Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[RockySullivan]

It may have something to do with the text I underlined. Questions from the floor or submitted in advance by the delegates?

cheers, gryff

Lol of course....no way these two fakes are going to open themselves up to real ripperologists....they be torn to shreds faster than the their fake shawl

[Caligo Umbrator]

N division did not border with the City, it bordered with G division, who, in turn, bordered with the City.

I believe the map is 1925, but stands for 1888

Monty

Thanks, Monty.
I recalled that the research I was doing on this some 20 years ago indicated the same.
Unfortunately some of the documentation and notes I collected from that time did not survive my transatlantic crossings.
I was confused as some recent posts on here and a map posted in one of the threads ( possibly in this thread), suggested that N division bordered directly on the City via a small sliver between H and G Division.
That suggestion was perhaps concocted to facilitate a more legitimate journey of Amos Simpson into the area to 'collect' the shawl but it didn't quite meet with my recollection of the divisional situation of the area.
Thanks for putting me straight on that.
Caligo.

[Hercule Poirot]

I beg to report that I am what many Ripperologists would call a 'newbie' or a 'lurker' although I prefer considering myself as a learner given the past 5-6 years I've been reading the Casebook threads. I must say that I am fascinated by the extent of the expertise/knowledge so many members are showing to us all. But I'm also a bit disappointed by the fact that the discussion has been going on on so many pages with a lot of redundancy, innuendos, theories and speculations. If I may, I wish to summarize what I believe to be the issues at stake. I've read the book twice and have even more doubts regarding Edwards conclusion regardless of the contribution of many in this thread. For me it all comes down to the following items:

1. Dating of the fabric (Are we talking about a pre or post Mitre Square event fabric?).
2. Dating of the 'Whitechapel era' samples (Were each trace on fabric produced more or less at the same moment?).
3. Ownership of the fabric (Did it belong to Kominski or Eddowes?).
4. Provenance of the fabric (Can it be really linked to the Mitre Square event?).
5. Validity of the 'novel in-house' methods used by Louhelainen (Official scientific journal publication and peer review needed).
6. Validity of the analysis results ( Official scientific journal publication and peer review needed).

As one may see and in my humble opinion, answering these questions does not require reading the book. It only helps understanding Edwards approach. Nor does establishing the provenance have to precede any acceptance of DNA analyses They are two independent elements but both must meet at one point otherwise they can only constitute two circumstantial pieces of evidence of a more global legal, historical, scientific or whatever-you-may-name-it approach.


Now the discussion may go on for weeks (and I will continue reading this thread whatever comes up) but until clear answers are given by Edwards and Louhelainen to each of issues, the only thing one can say is it's an interesting story generating (with all due respect) an endless list of speculations sometimes amusing other times preposterous. For the past 5 years, I've been working on a novel (historical fiction) where identifying my suspect is less important than my main character's quest to find the Ripper. I've complete the fifth revision. So at least I'm totally aware it's a fiction and whoever turns out to be the real Ripper doesn't really matter. It would only take a couple of weeks to adjust the story.


Let me conclude by hoping this thread will cease to contain personal attacks against authors I've admired for the exemplary efforts and passion they demonstrated in exploring new avenues, supporting a suspect more than another (including Edwards) even if they can't provide a 'mathematical' equation in proving what they may claim. Searching sometimes gives you the impression you found what you were looking for.

Please forgive my 'poor' English being one of those damn yet opened minded French Canadian .


Best wishes,
Hercule Poirot

P.S. One fact remains obvious (probably the only one within this thread). Had I responded on each page from the beginning even only to say something like "Yes, I agree", No I don't", like many have done, I would now be a detective instead of a cadet. LOL

[mickreed]

Mick, one of those other fluids can be urine. And here is one traditional process for dyeing fabrics blue with indigo (either from Asatis tinctoria or with indigo from other plants)

Natural Fermentation Method with Madder (Scroll down to bottom of the page for modern graphic example )

and

The Art and Craft of Natural Dyeing (Funny little story in it about "piddle parties".)

As as one of the possible processes used to dye fabric was a urine vat, and no sperm cells were found in the area of the "semen stain", was there a control sample that tested an area away from the "semen stain" for those same epithelial cells? Could those epithelial cells have come from the dyeing process?

cheers, gryff

Hey Gryff,

Yes, I recall the possibility of urine being the source was discussed somewhere. I also recall (or maybe I imagined it) that there was a suggestion that Edwards was 'taking the piss' so there is every possibility that your suggestion might be valid.

