Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Natasha]

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

Hi Mike

Once you get cellulitis, you have an increased risk of it recurring.

Kosminski had issues in regards to 'self abuse', but could it not be possible that he was someone who perhaps self harmed himself also, especially when he was locked up?
The wound which may have been inflicted at the scene of the murder may have been treated, and he may have suffered with recurring bouts of cellulitis, and the fact that he never took care of himself could have eventually contributed to him getting gangrene.

IMHO if Kosminski killed Eddowes, then I buy my theory over that of the 'shawl' DNA story. As it's been pointed out, there was no item listed as the shawl being in Eddowes possession, a policeman etc would not take items of evidence etc from the victims as perhaps a 'trophy' so early during an investigation. You couldn't even say the item was taken because of DNA, because obviously there was no forensic techniques back then, so this whole shawl and DNA thing is flawed.

Also there was a programme investigating ghosts etc, called killer contact. They were supposedly 'talking to Eddowes' and according to 'Eddowes' her murderer was Kosminski. Now I would be more inclined to believe that, then the shawl, DNA story.

[Phil Carter]

Is it right to look at Mr Edwards and his actions now?

Hello all,


Originally Posted by pinkmoon
Simple solution place these events in the correct order.
1,shawl stains tested for d.n.a
2,d.n.a found to match Kosminski and eddowes
3,d.n.a samples given by Kosminski and eddowes descendents
Which order?

Originally answered by Chris

I've posted the answer to this several times now.

According to the book, the material was extracted from the shawl first, and then the descendants were located and provided samples.

Originally posted by Jeff Leahy

.... it appears we have a positive blood match to Catherine Eddows…and it seems fairly unlikely that it was not at least close to her person when killed…

So the provenance is irrelevant as long as the Science says 'it's Eddows Blood'

I'd say that was pretty simple to understand.

Yours Jeff


Originally posted by Simon Wood

Hi All,

I've read Russell Edwards' book.

You can ask me anything you like.

Regards,

Simon

Originally posted by Archaic

Hi everyone.

I read a book review of 'Naming Jack the Ripper' on Amazon.com (the US site) that I thought others might find interesting. The reviewer's name is Dr. Mike Sutton.




We must not forget the Piltdown Man Fraud.
September 9, 2014
By Dr Mike Sutton


I pre-ordered this book on my Kindle and read it cover to cover today inside seven hours.

To cut to the chase, DNA analysis of the scarf (sic) purportedly found that stains on it matched the DNA of Ripper suspect Aaron Kosminski and one of his victims named Catherine Eddowes.
However, there are some big problems with this book. Those problems all stem from the fact that many key scientific protocols seem to have been non-existent in the handling of the scarf and the modern DNA samples used to establish the provenance of supposedly old 19th century DNA on it. In this respect I am reminded of what led scientists astray in the case of the Piltdown Man fraud.


1) The author, Edwards, frequently has the entire shawl in his lone and sole possession along with modern DNA samples that are used to match allegedly old DNA samples on the shawl. Surely, with the shawl, being in two pieces, he should have begun from the start by securing one piece away with a trustworthy independent third party (such as a highly notable and entirely independent solicitor at the very least, but an independent and esteemed academic body at best).

2. Furthermore, Edwards, the author, should not have been the one to collect and be in possession of the DNA samples from the victim's and suspect's modern day genetic descendants.

3. Why Edwards's scientific collaborator, Dr Louhelainen, failed to stop this scientific faux pas requires public explanation.

4. Because, most unfortunately, we learn, it is the author himself who collects a DNA swab from a surviving genetic descendent of Eddowes and also from the surviving genetic descendant of the author's sole chief suspect - Aaron Kaminski. (sic)

5. Moreover - to repeat the essential point for emphasis - it is the author who has these DNA swabs and the shawl in his possession together for some time before handing them over to Dr Louhelainen to see if the blood on the scarf contains DNA matching that of Eddowes' modern genetic descendant, and the same for Kaminski's.


6. I'm no expert on DNA analysis, but since we are told that Dr Louhelainen took samples of his own DNA and Edwards's in order to rule them out, it seems that he was unable to tell the age of the DNA he was examining. If so, then this means that we cannot rule out the possibility that the author - Edwards - could possibly have taken small amounts of DNA from Eddowes's descendant's sample and used it to contaminate the blood stain on the shawl before he handed both over to Dr Louhelainen to examine.

7. Moreover, since research proves that scientists do - most unfortunately - commit science fraud far more frequently than we would wish or imagine - we cannot rule out the possibility that Dr Louhelainen (who we are informed was working on the shawl alone and in his own time) might have deliberately or accidentally contaminated the blood stain on the shawl with the DNA sample taken from the victim's living descendant.


