Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Stewart P Evans]

Colour Photographs

...
...O'Donnell's book only published B/W photos which makes it hard to tell?
...

There are colour photographs of the shawl on pp. 218-219 of the O'Donnell book, not that they would show anything as detailed as an individual stain.

[Jeff Leahy]

This is the first time I have heard anything at all about any semen stain on the 'shawl', despite quite thorough examinations in the past.

I should think that dozens of people have handled the 'shawl'. I have photographs of it lying on the floor of the Crime Museum for photography back in May 1997 with its dimensions noted as being 8 feet x 2 feet.

An article may be defined as a 'literary composition (other than ficition) forming part of a magazine etc. but independent of others' (OED) which obviously the Mail piece is.

But I know what you mean, it is, apparently, written by, and attributed to, Russell Edwards, with his copyright. He cannot be faulted for his high profile marketing.

Just to add to that and reminded by Debera Ariff… The Shawl isn't actually a Shawl at all, its an Edwardian Table Runner, hence the stange dimensions.

Its value would have been considerable at the time and unlikely to have been owned by Cathrine Eddows. I spoke to the Parlours who believed the family that owned this artefact to genuinely believe it was the Shawl of Cathrine Eddows. But the reality is we are all told things by our parents and grand parents when we are young that turn out not to be true.

Thanks for the info Stewart

Yours Jeff

[Scobie]

Even if the shawl is genuine, the blood and semen are those the author says, all it proves is that Kosminsky may have had sex with Eddowes at some point.

And she was a prostitute.

[GUT]

Even if the shawl is genuine, the blood and semen are those the author says, all it proves is that Kosminsky may have had sex with Eddowes at some point.

And she was a prostitute.

Nope doesn't even prove that.

All it proves is that the shawl came into contact with her blood and his semen, if he practiced the solitary vices it could have been that they never came into contact at all.

[wolfie1]

Even if the shawl is genuine, the blood and semen are those the author says, all it proves is that Kosminsky may have had sex with Eddowes at some point.

And she was a prostitute.

No, it only proves that Eddowes had sex with a person of Jewish Ashkenazi origin. Not of Aaron himself, as he has not been DNA directly tested.

[Scobie]

Yes agree Wolfie, but I guess I'm saying even if everything the author says is true...even if we discount the spurious nature of the DNA evidence and say, ok yep we believe that it comes from Kosminski, it falls way short of proving his guilt.

[JeffHamm]

Hi,

Just thought I would share this article from the New Zealand Herald, which, like many here, is calling for independent review.

(If Eddowes had this fairly expensive table runner, I'm sure she would have pawned it before the boots. But, if it was hers, the semen could be transfer after one of Kosminski's bouts of solitary vice; or perhaps he suffered from premature ejaculation, causing her to laugh at him, resulting in an assault, etc. the problem is is that one can create a number of "just so" stories to fit a confirmatory story line, but, as indicated at the end of this NZH article, no evidence has been presented as of yet. So, while we can all have fun with creative writing exercises, the case is far from solved. Also, as someone mentioned earlier, given some mutations are probably expected over the generations, a 100% match is too good and is therefore suspect).




The New Zealand Herald

Jack the Ripper identified: Calls for peer review
3:56 PM Monday Sep 8, 2014

Jack the Ripper, one of the most notorious serial killers in history, has been identified through DNA traces found on a shawl, claims a sleuth in a book out this week.

The true identity of Jack the Ripper, whose grisly murders terrorised the murky slums of Whitechapel in east London in 1888, has been a mystery ever since, with dozens of suspects that include royalty and prime ministers down to bootmakers.

But after extracting DNA from a shawl recovered from the scene of one of the killings, which matched relatives of both the victim and one of the suspects, Jack the Ripper sleuth Russell Edwards claims the identity of the murderer is now beyond doubt.

He says the infamous killer is Aaron Kosminski, a Jewish emigre from Poland, who worked as a barber.

Read more:
• Russell Edwards: How I cracked the case

Edwards, a businessman interested in the Ripper story, bought a bloodstained Victorian shawl at auction in 2007.

The story goes that it came from the murder scene of the Ripper's fourth victim, Catherine Eddowes, on September 30, 1888.

Police acting sergeant Amos Simpson, who had been at the scene, got permission from his superiors to take it for his dressmaker wife -- who was subsequently aghast at the thought of using a bloodstained shawl.

It had hitherto been passed down through the policeman's direct descendants, who had stored it unwashed in a box. It briefly spent a few years on loan to Scotland Yard's crime museum.

Victim disembowelled
Edwards sought to find out if DNA technology could conclusively link the shawl to the murder scene.

Working on the blood stains, Doctor Jari Louhelainen, senior lecturer in molecular at Liverpool John Moores University, isolated seven small segments of mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down through the female line.

They were matched with the DNA of Karen Miller, a direct descendant of Eddowes, confirming her blood was on the shawl.

Meanwhile stains exposed under ultra-violet light suggested the presence of seminal fluid.

