Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[mickreed]

The stain was mirrored on both ends of the shawl as thoough it was folded when the stain got there. Edwards mentions this briefly and never really follows up. There are probably plenty of ways that feces could have gotten on it in the filth of the East End, but if it is some other substance that normally should not be outside of the body, then that probably is significant as it makes it more likely that the shawl was in contact with Eddowes corpse, and that the presence of the blood isn't from some other incident like a broken nose, menstration, etc. As Mick Reed suggested there are still ways that this could happen outside of the crime scene itself however -- at the mortuary, in the ambulance cart, etc. At any rate this is something that probably needs to be followed up with further testing. Better technology might be able to get more information from it.

Yes, Theagene, I noticed this earlier - about the mirroring - and I wondered how it could be at both ends when one end has been cut away at some point.

If it's really 'mirrored' then it suggests folding of the shawl after the stain got there, and before it dried. It doesn't suggest the thing was just screwed up any old how. Now the way I'd fold it would be to fold it in half and then do that again, and again.. I'd have mirrored the stain on the end of the shawl that is now missing. My mum would have folded it the same way, as would my first wife, and my current one.

Of course there are numerous ways of folding an item, but it seems quite likely that if the stain really is mirrored, then it got on the shawl after one end was cut off.

[mickreed]

Science is for ever striding forward, and I'm confident that in 10 or 20 years, yet more info will come from this object. So I would advise Mr Edwards not to throw the item away (not that he's going to do that).

I hope he releases it for independent study.

Is he big enough to run the risk of being proved wrong in everything he's said so far?

I hope he is, I'll take my hat off to him if so..

On the other hand, if truly independent study proves his case. Then wow!

[Theagenes]

Hello Theagenes, Wolfie. But did not Dr L claim that, of six who have recently handled the garment, at least two did not have Kate's mutation?

But, if accurate, are we to gather four did?

No, not at all. One of the profiles, highly degraded, had the mutation.
Two matched the control samples from people known to have handled the shawl recently like Edwards, Jari, Jari's lab people, etc. as would be expected.
The others were not identified, but would probably belong to other people that handled the shawl over the years like Parlours, auction house staff, Simpson family members, etc. Again this is what you would expect.

If so, how can we be so sure this is Kate's blood--if indeed it IS blood?

Cheers.
LC

I'm willing to give a forensic expert like Jari the benefit of the doubt when it comes to IDing a blood stain. I would think he saw blood cells in it under a microscope -- that's not really an issue, imo.

As for it being Kate's blood, no we can't certain, but if everything is accurate regarding the presence of this mutation, then we can be very sure that it belongs to Kate or a relative of hers. The degraded state of the DNA certainly suggests that it wasn't deposited recently, but that's not conclusive.

The fact that this shawl was publicly claimed to have Eddowes blood on it before anyone knew about DNA fingerprinting means that idea of some relative of Kate depositing the DNA and not Kate herself, would be a remarkable coincidence.

The other possibility is that someone like Karen Miller came in contact with it at some point. Or it is fraud, in which case a Eddows family member would almost certainly have to be involved in order to provide their DNA. This seems very unlikely to me, but others' mileage may vary.

At a certain point it becomes an Occum's Razor issue. What is the most likely explanation for these results? And I would say that until there is further information, right now it seems the most likely explanation is that the shawl was associated with Catherine Eddowes and her murder, just as it has been claimed to have been, since it appeared in public 25 years ago.

[Robert]

"Is he big enough to run the risk of being proved wrong in everything he's said so far?

I hope he is, I'll take my hat off to him if so.."

Is Edwards about to find Kosminski's hat?

[Fisherman]

Damn, didn't attach this properly to previous post

Do you have the source for the snippet on masturbation you provided, Mick? 1872, but what publication...?

The best,
Fisherman

[mickreed]

The fact that this shawl was publicly claimed to have Eddowes blood on it before anyone knew about DNA fingerprinting means that idea of some relative of Kate depositing the DNA and not Kate herself, would be a remarkable coincidence.

It's bed-time here in Oz and I've had a long day, so may be up the Swanee, but that seems like a fair point.

[Patrick S]

People with this kind of illness are very rarely homicidal. This is a fact.

I'm going to use your words. You say this in your post: "This is what happens when we have a favourite suspect, we look at the evidence and massage (and use) it to fit our particular view, it is cognitive bias."

True enough. You say yourself, 'very rarely' homicidal. Thus, this certainly doesn't exclude anyone. Certainly not Kozminski. Rarely indeed. Yet, this did not stop the NYPD of compiling the following profile for the 'Son of Sam' killer: "......neurotic and probably suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and believed himself to be a victim of demonic possession."

After his arrest, David Berkowitz was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic who believed that his neigbor's howling dog was possessed by the devil and demanded that he go forth he kill.