From the book, there is no real way of knowing what was, and what was not, done for control purposes. The science editor of the Independent expressed it thus:

When other labs have worked on the ancient DNA of important samples, such as the DNA extracted from Neanderthal bones or the remains of the Romanovs, the last Russian royal family, they have gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid the possibility of cross contamination.

They have also worked on “blind” samples to ensure they do know which sample they are analysing in order to avoid unwitting prejudice, and have even carried out duplicate blinded experiments in two different laboratories to replicate each other’s work.

None of this, as far we know, has been done in this case.

Since the job by JL was a freebie for Edwards, it seems unlikely that the work was replicated in another laboratory - nevertheless, until we know - we don't know.

Thanks for this contribution.

[mickreed]

Answers may be coming....after you've shelled out the 130 pounds....to listen to a phony and a scientist who was willing sell out his integrity for his 15 minutes of shame. I've missed a few pages of this thread but it looks more and more what we have been saying all alone.....the statistics and probabilities of the DNA and the way Edwards and his Sci-Fientist presented them are MISLEADING!!!

Hey Rocky

Well, whereas I won't bash JL, yet, for his association with this thing, I can't help feeling he'd have done better to run away when Edwards approached him.

However, others may be able to put it better than me, so I'll just leave this link.

http://www.themarysue.com/jack-the-ripper-confirmation-again/

If it's already been posted, apologies, but it does cover the provenance of the publicity quite well.

[mickreed]

Oh, my Gawd. It may have gone to his head.

[Edwards] said: “They say ‘we don’t believe you’, which is fair enough, but they haven’t read the book, they haven’t seen the science.” Mr Edwards also dismissed the title of “amateur” detective and said that he and his forensic team were now looking for new unsolved cases to crack.

He said: “I started as an amateur, but I am far more experienced now than most people. There are unsolved murders out there and families of murder victims, and it is these kinds of people who I am keen to help.”

http://www.barnet-today.co.uk/news.cfm?id=7694

[wolfie1]

Oh, my Gawd. It may have gone to his head.

[Edwards] said: “They say ‘we don’t believe you’, which is fair enough, but they haven’t read the book, they haven’t seen the science.” Mr Edwards also dismissed the title of “amateur” detective and said that he and his forensic team were now looking for new unsolved cases to crack.

He said: “I started as an amateur, but I am far more experienced now than most people. There are unsolved murders out there and families of murder victims, and it is these kinds of people who I am keen to help.”

http://www.barnet-today.co.uk/news.cfm?id=7694

And this.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0266szr

[mickreed]

And this.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0266szr

Yeah, Wolfie, I saw this. He certainly has chutzpah. It's amazing what a bit of self-belief, and not much else, can achieve.

[wolfie1]

Yeah, Wolfie, I saw this. He certainly has chutzpah. It's amazing what a bit of self-belief, and not much else, can achieve.

Not sure if he is delusional, naive or the world's greatest salesman.

[mickreed]

Not sure if he is delusional, naive or the world's greatest salesman.

Delusional? Isn't that what they said about Kosminski? And look what happened to him?

Naïve? I used to think so, but now I am coming to the viewpoint that he is intellectually dishonest - unless he is indeed delusional. Mabuse may know more about such clinical conditions than I do.

I mean, can you really believe and say these things with that degree of certainty, based on the very thin evidence as presented in his book, and really be sincere?

At least Cornwell didn't go round scrounging freebies.

[RockySullivan]

I'll buy the next book..."how to be the biggest douchebag in the world" when it comes out on kindle

[debbiediablo]

In Response to Absolutely Everyone!!!

For heavens sake! Read the book before commenting! Stop getting best information 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 397th-hand off the internet and from other posters on this forum. Stop quoting and believing factoids. No one knows what the book says until they’ve read it in its entirety.

First off: Here is Dr. Louhelainen’s online Vita for those who actually want facts (I can cut and paste Louhelainen so I don’t have to call him Dr. Jari…)

http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/PBS/116512.htm

Note: The above is from Liverpool John Moores University not from Russell Edwards. Dr. Louhelainen was formerly at Oxford. For those of you who don’t care to read or lack the time, here it is short and easy:

Dr. Jari Louhelainen is a Senior Lecturer in Molecular Biology at Liverpool John Moores University in the UK, as well as Associate Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Helsinki. He has two major lines of research at Liverpool: mammalian/medical genetics, working with their sports science department of the university; and forensics, working with the forensics department. In his resume on the Liverpool John Moores University website, his expertise in the forensic area includes ‘determination of age of forensic samples’, ‘new methods for forensic imaging applications of Next Generation sequencing for forensics’ and ‘human identification using novel genetic methods’.