Doctor David Miller, reader in molecular andrology at the University of Leeds, managed to find cells from which DNA was isolated.

With the help of genealogists, Edwards found a descendant of Kosminski through the female line, who offered samples of her DNA.

Louhelainen was then able to match DNA from the semen stains to Kosminski's descendant.

For Edwards, this places Kosminski at the scene of Eddowes' gruesome murder.

Eddowes, 46, was killed on the same night as the Ripper's third victim. An orphan with a daughter and two sons, she worked as a casual prostitute.

She was found brutally murdered at 1:45am. Her throat was cut and she was disembowelled. Her face was also mutilated.

The belief is that the shawl was left at the crime scene by the killer, not Eddowes.

About Aaron Kosminski
Kosminski was born in Klodawa in central Poland on September 11, 1865. His family fled the imperial Russian anti-Jewish pogroms and emigrated to east London in the early 1880s. He lived close to the murder scenes.

Some reports say he was taken in by the police to be identified by a witness who had seen him with one of the victims, and though a positive identification was made, the witness refused to give incriminating evidence, meaning the police had little option but to release him.

He entered a workhouse in 1889, where he was described on admission as "destitute". He was discharged later that year but soon ended up in an insane asylum.

He died from gangrene in an asylum on March 24, 1919 and was buried three days later at East Ham Cemetery in east London.

Calls for peer review
Some have cast doubt on Edwards' findings.

The research has not been published a a peer-reviewed scientific journal, meaning the claims cannot be independently verified or the methodology scrutinised.

Professor Alec Jeffreys, who invented the DNA fingerprinting technique 30 years ago this week, called for further verification.

"An interesting but remarkable claim that needs to be subjected to peer review, with detailed analysis of the provenance of the shawl and the nature of the claimed DNA match with the perpetrator's descendants and its power of discrimination; no actual evidence has yet been provided," Jeffreys told The Independent newspaper.

Next trending article - Ripper case: Dr Jari Louhelainen on the critical match

- AFP

[Limehouse]

I think we might be able to pick holes in the back story concerning this shawl how ever and its a big however if that shawl contains eddowes DNA and kosminskis DNA then I think we can't argue against this scientific fact.

Even if the DNA is unquestionable (and I seriously doubt that), what does it prove? They may well have met each other, had contact with each other, even had sex with each other - but when? It could have been at any time before the murder. Other men undoubtedly also had such contact with Eddowes and their DNA could also be on that shawl. It does not prove that she was killed by the only man whose DNA has 'apparently' been found on 'her' shawl.

[Limehouse]

What I would like to know is, if a shawl was left and the scene of the crime, why did the killer bother cutting off a corner of Eddowes apron to use to wipe his hands and knife? Why not use the shawl?

[Steve S]

Questionable shawl....Questionable DNA....And typical Mail publicity....While I don't go along with this for a moment, I'd like a fuller story....But rather object to lining his pockets to get it...........

[GUT]

What I would like to know is, if a shawl was left and the scene of the crime, why did the killer bother cutting off a corner of Eddowes apron to use to wipe his hands and knife? Why not use the shawl?

G'day Limehouse

As I understand Mr Edwards' scenario, because the shawl was a "clue".

But the poor old Kosminski kills MJK a day late [Mr Edwards doesn't mention that though].

Makes about as much sense as anything else he says so far.

[Lord-z]

When you hear or read about a modern day case, you often seem to hear something like "We found DNA on the crimescene, that we believe belonged to the killer, but unfortunately the DNA was contaminated, and we couldn't get a positive sample". Here we have an object from a murder, I should probably say, supposedly from a murder, that took place 126 years ago, handed down through countless hands, people touching it, talking over it, coughing over it, and this guy says "This DNA is definite evidence!"? I just don't buy it. At the very, very least, I would expect the results to be ambigious, as in "We can't definitely rule out that these are matches", which could probably be said for anyone, at this point.

We hear this every few years. "Jack the Ripper was actually John D. Ripper, and you can read all about it in this here book what I wrote, now available for the low low price of £19.99".

[Trevor Marriott]

No, of course there is nothing wrong in marketing a book to make a profit, nor in encouraging interest in a subject.

However, what sits uneasily with me is the fact that some authors happily encourage (or back) patent nonsense to keep the gravy train rolling. I guess that what they do is up to them, but I don't like to see it.

Stewart
You are forgetting the publishers who are happy to keep publishing books on who the killer was, but shy away from publishing books on who the killer wasnt !

[roughyed]

THis question is really a can of worms because what do you mean by Sexual assault? If you simply mean was any seaman found at any of the crimes the answer to that is NO.


Yours Jeff

But there was a soldier!!

[Monty]

It shall be interesting to know if there was any Simpson Mt DNA found upon the 'shawl'.

If no, why?, considering the family claims.

If so, accepting logical conclusion, however, we have two contemporary suspects, and the case remains open.

Also be interesting to learn if any of the other victims DNA has been sought, and likewise, any other suspects.

Mr Edwards conclusions are premature.

Monty