I just don't see Kosminski as a good suspect, largely because of my experience with the mentally ill, and the paucity of the evidence against him.

Well, David Berkowitz like, Aaron Kozminski, experienced auditory hallucinations. Both felt they were being conspired against (Kozminski would not eat food given to him, instead choosing to eat "from the gutter"). Both heard 'voices' that commanded/controled them.

There is ample evidence that both Ed Gein and Herbert Mullin were paranoid schizophrenics, as well. So, while you may very well be right about paranoid schizophrenics not being likely serial killers, some serial killers obviously ARE paranoid schizophrenics.

Yeah, well, this is it, isn't it? There's no evidence for this. It's conjectural.

At this point, nearly ALL things Jack the Ripper are conjectural. Prior to the arrest of modern serial killers, their profiles and motivations....all conjecture. Conjecture leads us to discussion, research, conclusions. So, I'm not sure what your point is. Every thread on this board is based upon conjecture. That's kind of the point.

This is what happens when we have a favourite suspect, we look at the evidence and massage it to fit our particular view, it is cognitive bias.

On this point I agree totally. With one caveat: It works both ways. We cannot close the door on any suspect, either, particularly - I think - one who was regarded seriously be the contemporary investigators. To assume that that Abberline, Warren, Anderson, Monro, and Swanson were all fools looking to cover up their own incompetence by locking up Kozminski is, with apologies, conjecture.

Some suspects bear more discussion and strutiny that others, obviously. For instance, I've seen nothing that leads me to suspect Charles Cross and I've argued that on these boards. However, I would try not to let any previous bias I've had against him based upon what I knew yesterday affect my opionion of him tomorrow should new information come to light. I'm willing to take this 'wait and see' approach with Kozminski and the shawl. I'm hoping for peer review and independent analysis. I want to see those results. If the results are contradictory or Edwards and Jari flat refuse to submit to that process, I'll join the chorus. But, not yet.


The surviving mentions of him are contradictory, contain errors, and clearly are not based on solid data. He didn't go mad because he fondled himself. If Macnaghten or anyone else thought that was the case, how rational can any of their other conclusions be?

I'd try not to be so fixated on the 'fondling himself' angle. It's window dressing. It was poorly understood, certainly. But, I think it's obvious that there was more 'wrong' with Aaron Kozminski than the fact that he praticed 'self abuse', even from the comparatively little we know about him.

A few things mentioned here I think are worthy of response. See above, bold.

[Theagenes]

Yes, Theagenes, I agree that it's not the biggest problem with this thing, especially since Karen Miller can be re-tested.

But, if we are talking scientific rigour, then the fact that there are 'amateurish' aspects, reflect on the overall process and cast doubt overall. Another 'amateurish' aspect is that the samples were lost in the Leeds lab, apparently because they weren't marked up in the standard way, and probably got chucked out by students. Okay, it doesn't prove that the outcomes are buggered, but it does raise an eyebrow at the very least.

Yeah, i think I literally face-palmed when I read that. To be clear this was David Miller's lab that screwed this up and it was during a move. So this was the "semen," and not the blood.

I take your (at least I think it was you) point that that there is, perhaps, a demonstrable link between the Eddowes family (not necessarily Kate herself) and the shawl. I need to see the actual full evidence myself to be sure, but I accept it's likely from what several cautious people have said. That is interesting, even important, but it proves nothing. There are numerous way in which that could happen and the shawl end up with Amos Simpson. I humorously concocted one myself in an earlier post.

Yes, if that global private mutation is really present in both the blood mtDNA and Karen Miller's mtDNA, then the blood came from Kate or one of her matrilineal relatives. And the presence of this mutation seems like something even Edwards wouldn't misunderstand, but I agree -- I want to see this from Jari directly, preferably in a peer-reviewed article.

From what we know so far, the Eddowes connection seems to be the only viable thing in the book. If substantiated, then it will be good.

Yes, that's about the size of it. The fact that Kosminski is the same mtDNA haplotype as the epithelial cells is interesting, and is another point in his favor, but nowhere near as important as the connection with Eddowes. Now, if more can be done with the nDNA there potentially a lot more information that could come from the semen stain.

Again if the shawl is legitimately associated with the crime scene as seems likely, then the DNA of other major suspects should be sampled where possible and compared to the other profiles recovered. This should be the new goal for those who really want to try and solve these murders. This shawl could potentially be the most important surviving piece of evidence from the murders.

[Harry D]

Sorry, 1907.

I think Mac was pulling his chief's leg about excessive wanking.

Hello Jonathan,

Don't say "wank", pinkmoon bruises easily.

[mickreed]

Do you have the source for the snippet on masturbation you provided, Mick? 1872, but what publication...?

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Christer

https://archive.org/details/mansmissiononear00jour

Page 77. Search for self-abuse and you'll find I probably selected the least apocalyptic of his warnings.

