Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Poch]

I'm not saying that it's correct, but the book has counter arguments for everything being said on this page.

Handling the cloth could leave DNA in the form of skin cells, however on silk it says they would only survive for 12 months. This is why control samples were taken for everyone who had had contact with the shawl for that period.

Like I said in my previous post, where I gave my thoughts on the entire book, there are holes, but I think a lot of what you guys are arguing is actually addressed in the book.

[AdamNeilWood]

I have just read, with alarm, that this shawl was handled in 2007 at the Wolverhampton conference by descendants of Kate Eddowes.

I have written to the gentleman concerned asking permission to quote his name and comments in full.


Phil

Before everyone gets carried away with this statement, the 'gentleman concerned' got his facts mixed up and mistakenly believed this was the case, which he has since recognised.

The shawl was actually displayed in a glass case at the Bournemouth conference of 2001, with no Eddowes descendants present. I was the organiser of this event and personally took the shawl from Andy and Sue Parlour, placing it in a glass cabinet for two hours and then it was returned.

What was displayed at Wolverhampton was a replica of Kate's clothing and possessions produced by Andy and Claudia Aliffe.

On a related note, I spoke with Andy Aliffe this morning who said he has never worked at the V&A and has never spoken to them about the shawl. The Edwardian dating comes from a quote by former Crime Museum Curator Alan McCormick, who told Russell Edwards that is what Sotheby's had told him from a cursory glance.

Reading Russell Edwards' book, the truth seems to be rather different.

Adam

[Pinkerton]

DNA match

Didn't Patricia Cornwell claim to get a mitochondrial DNA match to one of the Ripper letters to Walter Sickert? I'm starting to think that matching mitochondrial DNA to a distant relative is no where NEAR 1 in 400,000...

--Jeff

[Phil Carter]

Before everyone gets carried away with this statement, the 'gentleman concerned' got his facts mixed up and mistakenly believed this was the case, which he has since recognised.

The shawl was actually displayed in a glass case at the Bournemouth conference of 2001, with no Eddowes descendants present. I was the organiser of this event and personally took the shawl from Andy and Sue Parlour, placing it in a glass cabinet for two hours and then it was returned.

What was displayed at Wolverhampton was a replica of Kate's clothing and possessions produced by Andy and Claudia Aliffe.

On a related note, I spoke with Andy Aliffe this morning who said he has never worked at the V&A and has never spoken to them about the shawl. The Edwardian dating comes from a quote by former Crime Museum Curator Alan McCormick, who told Russell Edwards that is what Sotheby's had told him from a cursory glance.

Reading Russell Edwards' book, the truth seems to be rather different.

Adam

Hello Adam,

Well that quote just came out 20 mins ago. Are you sure we are talking about the same person?


regards


Phil

[Henry Flower]

Adam, thank you.

I take back my 'wow!'

The smoking gun is firing blanks.

[Rob Clack]

I was at Wolverhampton on 2007 and I don't remember the shawl being there but I stand tp be corrected on that. Some of Catherine Eddowes Descendants were there.
The shawl would have been owned by Russell Edwards at this time so I think it ia unlikely it was there. But as I said I stand to be corrected.

Rob

[AdamNeilWood]

It doesn't matter where the quote comes from Phil, the shawl wasn't at Wolverhampton.

Adam

[Poch]

Again, going by the book, it wasn't there if the conference was later than March. He expressed interest in buying it in march and made the sale in April. After which he stored it in a glass case in his home and was rather secretive about it.

If it was there and he was the owner then you can say he has been disingenuous in his book as you are led to believe that it certainly wouldn't have been there.

[Phil Carter]

It doesn't matter where the quote comes from Phil, the shawl wasn't at Wolverhampton.

Adam

Hello Adam,


I don't know Adam, I wasn't there. But the gentleman who wrote it said it was handled there by the Eddowes descendants.


Don't blame me.. I'm just the messenger



Phil

[Rob_Perrin]

I think all we can safely say is the victim either wiped up his DNA or he ejaculated on the shawl. Having his DNA found on the shawl does not prove he was the ripper. Knowing what we do about Kosminski it is not a stretch at all to think he would enlist the services of prostitutes. Does anyone know of any other DNA found on the shawl or was it only the victims and Kosminski's? The answer to that question would go a long way to deciding which way to lean on this whole DNA affair.

[Qlder]

A slight disappointment with this thread...

Having read almost all of this thread over recent days, I must register my disappointment at the lack of any use of the term "whole cloth" when refering to the shawl's antecedents. To wit, the provenance of the shawl appears to have been manufactured out of whole cloth.