8. Most importantly, what we are not told in the book, however, is whether as part of this analysis Dr Louelainen needed to take other samples from the shawl after Edwards was in sole and lone possession of both it and the modern Kosminski's genetic descendant's DNA sample. Moreover, we are not told whether or not it would have been possible at any time for the author to contaminate any of those slides, anyway, with modern Kosminski descendant DNA.

9. Finally, since Dr Louelainen was working in his own time and alone, we cannot, I'm afraid to say, rule out the possibility that he deliberately or accidentally contaminated the slides with modern DNA.

10. In the meantime our skeptical alarm bells should sound, because in his quest for modern DNA to detect the Ripper Edwards most "fortunately", it so rapidly turned out, initially set about solely looking for a suitable genetic descendant of Aaron Kosminski - a Polish Jew who has been favored by only some Ripperologists, and allegedly others in the police service named by Edwards, as the most likely person to have been the Ripper. Edwards makes a fairly plausible case (in places creative, insightful unusual but not at all irrational) for why he focused first on Kosminski - and I won't give too much about that away here (you should read the book) - but, unfortunately, his initial choice of suspect should not be enough to allay our suspicions in light of the unfortunately undeniable multiple opportunities for science fraud that I believe existed.

11. I apologize profoundly to both Russell Edwards and Dr Jari Louhelainen for pointing my finger of suspicious skepticism their way. I sincerely hope that neither committed any kind of science fraud. Moreover, I sincerely hope that the forensic tests used were done properly and will be considered reliable by the expert scientific community under peer review.

In sum, this story - as it currently stands- is potentially (at least) not too dissimilar to the story of Charles Dawson supplying, by various clever contrivances, Arthur Smith Woodward of the British Museum with absolutely ALL of the forensic physical evidence - which he obtained and solely possessed - for Piltdown Man. And just look how badly that turned out. History has some hard lessons to teach us. We would be foolish to ignore them.

Best regards,
Archaic



Originally posted by Wolfie1

Oh my word!
I don't doubt the credibility of the good Dr, you are are correct in that a peer review of these findings is not even a remote possibility now due to nil review and monitoring of sample collection and storage.

I had a faint hope that both sample subjects were in the presence of the good Dr when providing samples, and that both samples were kept in a lab at all times.

Originally posted by Mick Reed

Meanwhile Jari turned his attention to the fluorescent stains which might be semen, though he pointed out that there were other possibilities, such as washing powder.

David Miller was concerned about the absence of sperm in the sample. But the evidence of squamous cells meant [how?] that it could not be ruled out that some sperm could have been there.

However the material stored at David Miller's lab in Leeds had been lost. RE took the shawl back to Liverpool and JL took further samples.

And so on, and so on …

So, numerous caveats from the scientists, and lax procedures in at least one lab, where the samples went AWOL

Originally posted by Caligo Umbrator

It does seem to indicate a shocking lack of control that some of the pertinent material stored at D.M's laboratory has been lost.
Despite the involvement of top scientists in this endeavor, from what I'm reading there appears to be a degree of amateurishness in the way the whole task has been approached. I should say here that I'm not blaming the scientists for this.



Originally posted by Theagenes

No, this NOT accurate. The Amazon reviewer did not read closely enough apparently. According to the book the samples were taken from the relatives AFTER the DNA was recovered from the shawl.

Of course it matters when he took the samples. Unless he's lying he got the samples well after Jari had extracted the DNA from the shawl. How could they have contaminated the shawl? Btw, it was apparently one of those mail in kits that he sent to Karen Miller so presumably she swabbed herself.

There are plenty of problems here no doubt about it, but this isn't one of them. The handling of the semen samples on the other hand was a train wreck.

The so-called kidney cell -- this an excellent example of Edwards' overreach.

Kosminski "match" - Throughout the book I never got the impression that Edwards was being willfully deceptive -- prone to circlular logic and confirmation bias, absolutely -- but not willfully deceptive. That is, until the last chapter on the DNA match with Kosminski. This chapter was very sparse on actual facts and it really felt like he was only saying enough to bolster his theory, while withholding information that would be less helpful -- like how common or uncommon that particular haplotype was. And it ended very abruptly, like "and we got the results and it was 100% match with Kosminsjki's relative so that proves it, Kosminski was the killer. The End." At least that's what it felt like. He's absoultely right in that the haplotypes were a 100% match and yes, this certainly does add weight to Kosminski as a suspect, but thousands of other people with that haplotype would also be a 100% match so it's hardly case closed. He had to know this, but chose not mention it.





I have waited over a week to say anything about this... but I will now..