Second: THIS BOOK IS NOT FICTION no matter what Amazon might say! Here is the correct NON-FICTION bibliographic information:
Title: Naming Jack the Ripper
Author: Russell Edwards
Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014
ISBN: 1493014072, 9781493014071
Length: 336 pages
Subjects:
History›Europe›Great Britain
History / Europe / Great Britain
History / Modern / 19th Century
True Crime / Murder / Serial Killers

As for the ‘shawl aka table runner’: It is not a table runner or a table cloth. Do the research. Dyes on the shawl are organic and date to the early 19th century. Synthetic dyes had not yet been invented. As for style, take a look at this 1815 shawl made in Spitalfields that is featured on Diane Thalmann’s site. Thalmann is an expert in antique textiles. Then compare to the style of the Edwards’ shawl.

http://www.antique-textiles.net/shaw...ds_floral.html

They are exactly the same style-wise. Not a table runner and not a table cloth but rather an early 19th century shawl likely (according to Thalmann and several other authorities) of Russian or Polish origin. Congress Poland was part of Russia at the time Kosminski lived there and at the time a lot of East End Jews lived there. Congress Poland established 1815 or 1867, depending on how one looks at it, until 1915.

As for the claim that the shawl was washed and/or ironed many times between now and then thus destroying the DNA…no, no, no, it could not have been!!! Organic dyes leach when washed. The design would be nothing but mottled colors had it been washed even once. Shawls of that era were brushed and aired, not laundered in water.

As for the Michaelmas daisies: The ‘other’ name for Michaelmas daisies is ‘asters’ and they come in many types. Edwards’s theory about the dates of Jack’s murders corresponds with Michaelmas, but the scientific authenticity of the shawl is a separate issue from Edwards’ timeline extrapolations. Then again, maybe the flowers on the shawl are an artisan’s rendition of Michaelmas daisies…it’s impossible to determine without seeing the shawl firsthand and maybe not even then. The flowers are seriously abstract no matter what genus.

Regarding Dr. Louhelainen: He did not make a mistake. The idea that anyone without a Ph.D in genetics can second guess him doesn’t merit discussion. My oldest daughter spent a number of years earning her PhD in Biogenetics from MIT, and even she won’t second guess Dr. Louhelainen because she understands her limitations due lack of experience in forensic genetics. She does, however, believe the shawl likely belonged to Eddowes based on what she has read and her faith in an outstanding fellow geneticist.

She also does not see Dr. Louhelainen as anything other than stellar in his fields of research and certainly not ‘for sale’ or prone to ‘stupid mistakes.’ DNA research does not allow for mistakes…it’s a profession where everything is checked and rechecked and rerechecked. No matter about JtR, lives depend on absolute accuracy in the laboratory.

Regarding book content: Here is what the Edwards’ book actually says, just so everyone can operate from the same fund of correct information:

• The shawl is Family Legend in the Amos Simpson family…some of which is hyperbole.

• Acting Sergeant Simpson was not ‘first on the scene’ no matter what he may have told his family or how this may have become exaggerated over time…however the family never claimed he was on ‘Ripper duty’ but rather that he was looking for Fenian terrorists.

• For sure, the Simpson family held the shawl for over 100 years before selling it; in the meantime they placed it on loan to the Black Museum which is really the Scotland Yard Training Museum. Clearly they believe their own story. Clearly the Black Museum personnel believe Kosminski to be the Ripper. Too many people other than Edwards document a similar ‘revelatory experience’ there.

• The idea that the shawl could not have been at the murder scene assumes that Victorian police used protocol similar to CSI or even DragNet. The Ripper victims’ clothing would’ve been burned anyway, so why not take it home if it were salvageable? The East End was rife with abject poverty. Even a chip of mirror or a comb was valuable, much less silk and wool. A better question is a curiosity driven how-why could it have gotten there? (I don’t agree with Edwards’ theory on this…And why would Amos Simpson think his wife would want a Ripper relic...

• As for the shawl itself, it shows stains consistent with medium velocity arterial spray.