[mickreed]

Again if the shawl is legitimately associated with the crime scene as seems likely, then the DNA of other major suspects should be sampled where possible and compared to the other profiles recovered. This should be the new goal for those who really want to try and solve these murders. This shawl could potentially be the most important surviving piece of evidence from the murders.

Yep, and if that happens, then I'll forgive Russell Edwards all his idiosyncrasies. He'll have done well to bring it to our attention.

If he can put it the the hands of independent labs - and if the framed bits could be included - then that would be something. It'd cost a bit though.

Crowd-funding? I'd chip in a bit.

[Theagenes]

Yes, this is what needs to happen. The shawl needs to get in the hands of independent experts. And it needs to be curated in a sterile, stable environment so that it will be useful for future researchers. The ideal situation would be for Edwards to do an indefinite loan to museum with the resources to take care of it properly.

[mickreed]

Several people have used the word 'overreach' regarding Edwards's claims.

Parts of the book are now on Google Books. Attached is a small section

Jari says it could contain Eddowes's DNA, from which Edwards says it must have been at the crime scene.

[Theagenes]

Yep and that's a pattern throughout the book. It's maddeningly frustrating.

[Mabuse]

Yet, this did not stop the NYPD of compiling the following profile for the 'Son of Sam' killer: "......neurotic and probably suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and believed himself to be a victim of demonic possession."

After his arrest, David Berkowitz was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic who believed that his neigbor's howling dog was possessed by the devil and demanded that he go forth he kill.

I've stated previously that there have been serial killers who have suffered from schizophrenia. But schizophrenia is not enough to make one a killer. They would have to have an overlying condition such as some kind of personality disorder as well.

I'm not a psych, so I'm not going to say "no schizophrenics are murderers" but I'll only repeat what I've been told and what the literature says: violence of this kind from people with schizophrenia is very rare. People suffering from schizophrenia are rarely violent in the manner of the Whitechapel murderer. That's a whole different ball game.

What we need from Kosminski is any evidence at all that he's violent, that he hates women, that he attacks prostitutes.

There isn't any.

What we're probably looking at for Jack: a person with a serious anti-social personality disorder - a psychopath - who may have schizophrenia on top of that, if we're comparing to Berkowitz (who may have been lying about the voices, btw) et al.

P.S. Try finding "neurosis" in DSM V. Good luck.

Well, David Berkowitz like, Aaron Kozminski, experienced auditory hallucinations. Both felt they were being conspired against (Kozminski would not eat food given to him, instead choosing to eat "from the gutter"). Both heard 'voices' that commanded/controled them.

There is ample evidence that both Ed Gein and Herbert Mullin were paranoid schizophrenics, as well. So, while you may very well be right about paranoid schizophrenics not being likely serial killers, some serial killers obviously ARE paranoid schizophrenics.

Most auditory hallucinations are not "command" voices. They're comments or random noises.

If schizophrenics are all dangerous homicidal maniacs, then we'd see a lot more Ripper murders, a lot more Geins, a lot more of all these other ones. Like I said, they're rare. That doesn't rule it out, it just makes it less likely.

This is all about likelihood.

At this point, nearly ALL things Jack the Ripper are conjectural.

I disagree. I think we can make definitive determinations about the Whitechapel Murderer based on the studies of serial killers of the 20th C. and by the evidence he left behind, which is fairly significant. We can rule out certain things based on obsolete theories, failed logic and disproven claims.

Conjecture is fine, but wild claims based upon obsolete theories or misunderstood terminology should be identified and dismissed.

We cannot close the door on any suspect, either, particularly - I think - one who was regarded seriously be the contemporary investigators. To assume that that Abberline, Warren, Anderson, Monro, and Swanson were all fools looking to cover up their own incompetence by locking up Kozminski is, with apologies, conjecture.

Can you provide evidence that any of these people were aware of Kosminski in 1888?

I see no evidence for that, yet. So I'm not convinced. When I see evidence for contemporary suspicion of Kosminski I'll be more alert.

I'm not aware that Abberline ever heard of the guy, as it happens. I could be wrong.

Macnaghten actually ruled Kosminski out.

These sources make errors, contradict one another, are vague and make claims that are ludicrous ("self abuse"). Tell me, why I should accept such statements from years after the events without critical analysis? Appeal to authority is a fallacy.

I'm willing to take this 'wait and see' approach with Kozminski and the shawl. I'm hoping for peer review and independent analysis. I want to see those results. If the results are contradictory or Edwards and Jari flat refuse to submit to that process, I'll join the chorus. But, not yet.

You will not see any peer review or independent studies on these results any time soon, unless my cynicism has overtaken me.

But, I think it's obvious that there was more 'wrong' with Aaron Kozminski than the fact that he praticed 'self abuse', even from the comparatively little we know about him.

I don't see any evidence for that.