First of all, Archaic...thank you so much for this. It is mightily important imho.

Secondly... all through this thread I have noticed the debate switching from Edwards' actions and words over to Dr Jari Louhelainen's tests, results etc... as if the next move is in his court, re getting and establishing a new set of tests done by an independant tester to confirn (or deny) the Dr. Jari Louhelainen's findings.

However.. IMHO it seems mighty obvious to me that the REAL spotlight here is being deflected away from Russel Edwards' poor handling (pardon the pun) of the "shawl" "DNA samples" etc.

Theagenes describes part of it as a train wreck.

Having posted previously on this... compare ALL of the above... to the following..which I post again...

Because Eddowes' shawl wasnt at the murder scene but (acbording to Edwards WAS on the cart carrying Eddowes on the way to the mortuary, where on route (according to Edwards it metamorphasised into Eddowes green chintz skirt) then )underwent another metamorphic transformation into (according to Edwards) Kosminski's shawl, not Eddowes' skirt....which became magically Eddowe7 skirt which magically re-appeared AT the mortuary ON the body of Eddowes and is listed by Collard- an Inspector outranking Simpson anyway.


All totally straight forward and above board is this story. Now why on Earth should anybody doubt something so obvious? (errrr...not!)


I have one question for all to answer... having seen now.. in the Archaic quote... various examples of poor work vis a vis the handling of various things.. down to Mr Edwards... and comparing the changes he has made to the original story both before and AFTER the book was released...

How does Mr Edwards credibilty stand now... in your opinions?

Because for me... THAT is where the whole crux lies.




best wishes all


Phil

[Peter F Young]

Well....some on here may be about to call you a liar.

Bring it on
71 years of medical records to back it up...

[John G]

Thanks John.
Appreciate you reading my posts, tried to make some valid points but think a few got overlooked during the DNA saga...

For me personally, I quite enjoy trying to eliminate suspects based on historical facts of their whereabouts rather than proving their guilt. Have managed to rule out quite a few already.

Where do you think this whole Edwards/Shawl affair will end up? (Apart from the waste paper basket!)
Amanda

Hi Amanda,

I think that Edwards will have been deemed to have seriously overestimated the evidence and the extent to which it points to Kosminski has being unquestionably JTR. Nonetheless, although I have yet to read the book it does seem that it isn't completely without merit. As I Believe I mentioned on another post- the length of this thread is starting to leave me confused!- the fact that Kosminski has an unusual haplogroup and that, if I've got this right- there is a rare genetic mutation in Eddowes mtdna line, cannot be without significance. i.e what are the statistical odds of such genetic material appearing on the same garment?

However, there clearly needs to be more evidence concerning the shawl;'s provenance. I wold also be interested in knowing how easy it would be to deposit genetic material on the shawl from many years ago and for it be still detectable. In other words, if mtdna relating to ,say, Abberline's, Hutchinson's, Maybrick's, Sickert's , Bury's family line are subsequently detected on the shawl then I think we have a serious problem!

[Henry Flower]

How does Mr Edwards credibilty stand now... in your opinions?

Because for me... THAT is where the whole crux lies.

Do you mean by normal standards, or in relation to your own credibility, Phil?

Just wanted clarity on that before venturing an answer.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

The Amazon Review

I see that the review of Edwards's book on Amazon.com has surfaced on this thread.

I ran across Dr. Sutton's review a couple of days ago when trying to find out if there was an ebook version of Edwards's book. I then ran across a short post by Dr. Sutton here (scroll down to end of comments)

Eventually, I found his blog - here This blog features an article titled: "When Naming Jack the Ripper Never Forget the Piltdown Man Fraud" that is very similar to the Amazon review.

The blog describes Dr Sutton in this way:

Dr Michael “Mike” Sutton is Reader in Criminology at Nottingham Trent University (UK), where he teaches Hi Tech Crime and also Crime Reduction and Community Safety.

His latest blog titled : "A Dreadful Discovery: Big Data Proves Wallace and Darwin Counterfeit Discoverers" ends with this phrase:

world’s greatest science fraudster Charles Darwin

suggests to me that Dr. Sutton does not pull his punches.

cheers, gryff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff

We know he was diagnosed as being 'insane'. Some assume this was schizophrenia. That's far from knowing. It could have been something else. And then that 'if'. If he did so-and-so, he could have become psychotic. Yes it's possible, and it's equally, if not more possible, that he didn't.

.

Hi Mick

I spent some time going over aarons records with someone who worked in a Hospital in Essex with a large number of Schizophrenic Cases. He had no problem coming to the conclusion Aaron was suffering a form of Schizophrenia. He didn't go as far as using the term Hebophrenic.