• Medium velocity arterial spray means the victim is being beaten or slashed.

• The pattern is not consistent with being ‘dripped on’ or ‘rubbed in’ or any other unnatural means.

• This is Dr. Louhelainen’s exact quote regarding the shawl: “This would be very difficult to forge.” Please remember this is his area of expertise. He is one of the few in the world.

• The shawl shows evidence consistent with intestinal spillage from an internal source, what is termed ‘body splitting.’

• The shawl shows POSSIBLE evidence consistent with kidney MtDNA… Dr. Louhelainen had not yet examined this MtDNA at the time of publication and (my opinion here) this may be what’s holding up a paper on the findings. He needs to determine yay or nay on the kidney and then spend a few years composing.

• Dr. Louhelainen worked at no fee. His only caveat was to retain the rights to writing a paper should there be results of interest.

• Examination of the shawl involved far more methods of study than merely sucking out a sample and running it through analysis…to fully understand the many methods that were used one must actually READ the book with an open mind, not with the idea to prove or disprove one’s favorite suspect.

• The ‘older’ MtDNA from the shawl was a 100% match to Eddowes’ kin. DNA amplifies more slowly as it ages.

• The genetic variation is 314.1C and nothing to do with 315…to claim anything different is exactly this: putting words into Dr. Louhelainen’s mouth that are contrary to what he says and then trash talking that he’s wrong!

• Just because 314.1C is hard to find online, or wherever, doesn’t mean it’s a mistake…being unable to locate it is sort of like denying the existence of black holes in space because they aren’t visible in the backyard at midnight! It takes an educated expert with the proper equipment and access to information to locate and understand what has been located. Enough said.

• 314.1C is such a rare variation that if the ratio today is similar to the ratio in 1888 then only 12 persons in London at that time (statistically) would have belonged to this haplogroup…only 25 today would share. Think about it. THIS SIGNIFICANTLY NARROWS THE FIELD.

• Here is Dr. Louhelainen’s exact quote regarding the shawl: “Hence the analysis strongly suggests that the shawl could contain the DNA of the Jack the Ripper victim Catherine Eddowes.” This will never be absolute until better methods exist, or perhaps never. Note that he does not make any statement with regard to Kosminksi being the Ripper. That conclusion is drawn by Edwards. However….

• Stain fluoresced as consistent with semen when examined by Dr. Louhelainen who then outsourced the research to Dr. David Miller who is the ‘sperm head’ expert of the UK?!?! Evidence was consistent with it containing epithelial cells consistent with ejaculation.

• The haplogroup belonging to the non-Eddowes donor is common to Eastern European Jews…there were lots of Eastern European Jews in East London in 1888. The pogroms had begun, and smart people were fleeing elsewhere, anywhere.

• This MtDNA Jew had acne. According to Ressler and Douglas (The Cases That Haunt Us) the likelihood is high that the Ripper has some form of physical unattractiveness. His childhood and young adult years would be similar to Kosminski’s…but also similar to a lot of other displaced Jews who were escaping Russia and Poland, but only if they had acne.

• Again according to Ressler and Dougles, the Ripper would have a disorganized personality similar to, but not limited to, someone with paranoid schizophrenia. For sure, eating from the gutter to avoid being poisoned is paranoia.

• The idea that Jack the Ripper’s great-great-great grandchild is going to step up and be publicly identified is debatable. Were it me, I would not want my name plastered all over the news. Not now!! Not ever!!!

• However, as per earlier, Dr. Louhelainen is not for sale. Until someone PROVES he is or has been before, then that discussion holds no merit. Claiming that the present-day DNA donor really isn’t Kosminksi’s kin is yet another red herring…something for conspiracy theorists and those who want to disbelieve without careful consideration.

• Old MtDNA amplifies more slowly than recently deposited MtDNA so it IS possible to separate last year from last decade from last century. The process is not like carbon dating but it’s far more accurate than often thought and far more misunderstood. Forensic imaging applications is a cutting edge field of research and expertise for Dr. Louhelainen that’s likely beyond Google verification or layperson understanding.

Here’s my takeaway from all this:

Regarding the research: Russell Edwards doesn’t float my boat, but Dr. Louhelainen totally cruises my yacht.

Regarding the shawl: It’s really a shawl, not something for the table, and dates back to 1810-1830. Never washed.

Regarding the book: It IS non-fiction no matter what Amazon or anyone else may say.