Turning now to something slightly more constructive (although it might be truer to say destructive):
Back at #660 Fisherman posted a link to a discussion at DNA Explained posted by Roberta Jestes who is a genetic genealogist (exactly the type of scientist who can shed some light on this stuff) which queried the Jewish Russian aspect of the mtDNA results as reported in the press.

I recommend having a read through it. It is relatively brief and to the point and everyone who wants to talk about the probabilities involved with the mtDNA evidence (and who does not already have a degree in genetics or bioinformatics) really should have a look at it. Some of the prior discussions hereabouts have been way off when putting numbers to what can be done with mtDNA. (The author of "Jack the Ripper???" at DNA Explained lets herself down very slightly with a mathematical error (actually it is a transposition error, showing 43,329/6,000,000 instead of 52/43,329) in the second last column of her table of figures but the error is not carried forward into the vital final column (although there is the introduction of some rounding error, but that is a mathematician's quibble).

The bottom-line is that mtDNA has various "haplotypes" or "haplogroups". Like old-fashioned blood-types, we all have them and so do many hundreds, thousands and millions of others, although some are rarer than others. However, within each haplogroup there are multiple subgroupings and these subgroupings can dramatically narrow down a cohort to a surprisingly small number. The example given by Ms Jestes is her own type J1c2f. The J-group on its own applies to close to 8% of all people in the database to which she refers, however, the additional divisions provided by the subgroups 1,c,2 and f narrows J1c2f down to just 6 people out of 43,329 (ie 1.4 in 10,000). Hint as to how this happens: mtDNA is passed down directly along the maternal line but like all DNA, it mutates along the way, so we get people with related DNA, but not identical DNA. The closer they are related, the fewer differences they have.

Now, here's the kicker to Ms Jestes' posting (and it is perhaps a reflection of the level of genetics expertise in this thread that none here seem to have picked it up):

Ms Jestes refers to the Daily-Mail's quotations of Jari Louhelainen:

However, from his discussion, we can also tell that additional sequencing has been done on the DNA retrieved, because you can’t determine traits like hair color without autosomal sequencing.{Note from Qlder: autosomal DNA is our regular kind of DNA chromosomes excluding our X/Y sex chromosomes} Therefore, if the descendant is truly related to Jack the Ripper, then at least part of their autosomal DNA should match as well, and that was not addressed. If the autosomal DNA does not match, at least in part, then it calls into question the conclusions drawn by the mitochondrial DNA match.

What Jestes has picked up on is the fact that Louhelainen claims to have identified a hair colour from the genetic material taken from the semen stain. DNA for hair colour is from autosomal DNA, not mitochondrial DNA. If they had any significant autosomal DNA to work with, why didn't they match that against the descendant's DNA. If the descendant is, say, a great-grand niece, then she would share about 1/16th (6.25%) of her autosomal DNA with her great-grand uncle. Such a matching would be very persuasive, bordering on conclusive. If they had that matching, that would be the story. Instead, we are presented with the weaker mtDNA argument.

To those who are reading the book: please provide what details and comments you can about Louhelainen's claim to have determined a hair colour.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Phil,

Alarming indeed.

I think it may well be 'case closed' for shawlgate.

But I'm not one to hold a grudge, I will be in Spitalfields tomorrow, and I need a new yo-yo...

MrB

[eddie1]

Hello Adam,


I don't know Adam, I wasn't there. But the gentleman who wrote it said it was handled there by the Eddowes descendants.


Don't blame me.. I'm just the messenger


Phil

I'm guessing this is where that quote is from

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/has-jack-the-rippers-identity-really-really-been-revealed--x1aJnQY44x

[AdamNeilWood]

Hello Adam,


I don't know Adam, I wasn't there. But the gentleman who wrote it said it was handled there by the Eddowes descendants.


Don't blame me.. I'm just the messenger



Phil

Not blaming you Phil, I'm just layout out the facts.

Mistaken comments, even made innocently, can have profound repercussions.

If the person who made said the Eddowes descendants feels I am wrong then please tell them to get in touch.

Best wishes
Adam

[JadenCollins]

Tbh guys, you're all right at some point, but the thing is no matter how hard someone tries to figure out it, the Jack The Ripper case will remain unsolved. Everyone can come up with a story and some facts might be true but no one can actually cofirm it, unless one day scientists invent a time machine and we can all go back to 1888 and figure it out < and that will probably never happen, so I'd say keep on guessing.