But I'm satisfied we can conclude that that is what Aaron was suffering from given what is known.

What we need to do is balance Aarons known mental condition against the claims made by Swanson and Anderson.

I'm not just picking someone who suffered schizophrenia and saying he was Jack..

What I'm doing is looking at the claims made for Kosminski as a suspect. Then considering with what we know of his conditions could he have committed those crimes… And the answer to that is simply yes its possible.

We just don't know how severe his illness would have been on its onset. But in its early stages we know people suffering the condition can be quite lucid.

Personally I think we should at least given Anderson and Swanson more credit than they would believe Kosminski the Suspect purely because he masturbated.

Yours Jeff

[Patrick S]

Bring it on
71 years of medical records to back it up...

71 years of medical records? Child's play for the average poster on this board. They can refute the color of the sky if it doesn't back up their own theories.

[Phil Carter]

Do you mean by normal standards, or in relation to your own credibility, Phil?

Just wanted clarity on that before venturing an answer.

In relation to all the quotes given Henry.

I have no street cred Henry... but then again, I was brought up by down to earth people from the backstreets who knew when to ignore rudeness.
It reflects more upon it's originator that way, so I was told.

Any more personal attacks Henry? I suggest sticking to the thread instead old chap.

:-)

Now do please excuse me. I will be rather busy elsewhere for a few hours.

[Peter F Young]

71 years of medical records? Child's play for the average poster on this board. They can refute the color of the sky if it doesn't back up their own theories.

Having read & lurked here since the 'old' casebook I do not think you can teach me owt about posters on here and their peccadillos...

[Patrick S]

Having read & lurked here since the 'old' casebook I do not think you can teach me owt about posters on here and their peccadillos...

You seem like a fun chap!

Well.......Your sense of humor should serve you well. Keep up the charm offensive!

[Theagenes]

I see that the review of Edwards's book on Amazon.com has surfaced on this thread.

I ran across Dr. Sutton's review a couple of days ago when trying to find out if there was an ebook version of Edwards's book. I then ran across a short post by Dr. Sutton here (scroll down to end of comments)

Eventually, I found his blog - here This blog features an article titled: "When Naming Jack the Ripper Never Forget the Piltdown Man Fraud" that is very similar to the Amazon review.

The blog describes Dr Sutton in this way:



His latest blog titled : "A Dreadful Discovery: Big Data Proves Wallace and Darwin Counterfeit Discoverers" ends with this phrase:



suggests to me that Dr. Sutton does not pull his punches.

cheers, gryff

Sounds to me like he's an anti-evolution nutcase. At any rate his comments in his review are demonstrably wrong.

[moonbegger]

Greetings All ,

I've go some highly contentious Conjecture regarding the Provenance of the Shawl .. As some of you may be aware , it was yours truly who unearthed the street name change regarding Mitre Sq witness , Joseph Lawende's home address " 45 Norfolk road " later changed to "Mitchinson road" My Granddad actually lived next door at "#43 " The street and address are still standing today ..

Long story short , there was an old Ex policeman who's family still lived down the street in 1945 .. On checking the Polls I come across the Simpson family! not too many doors down from Lawende's address ..

Could we have a Major Mitre Sq witness living in Islington, the same Police beat as Amos Simpson ??? maybe even the same street ??? a few doors down ???

Needs further investigation ...

Cheerio for now

Moonbegger

I have now got a fairly solid proof that Amos Simpson and Joseph Lawende may well have lived just yards from each other in the same street

moonbegger .

[Henry Flower]

In relation to all the quotes given Henry.

I have no street cred Henry... but then again, I was brought up by down to earth people from the backstreets who knew when to ignore rudeness.
It reflects more upon it's originator that way, so I was told.

Any more personal attacks Henry? I suggest sticking to the thread instead old chap.

:-)

Now do please excuse me. I will be rather busy elsewhere for a few hours.

I haven't made any personal attacks Phil. I've attacked what I perceive to be your absolutely hypocritical moral high-ground - claiming to care about the murdered women more than people who write best-sellers, when in fact the only difference between their nonsense theories and your own is that they are adept at selling them. I attacked your sudden discovery of Ripperological ethics having played foolish parlour games with the deaths for a long time.

You think Edwards' ideas are nonsense and you say so. I find that amusing, and I say so.

That's not a 'personal' attack. I have never met you and don't know a damned thing about you. I'm writing about your work and your comments on this thread, not about you. You're probably a lovely bloke and a gentleman, I have no doubt.

Best

HF

[MrBarnett]

I have now got a fairly solid proof that Amos Simpson and Joseph Lawende may well have lived just yards from each other in the same street

moonbegger .

Hi Moon,

When was this ?

MrB