Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[mickreed]

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.

Hi Debbie

Well quite a lot of us have read the book. I, for one, have written a review which will be published in October.

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.

Lots of us have done the research. It is NOT certain that the shawl dates to the early-nineteenth century, although it may do. Your expert Thalmann couldn't say much about the shawl - if Edwards quotes her correctly - other than it was not English. And she only saw a photo. From the book, Thalmann says:

I am fairly sure this shawl is early 1800s. However, it is not really familiar to me, and not English. ... The quality of silk, as far as I can see, is typical of silk circa 1810 to 1830, but more I can’t say.’

... an early 19th century shawl likely (according to Thalmann and several other authorities) of Russian or Polish origin

Who says it's Russian? Not Thalmann, she doesn't know, and I don't know who, apart from Edwards says it is. Edwards asked her if it could be Polish or Russian. Her reply:

I honestly can’t say, but it is possible. I don’t usually have a problem identifying shawls from Western Europe, but this is a bit of a mystery to me – yes, it could be either.

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!!!

Who says this?

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.

Edwards doesn't know much about Michaelmas.

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.

You don't know that, any more than you know the academic qualifications of people who make up this forum.

it’s a profession where everything is checked and rechecked and rerechecked.

The problem is that in this case, when it was done in someone's spare time, we simply do not know what process was followed.

the Scotland Yard Training Museum. Clearly they believe their own story. Clearly the Black Museum personnel believe Kosminski to be the Ripper.

The police clearly felt certain that Timothy Evans was guilty. That the Guildford four were guilty. It didn't make it true. And in any event, nobody had ever heard of Aaron Kosminski until 30 years ago.

• 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.

It's not even certain it's blood, let alone human blood.

Please remember this is his area of expertise. He is one of the few in the world

That might be wishful thinking. NB. I don't doubt his overall competence.

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

Again we don't really know this. Edwards says it but that's not enough.

The shawl shows POSSIBLE evidence consistent with kidney MtDNA

According to the book, all we have is a cell that 'looks like a kidney cell.

Examination of the shawl involved far more methods of study than merely sucking out a sample and running it through analysis

And the 'semen analysis' was very inconclusive. See below. The analysis of the dye merely reminded Ismail of some he'd seen from Russia.

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.

If this stacks up, then it may be significant. At present it's not clear whether it does stack up.

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.

And according to Miller, with almost any other bodily fluid, including as someone said earlier, urine.

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.

No it's not. T1a1 is not common amongst Ashkenazi Jews. Well under 5%. So as Ann Turner, a leading genetic genealogist says, unless there's a subclade that nobody has mentioned, this bit is wrong

Just because Edwards is a making a killing on book sales, is a blowhard and loose with his conclusions doesn’t make him wrong.

No it doesn't, but unless we get some proper evidence, and that can only come from the scientists, unmediated through your 'blowhard' Edwards, then there is no real reason to believe the arguments being put forward, simply because it is mediated through a layman, possibly with an axe to grind, and the details were have of the process, controls etc, is virtually non-existant.

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.

We shall see.

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.’

Some people have a pretty good idea where he was likely to be. 'Guessimation' doesn't come into it.

In 1888 Whitechapel and all of London were living in terror of both JtR and Fenian terrorists.

Jack yes, Fenians - probably not.

And now Debbie, I've run out of puff.

[mickreed]

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

Possibly because someone tried to clean the spot with bleach. The previous owner thought this was done in places, and apparently bleach fluoresces like semen.

[Monty]

"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."

Amos Simpson was an acting sergeant, in uniform, at Cheshunt subdivision. There is no record of him being in plain clothes in 1888, but two notes of special duties for N division that year.

The evidence suggests that if he was on late duty on this evening in 1888, then he was around 30 miles away from Mitre Square.

Monty

[Chris]

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 to put it in a nutshell for you:
(1) 314.1C is simply non-standard nomenclature for 315.1C and
(2) 315.1C is extremely common.

The idea that anyone would need a Ph.D. in genetics to understand either of those propositions is absurd.