Just because Edwards is a making a killing on book sales, is a blowhard and loose with his conclusions doesn’t make him wrong. Solving the Ripper case would ruin a lot of things for a lot of people including the East End Ripper Trade, this site, a lot of future publications and the discounted opinions of thousands of people interested in the case. So it might be reasonable to surmise that most of the aforementioned don’t want it solved unless, of course, their favorite suspect turns out to be guilty. Then they can write their own book and make a their own financial killing.

Regarding Aaron Kosminski: Robert House in Jack the Ripper and the Case For Scotland Yard’s Prime Suspect makes a well-researched, carefully stated, thoughtful and properly cited case against Kosminski. Many of his facts agree with Edwards’ overly chatty approach. Ressler and Douglas also see Kosminski as a possible suspect, to quote again The Cases That Haunt Us, “Aaron Kosminski or someone like him,” which later flip-flops to, “David Cohen or someone like him,” following Fido’s publication.

IMO, Aaron Kosminski makes a strong suspect but certainly NOT THE ONLY suspect. Edwards rushes to judgment on Kosminski, however someone with Eastern European Jewish MtDNA carelessly or purposefully got ‘something’ that fluoresces as semen and identifies as epithelial MtDNA consistent with ejaculation on this shawl. You know what they say: "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…."

Regarding Catherine Eddowes and the shawl: The MtDNA variation is so rare that the statistical likelihood of it not belonging to ‘Somebody’ Eddowes is staggeringly improbable. The statistical likelihood of Dr. Louhelainen making a stupid mistake or being bought off is entirely improbable.

Entertaining the concept that another Eddowes’ family member - not Catherine - deposited stains on the shawl that fluoresce consistent with blood splatter of medium velocity arterial spray typical of beating or slashing along with other stain that fluoresces consistent with intestinal spillage aka ‘body splitting’ along with a stain that fluoresces as POSSIBLE kidney MtDNA is statistically beyond any belief.

Either this, or the Eddowes women have incredibly bad luck when it comes to being slashed and carved up via the abdominal cavity.

Which begs the questions: Exactly which OTHER Eddowes family member volunteered to be slashed for this little charade? Just how did this shawl come down through generations with a story to match the MtDNA evidence over 100 years later? Or, for those who scream that it has no provenance, exactly where might it have come from given the scientific facts?

And please understand the difference between Dr. Louhelainen’s findings of fact and Russell Edwards’ conclusions from these facts. Such are not the same. The fact that Dr. Louhelainen hedges only a bit is still fact, just not absolute fact. Scientists are like this…

Regarding Amos Simpson: No one in 2014, including me, can know for sure where Amos Simpson was (or was not) on the night of Catherine Eddowes’ murder. IMO, Family Legend, hyperbole or not, takes precedence over 2014 ‘guesstimation.’

In 1888 Whitechapel and all of London were living in terror of both JtR and Fenian terrorists. Borders that generally were not crossed most certainly might have been. Remember The USA Patriot Act signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. Sometimes, when emergency takes an upper hand, the rules are no longer The Rules and few people give a d*** or even pay attention at the moment.

Plus, Harry Burton had been lodging at 5 Mitre Square…FYI, this is the Fenian who bombed the Victoria railway station except the ineptly fashioned bomb failed to do damage. Also, he was complicit in bombing attempts at Ludgate, Paddington and Charing Cross stations.

So Amos being there might make absolute sense in the “we’ve got two major and simultaneous emergencies so to h*** with the boundaries” sense. Plus he might have been trailing a suspect. We simply guess. But claiming it couldn’t possibly have happened flies in face of the chaos that is Real Life.

Regarding the provenance: Provenance means nothing when science can prove beyond reasonable doubt that a theory is fact. IMO, Dr. Jari Louhelainen proves beyond reasonable doubt that the MtDNA on the shawl belonged to Catherine Eddowes or one of her relatives not of recent birth. Except I have no clue which one of these ancestral Eddowes volunteered for the slashing or beating to fake a shawl investigation multiple decades later, that is if the donor wasn't poor Kate!?!??!

Edwards has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that Kosminski is JtR, but Aaron moves high on my list when taken together with Robert House’s research and the Ressler and Douglas profiling. Any other suspects fitting a profile similar to Kosminski also rise to the top, but they must be an MtDNA match. Which seriously limits the field. How revealing if ALL the kin of major Ripper suspects were to be tested against the unidentified second MtDNA on the shawl.

