctively try to do.

My expectation is that there will be an alternative explanation of that scientific evidence, which will not be in conflict with the historical evidence about the crime scene.

I don't understand why people trying to understand the evidence should fill you with such hostility. And I certainly don't pretend to understand your comments about bait, pike, fishermen and wobblers.

No...it isnt the people Chris, it is, as I have stated before re The Diary- which warning signs are being ignored by some- you included from every response I have seen from you, But hey ho- live as you please.

Thats not my call. Just I see this becoming a long drawn out argument that gets worse and worse- like the Diary. Very similar methodology being seen infact. Thats my opinion. I dont want to see it again.

Now again. Have a pleasant evening :-) Sleep here

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

However, on the broader point, I've always had problems with some of the expert estimates of timings. I have never been able to understand why exactly a brutal hacker and slasher like JtR would have needed a whole quarter of an hour to do what he did to Chapman. Five minutes for Eddowes seems more reasonable. If Chapman, in the relative privacy of the back yard, needed quarter of an hour minimun, then Eddowes - out in the open - becomes impossible; no time for the editing of her face, let alone taking the runner from that table he carried into Mitre Square with him and using it to... catch his drift.

I don't think he had anatomical knowledge. I think certain things might be difficult for a layman to locate and remove - if that is their intention. But it might not be difficult to chance upon something and remove it without even knowing what it is you've removed, if you're just hacking for fun and grabbing and ripping, which the list of Eddowes' injuries seems to indicate.


Not that I think any of that is necessarily how it played out.

Henry, when I introduced myself here, I pointed out that my interests had previously been in Cream and Tumblety, so in a way, I am playing catch up.

I agree with your point on the expert witness testimony of the timings. I'm just using them to define a timing range as the Eddowes killing seems to have a very tight timeline. One point I worry about is, rather than mad flailing about with a knife, that there seems to be some kind crude methodology to the killings - but I'm just a neophyte at this stuff.

And I agree that "Not that I think any of that is necessarily how it played out."

Enjoy reading your thoughts.

cheers, gryff

[The Good Michael]

Hi All

I'm not really sure about the DNA found on the shawl, I don't really think Eddowes possessed this, but I think there is something else that may connect Kosminski to Eddowes.

Kosminski died from gangrene of the leg in 1919, now I know that seems like a long time from 1888, but what was really interesting was that Eddowes had some kind of infection, (check the PM report, the Dr talks about a strange discoloration that he monitored over a few days) not an STD, but an infection which I believe was cellulitis.

Cellulitis is a skin infection that can turn into gangrene if not treated. Kosminski may have developed a skin infection from the cut, and subsequently developed gangrene over a period of time.

If Kosminski was Eddowes murderer, then he may have cut his leg (Kosminski died from gangrene of the leg) when killing Eddowes. The apron found in GS may have been tied around his leg, and he may have lost it without realising it.

Gangrene that lasted more than 30 years? I would love to have had an infection that allowed me to live an additional 30 years.


Mike

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Hey, Gryff

The problem that somebody did do it in the time available, if the witnesses are right about the timings.

So, if it's right that you would need to know how to find the kidney, and you also managed to find and remove it so quickly, then it does suggest, to me, that you knew someone of what you were doing.

@mickread: Obviously it did get done - inside a very tight timeline. As I explained in my previous post above, I'm a rookie at this and I'm trying to understand the whole timing issue.

The precise kidney removal, claimed by Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown, is a big issue.

Did PC James Harvey actually walk down Church Passage and look into Mitre Square, or did he just give a perfunctory glance down Church Passage and continue on his beat. That could free up the timeline a little - but would of course be pure speculation on my part.

Enjoy reading your posts.

cheers, gryff

[dropzone]

If he was a compulsive public masturbator he would have been arrested - it was against the law.
...
Was Kosminski a suspect in 1888? Where is the evidence that he was being surveilled?

All very good points that are being roundly ignored in this thread, though maybe not in other threads nor in the hundreds of books one is apparently required to memorize, contradictions and all, before posting here.

I have known for many, many years where Cream was in 1888 - Joliet Prison.

Drove past it the other day! We're not going to let Londoners have all the fun, and Chicagoland has its own reputation to live up to.

Yes, he would only have been 22/23 in 1888, so too young for GPI to start affecting his mind. However if we presume that he contracted syphilis at age 18, it would be reasonable to presume that the disease would have progressed by the time he reached late twenties. Isn't that when he was committed to an asylum? Or am I getting confused?

