Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[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

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

I do hope that Mr Edwards has flak jacket at the ready.

RUSSELL EDWARDS: "In conversation with".
Russell, owner of "Catherine Eddowes' shawl" and author of "Naming Jack the Ripper" will answer questions submitted by our delegates.

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

cheers, gryff

[wolfie1]

I received this today…

Please see below the superb line-up for the Whitechapel Society conference 8th/9th November 2014 in Salisbury. There are still some places remaining. For more information and/or to book your place, either go to our website www.whitechapelsociety.com...

The advertised speakers include…

RUSSELL EDWARDS: "In conversation with".
Russell, owner of "Catherine Eddowes' shawl" and author of "Naming Jack the Ripper" will answer questions submitted by our delegates.

DR JARI LOUHELAINEN: "Naming Jack the Ripper".
Jari, senior lecturer in microbiology at Liverpool John Moores, will tell us how he extracted DNA from the shawl said to belong to Catherine Eddowes.

So it seems that answers may be forthcoming shortly to those who attend this event.

I do hope that Mr Edwards has flak jacket at the ready.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Origin of the Epithelial Cells

The NMR analysis determined that the dye was natural and made from woad (Asatis tinctoria). While is native to central Asia and eastern Europe, it was apparently a pretty common dye and presumably would have been readily available in any major garment manufacturing area.

And re your quote above, we don't even know if it's semen. The bloke who did the test was far from convinced. He's quoted as saying:

The fact that I didn’t find any sperm does not automatically exclude their presence, but considering that squamous cells are a minor component of a typical semen sample (they get into the semen by mechanical sloughing from the urethral epithelium during ejaculation), I would have expected to see them if they had been there. On the other hand, squamous cells like these are also found in other bodily fluids including saliva, sweat etc (basically any fluid that washes over or bathes an epithelial surface).

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

[RockySullivan]

I received this today…

Please see below the superb line-up for the Whitechapel Society conference 8th/9th November 2014 in Salisbury. There are still some places remaining. For more information and/or to book your place, either go to our website www.whitechapelsociety.com...

The advertised speakers include…

RUSSELL EDWARDS: "In conversation with".
Russell, owner of "Catherine Eddowes' shawl" and author of "Naming Jack the Ripper" will answer questions submitted by our delegates.

DR JARI LOUHELAINEN: "Naming Jack the Ripper".
Jari, senior lecturer in microbiology at Liverpool John Moores, will tell us how he extracted DNA from the shawl said to belong to Catherine Eddowes.

So it seems that answers may be forthcoming shortly to those who attend this event.

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!!!

[mickreed]

DR JARI LOUHELAINEN: "Naming Jack the Ripper".
Jari, senior lecturer in microbiology at Liverpool John Moores, will tell us how he extracted DNA from the shawl said to belong to Catherine Eddowes.

Wish I could be there Lechmere. Looks good.

If all JL tells us is 'how he extracted DNA from the shawl' then we won't be much the wiser. I would hope he'll go into the science of the analysis and all that derives from it.

[Jeff Leahy]

No idea Jeff, I'm not in Bimingham.

Monty

Thats OK, i'm only close to Maidstone

Jxx

[Lechmere]

I received this today…

Please see below the superb line-up for the Whitechapel Society conference 8th/9th November 2014 in Salisbury. There are still some places remaining. For more information and/or to book your place, either go to our website www.whitechapelsociety.com...

The advertised speakers include…

RUSSELL EDWARDS: "In conversation with".
Russell, owner of "Catherine Eddowes' shawl" and author of "Naming Jack the Ripper" will answer questions submitted by our delegates.

DR JARI LOUHELAINEN: "Naming Jack the Ripper".
Jari, senior lecturer in microbiology at Liverpool John Moores, will tell us how he extracted DNA from the shawl said to belong to Catherine Eddowes.

So it seems that answers may be forthcoming shortly to those who attend this event.

[mickreed]

That's true, but either dr. JariLou made a huge mistake, or Edwards misinterpreted what was told him, despite what looks like a quotation. I'm more inclined to think Edwards capable of misunderstandings rather than a famous DNA expert capable of such mistakes, so I still think at least possible - maybe not likely, but certainly possible - the first scenario.

I find many of the claims re the DNA hard to figure. This is doubtless because it's not being presented by the scientist, but by Edwards, even given the 'quotes' that he includes in his books.

It's not just the 'Eddowes' DNA issue. From Edwards's claims, this seems like the more solid, but as Chris et al have said, there are question marks that need to be looked at.

Now this next bit has been discussed previously, possibly on jtrforums - I don't recall - but it's worth reiterating.

The Kosminski side is really fraught. It hinges on the haplogroup T1a1 which, we are told, is typical of Russian/Polish Jews. When this info first came out the following observation was made:

This description seems to combine two types of sequencing. Now, that’s not a bad thing, it’s simply confusing. Based on the haplogroup of T1a1, we know that they sequenced mitochondrial DNA and that they did in fact manage to sequence it to the full sequence level. How do we know this? Because each mitochondrial haplogroup is designated by certain specific mutations. In this case, the final 1 of T1a1 is indicated by location 9899 in the coding region of the mitochondria – so in order to designate this individual as a member of haplogroup T1a1, they had to sequence the coding region. Again, we presume (the cousin of assume – with the same consequences) that they were able to successfully sequence the entire mitochondria.

Now for the fly in the ointment, I have not found this haplogroup in Russian Jewish people. In fact, the clients who I have done DNA Reports for who fall into this haplogroup are not Jewish – none of them, nor do they have Jewish matches. Neither does Dr. Behar identify this as a Jewish haplogroup in his founding mother’s paper. Nor is this identified elsewhere as a Jewish haplogroup. Of course, this Daily Mail article has no sources, so we can’t independently verify what was said, but it looks like this assertion of T1a1 typical of Jewish people may be in error.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/09/08/jack-the-ripper/

One of the world's leading genetic genealogists, Ann Turner said this:

I question the statement about the T1a1 haplogroup being common in people of Russian Jewish ancestry. I don’t spot any geographic trend in my database of complete mtDNA sequences from GenBank. T1a1 is found in many European countries, but perhaps there is a specific subclade that was not mentioned in the news item.

http://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog/2014/09/07/8584/

So, again, we are left with a problem. Is it Louhelainen who is at fault, or is it Edwards getting it wrong?

If, as Observer suggests, there's no point in discussing this without Louhelainen's peer-reviewed input, then if it never comes, Edwards will never be asked to justify his claims.

[Fantasio]

No - what Dr Louhelainen is quoted in the book as saying is that it is 314.1C which is the mutation with a frequency of 1 in 290,000:
"This DNA alteration is known as global private mutation (314.1C) and it is not very common in worldwide population, as it has frequency estimate of 0.000003506, i.e. approximately 1/ 290,000."

That's true, but either dr. JariLou made a huge mistake, or Edwards misinterpreted what was told him, despite what looks like a quotation. I'm more inclined to think Edwards capable of misunderstandings rather than a famous DNA expert capable of such mistakes, so I still think at least possible - maybe not likely, but certainly possible - the first scenario.