My Opinion: JtR dressed as woman. He wasn’t Jill the Ripper, just a lookalike. The shawl is a product of Poland or Russia and belonged to a female in the Kosminksi family or another East End Jewish family. Ressler and Douglas make it clear that the murders were not the result of choosing a woman and then stalking her, waiting for the perfect moment to attack a pre-selected victim. The perpetrator was a far too disorganized personality. They use the term 'paranoid schizophrenia.'

Jack walked the streets waiting for the moment when a lone woman, most likely a prostitute (who else was out and about in wee hours of the morning in Whitechapel?) to be alone in a spot secluded enough to kill her quickly, silently and without witnesses. ALL the women in Whitechapel were on alert, but not on alert for another woman with her face disguised by a shawl. They were looking for doctor-types with medical bags and guys with pointy hats. Note: Kosminski, for one, was small enough to pass as a tall woman in 1888.

Conjecture: ‘Approach gently. She suspects nothing. Speak softly. Once in position behind her, cast away the shawl. All hell will break loose at if it doesn’t come home unstained. It’s kept in special place and no one has yet missed it. Then choke the consciousness out of this b****. Slash her throat. Then set about rendering her beyond woman. Beyond human. To satisfy that curious lust as to what the hated yet desired female is all about. Outside...and in.

‘Finish carving quickly. Take the trophies to examine and maybe consume later – to keep her forever. Maybe ejaculate but never on or in the woman. Or maybe go home for that business. An 'oops' spoil everything! Wipe hands on victim’s clothing, hide knife and hide behind the shawl once more.

'No one ever gives attention to an ‘unfortunate’ on her way to Nowhere in the early morning hours. Such are the dregs of society, beyond noticing much less being spoken to. Even passing within yards of a policeman gathers no interest in night shadows. This disguise is perfect.

‘Until the shawl is left behind in the hurry to flee or because of accidental blood stains. Then someone at home, probably Mother or Sister, starts to put 2 and 2 together. These women are confusing. They love but they also hurt. And hate. They’ve been fearful and walked on eggshells for some time, probably since late adolescence, and now they think they know. Thus they are terrified and hateful. But still loving. And still hurtful.

‘After Mary Kelly is butchered, the police come knocking. This confirms everyone’s worst fears. The police know. They set watch on the front and back doors. Day and night, night and day. It’s all too, too much. Staying inside fuels the rage. Havind no release fuels the The Rage. Ultimately, the rage breaks the family.

‘In the end, these Mothers or Sisters and the men they control do the only possible thing they can do. Lock up the problem to keep him safe and everyone else safe. Especially the real targets of his hatred.

‘Death by hanging is brief. Death by institution can take 40 years.’

Above is what I believe. For the present. I'm incredibly flexible in my thinking....

For All You Conspiracy Theorists: This is my first and possibly my last post. I’ve read this site on and off for years but only joined when I really, really wanted to say something. I’m a Total Nobody. I only mention this because sometimes people get a little overwrought and accusing when a member posts for the first time. Especially given the controversy over this book.

With regard to errata: I can assure you that Dr. Louhelainen is far too busy to read these threads, and Russell Edwards is far too egocentric not to identify himself. Nor am I an apologist for anyone, including myself…except for the part about typos that may be confusing.

Regarding the typos: "Sorry about that." – Maxwell Smart

Yep..I am OLD!!! I've been a Jack lover for almost 42 years.

– Debbie

[John G]

We must be using different calculators John. Based on figures I've seen, I made the odds a mere 99,000 to 1 against.

Hi Mick,

Damn! I think you might be right! Wait, just a minute, now I get it to 99,000 and a half- surely that's wrong!

[John G]

Hello John.

"I think this thread is starting to fry my brain!"

Don't let it. Just read Jason's post. Skip the other 4000+--including mine.

Cheers.
LC

I'm beginning to think this excellent advice! Thanks Lynn, although I feel a bit better after having had a lie down!

[debbiediablo]

Would someone care to address the consideration that if urine were used to dye the entirety of the wool, being far less likely to be used on silk, but regardless...why only one small spot would fluoresce rather than the entire area of wool? Or the entire area of silk? Or the entire shawl?

The Art and Craft of Natural Dyeing: Traditional Recipes for Modern Use by J.N. Liles. Copyright © 1990 by The University of Tennessee Press