Clearly a mistake of some sort has been made.

[tji]

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.

I am being completely sincere when I say that your daughter is obviously bright intelligent person given her qualification's, but just because she has limitation's in her life, doesn't mean everyone should, I don't.
I will be honest and accept I am never going to be as intelligent as half the people on here but I am also not going to take the word of someone I don't know either. If I want to check the fact's of something I will do so regardless of the fact they have a doctorate or not.

• 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!

By saying this is not putting word's into Dr Louhelainen's mouth at all, to be putting word's in his mouth it would have to be saying he was quoted as saying this. I don't believe anyone involved in questioning the finding has trash talked him.

• 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.

Really? As we are too dumb to understand the result's maybe we can go to people who have the knowledge to understand his finding's and ask them......when he show's them the result's.

• 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.

Yes it does and if is incorrect IT SIGNIFICANTLY WIDENS THE FIELD.

At the end of the day he put his finding's in a book aimed at the general public, so why are people whinging when the general public ask question's?

Tj

[Robert]

Looking forward to the Official William Rufus Shop.

[Debra A]

At the end of the day he put his finding's in a book aimed at the general public, so why are people whinging when the general public ask question's?

Tj

Exactly right, Tracy!
Those who have bought and read the book have every right to question any of the things stated in it that we find misleading, incorrect or unclear, including the large sections quoted from Dr Louhelainen himself.

[lynn cates]

points

Hello Hercule. Welcome to the boards.

I think the points you bring up are essential. UNTIL they are answered, the DNA seems relatively unimportant. Of course, now even THAT is looking shaky.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

help

Hello Mick. That is funny indeed.

Hope he does not decide to help ME.

Cheers.
LC

[mickreed]

Exactly right, Tracy!
Those who have bought and read the book have every right to question any of the things stated in it that we find misleading, incorrect or unclear, including the large sections quoted from Dr Louhelainen himself.

You beat me to it Debs. You're both spot on.

I don't understand this unquestioning worship of people with academic qualifications. Some of the PhD theses I've had to read in my time wouldn't really warrant anything more than the bin. That's becoming increasingly the case in recent years in some institutions. I could mention one about a massacre of aborigines in 19th-century NSW, but I'd better not. The killings certainly occurred but the thesis, and subsequent book, about them is as useful as Edwards's - not big enough for a door-stop, and not much use for owt else.

Even the real experts (of which JL probably is one) aren't always infallible. And when what tiny aspect of their work we have is only available through a popular book, and a couple of brief interviews, then we can't accept anything.

So question on I say.

[Lechmere]

Those who have bought and read the book have every right to question any of the things stated in it that we find misleading, incorrect or unclear, including the large sections quoted from Dr Louhelainen himself.

And happily Russell Edwards and Dr Louhelainen (as he must now be called) will be in front of a room full of Ripperological enthusiasts (who have shelled out £130 for the privilege) to answer questions.
Although I see from comments already made that this will not satisfy some of the more verbose posters on here.

[Debra A]

Those who have bought and read the book have every right to question any of the things stated in it that we find misleading, incorrect or unclear, including the large sections quoted from Dr Louhelainen himself.

And happily Russell Edwards and Dr Louhelainen (as he must now be called) will be in front of a room full of Ripperological enthusiasts (who have shelled out £130 for the privilege) to answer questions.
Although I see from comments already made that this will not satisfy some of the more verbose posters on here.

Is he gagged until then?

[Robert]

Ed, will this question and answer session be videoed? It's vital that Jari's scientific remarks are recorded clearly - mere note-taking won't suffice.

[Lechmere]

I doubt either of them are gagged (judging by their press interviews) but by the same token the appropriate platform for such things tends to be conferences I would have thought - more appropriate than a free-for-all forum, largely populated by anonymous quick on the draw Mcgraws.
Still the opportunity is there. They can't be accused of hiding.

[Lechmere]

Robert
I have no idea.
But there will be 100 witnesses - some undoubtedly will not be fans of the theory.