If he were infected at birth the confusion goes away! GPI can take a couple decades to develop and congenital syphilis was common back then.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Drove past it the other day! We're not going to let Londoners have all the fun, and Chicagoland has its own reputation to live up to.

dropzone, you have your own macabre killer, H. H. Holmes - mind you it was the Boston Police that arrested him.

cheers, gryff

[Theagenes]

Okay, so having finally acquired an ebook version of Edwards' book, here are my thoughts. Over all it is a very weak and amateurish effort, though I suppose it was never intended to be anything more than that. There is a lot of fluff. I skimmed the chapters about his various marriages, his superficial overviews of the murders and th emajor suspects, and a lot of his own spurious theorizing. The Michaelmas stuff is as silly as it sounds and is only relevent in in that tends to cloud his judgement at times when he is interpreting the information that he is given.

THe fact that he is overreaching far beyond what Jari is saying is evident -- in fact he basically admits that on several occasions saying things like (paraphased), "Jari was trying to downplay this, but he's a scientist and has to be cautious. I didn't really understand it, but I knew we were on to something..." There are also times where he is clearly reading way too much into a passing remark or cautious statement of Jari's and just running with it. That's the basic tone of the book and it's cringe-worthy at times.

That said there are a couple of pretty important things in here, that in the absence of a proper article from Jari, Miller, et al. should not be simply ignored. So let's start with the strengths.

1. The dating of the shawl -- he has made a strong case for the shawl dating to mid-19th century or thereabouts. This "conventional wisdom" of the Ripperology community that the shawl is an Edwardian table runner seems to be a chimera -- nobody can even give a straight answer as to where this idea came from. Edwards, on the other hand had it examined and tested by a number of different experts and the dates ranged from Regency to mid-19th century. THere seems to be little in the way of doubt here. The contention that the shawl is of Russian origin is purely anecdotal, however -- one of the experts said it looked some he had seen from the St. Petersburg area. But it does sound like there is some agreement that it wasn't made in England.

2. There is a very good likihood that it is Catherine Eddowes' blood on the shawl. I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth already, but the fact is this is pretty solid. We've seen the number 1 in 290,000 chance, and maybe that's accurate, maybe it isn't, but what is importnat here is that according to Edwards, Jari identified a global private mutation in both Catherine Eddowes and Karen Miller. Chris mentioned this earlier, but I wasn't familiar with the term, but after reading up on it, effectively what it means is a mutation that is specific to a single family lineage. There are also local private mutations that are even rarer, affecting only a few individuals in a family, but for our purposes this is rare enough.

It is very clear from several misstatements that Edwards does not really understand the DNA or everythign Jari was telling hi, But the presence of the global private mutation is a pretty simple thing and don't think he is mistaken that Jari told him this. So you have this shawl that has always been associated with Kate since before DNA fingerprinting was a thing, now having DNA on a blood stain with a rare mutation that only Kate and certain members of her family have. Unless you arguing for fraud, then the chance of the blood *not* being Kate's is ridiculously tiny. So this shawl appears to be one of the few remaing pieces of physical edvidence that can be directly tied to a victim in some way.

The lack of provenience is real problem, no doubt about it, I don't have an answer. I could speculate, but that's all it would be. But the shawl very likely has Kate Eddowes' blood on it. Beyond that it's all speculation.


Now the biggest problem:

Kominski -- the DNA evidence from the semem stain is incredibly weak. First of all, as Prosecutor and other have pointed out earlier in this thread, they didn't actually find any sperm cells, just epithelial cells which could have come from other places. The spermatological expert David Miller expressed some concern about this but it was downplayed by Edwards in the book. The stained fluoresced like semen, but other substances are similar in that regard.

In any case they got quite few cells, but Miller's lab lost a bunch of the samples, so they had to try and reclaim a few from slides they had made, which exposed the cells to the slide cover adhesive as well as other contamination. Still they managed to get to the cells and found nDNA. It does sound like was assigned to the mtDNA halogroup T1a1, which accoriding to a link posted earlier, could have been shared by 7200 people at the time. Edwards did not mention this at all -- he just mentioned the haplotype match, which is not that big a deal unless it's rare. Most of those 7200 would be Eastern Europeans in the East End. This is a far cry from the solid results of Kate's DNA where it could only belong to a handful of people.

Edwards did not identify Kosminski as the killer -- though he thinks he dd -- he just failed to eliminate him. It really could have been a lot of people that could have deposited that semen (if it is actually semen).

So bottom line, as I was suggesting earlier, the results are mixed. The blood on the shawl is very likely Kate's, but there very little evidence for Kosminski.

I have some more comments, but I need to get to bed and they'll have to wait.

[dropzone]

dropzone, you have your own macabre killer, H. H. Holmes

Much higher score than that amateur, Jack. It's the difference between piecework and industrialization.

[wolfie1]

Edwards book review

Okay, so having finally acquired an ebook version of Edwards' book, here are my thoughts. Over all it is a very weak and amateurish effort, though I suppose it was never intended to be anything more than that. There is a lot of fluff. I skimmed the chapters about his various marriages, his superficial overviews of the murders and th emajor suspects, and a lot of his own spurious theorizing. The Michaelmas stuff is as silly as it sounds and is only relevent in in that tends to cloud his judgement at times when he is interpreting the information that he is given.

THe fact that he is overreaching far beyond what Jari is saying is evident -- in fact he basically admits that on several occasions saying things like (paraphased), "Jari was trying to downplay this, but he's a scientist and has to be cautious. I didn't really understand it, but I knew we were on to something..." There are also times where he is clearly reading way too much into a passing remark or cautious statement of Jari's and just running with it. That's the basic tone of the book and it's cringe-worthy at times.

That said there are a couple of pretty important things in here, that in the absence of a proper article from Jari, Miller, et al. should not be simply ignored. So let's start with the strengths.

1. The dating of the shawl -- he has made a strong case for the shawl dating to mid-19th century or thereabouts. This "conventional wisdom" of the Ripperology community that the shawl is an Edwardian table runner seems to be a chimera -- nobody can even give a straight answer as to where this idea came from. Edwards, on the other hand had it examined and tested by a number of different experts and the dates ranged from Regency to mid-19th century. THere seems to be little in the way of doubt here. The contention that the shawl is of Russian origin is purely anecdotal, however -- one of the experts said it looked some he had seen from the St. Petersburg area. But it does sound like there is some agreement that it wasn't made in England.

2. There is a very good likihood that it is Catherine Eddowes' blood on the shawl. I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth already, but the fact is this is pretty solid. We've seen the number 1 in 290,000 chance, and maybe that's accurate, maybe it isn't, but what is importnat here is that according to Edwards, Jari identified a global private mutation in both Catherine Eddowes and Karen Miller. Chris mentioned this earlier, but I wasn't familiar with the term, but after reading up on it, effectively what it means is a mutation that is specific to a single family lineage. There are also local private mutations that are even rarer, affecting only a few individuals in a family, but for our purposes this is rare enough.

It is very clear from several misstatements that Edwards does not really understand the DNA or everythign Jari was telling hi, But the presence of the global private mutation is a pretty simple thing and don't think he is mistaken that Jari told him this. So you have this shawl that has always been associated with Kate since before DNA fingerprinting was a thing, now having DNA on a blood stain with a rare mutation that only Kate and certain members of her family have. Unless you arguing for fraud, then the chance of the blood *not* being Kate's is ridiculously tiny. So this shawl appears to be one of the few remaing pieces of physical edvidence that can be directly tied to a victim in some way.

The lack of provenience is real problem, no doubt about it, I don't have an answer. I could speculate, but that's all it would be. But the shawl very likely has Kate Eddowes' blood on it. Beyond that it's all speculation.


Now the biggest problem:

Kominski -- the DNA evidence from the semem stain is incredibly weak. First of all, as Prosecutor and other have pointed out earlier in this thread, they didn't actually find any sperm cells, just epithelial cells which could have come from other places. The spermatological expert David Miller expressed some concern about this but it was downplayed by Edwards in the book. The stained fluoresced like semen, but other substances are similar in that regard.

In any case they got quite few cells, but Miller's lab lost a bunch of the samples, so they had to try and reclaim a few from slides they had made, which exposed the cells to the slide cover adhesive as well as other contamination. Still they managed to get to the cells and found nDNA. It does sound like was assigned to the mtDNA halogroup T1a1, which accoriding to a link posted earlier, could have been shared by 7200 people at the time. Edwards did not mention this at all -- he just mentioned the haplotype match, which is not that big a deal unless it's rare. Most of those 7200 would be Eastern Europeans in the East End. This is a far cry from the solid results of Kate's DNA where it could only belong to a handful of people.

Edwards did not identify Kosminski as the killer -- though he thinks he dd -- he just failed to eliminate him. It really could have been a lot of people that could have deposited that semen (if it is actually semen).

So bottom line, as I was suggesting earlier, the results are mixed. The blood on the shawl is very likely Kate's, but there very little evidence for Kosminski.

I have some more comments, but I need to get to bed and they'll have to wait.

Thank you, good to have an objective review of the book.
In summary,
1. Eddowes blood on item confirmed to be from Eddowes, verified by DNA match to direct desc.
2. Item at some point was in possession of Simpson, or other persons, unable to confirm how, when,where or why, as it was handed down to family, passed through several hands, current owner is Edwards
3. suspect, is not confirmed by DNA, as A Kosminski but could be from over 7000 persons in area. Semen, not confirmed as semen on item, and not able to date supposed stain on item to c1888.

So, Edwards has simply obtained firm evidence of Eddowes blood in an item in his possession, from a source that may or may not be correct.