Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Bridewell]

New member here--Chemist who post doc'd in London for a while and knows some of the researchers involved (although I am NOT a gene jockey myself).

I'm not convinced either--and don't want to weigh in until I get the book. My Amazon order is apparently delayed for a few weeks so I have no idea when it will get here.

However, I have been told that they are claiming that not only is the victim's blood present, but it shows a medium to high velocity blood spatter pattern--indicative of blood spatter deposited from stab wounds. IF this proves to be true and verifiable (no idea if this is the case) most people will take that as proof that the cloth was at the scene even if it was not photographed or inventoried.

If a knife turned up with Nicole Brown and Ron Simpson's DNA on it--would people need more proof that it was at the scene? Blood evidence would be the proof.

Of course at this point--I am not sure how strong their case is. There seems to be holes--but I have not read the book--only speculation.

Hi Christoper,

Welcome to Casebook.

Interesting first post, but for Amos Simpson to have done what he is supposed to have done, he would need to have discovered the body before anyone else and done nothing at all except steal an item of clothing from the scene. Is this something a police officer would boast about to his descendants? Most unlikely.

[Pontius2000]

I agree.

New member here--Chemist who post doc'd in London for a while and knows some of the researchers involved (although I am NOT a gene jockey myself).

I'm not convinced either--and don't want to weigh in until I get the book. My Amazon order is apparently delayed for a few weeks so I have no idea when it will get here.

However, I have been told that they are claiming that not only is the victim's blood present, but it shows a medium to high velocity blood spatter pattern--indicative of blood spatter deposited from stab wounds. IF this proves to be true and verifiable (no idea if this is the case) most people will take that as proof that the cloth was at the scene even if it was not photographed or inventoried.

If a knife turned up with Nicole Brown and Ron Simpson's DNA on it--would people need more proof that it was at the scene? Blood evidence would be the proof.

Of course at this point--I am not sure how strong their case is. There seems to be holes--but I have not read the book--only speculation.

Great post. I look forward to hearing your opinion after you've read the book.

I'm no DNA expert, so here's a question for you....if they exhumed the bodies of Eddowes and Kosminski and obtained hair samples, wouldn't that pretty much solve the shawl debate one way or other? Since they'd be comparing the blood DNA to Eddowes herself and not a descendant many generations removed, wouldn't they be able to say definitively that she did or didn't have contact with this fabric?

[christoper]

Hi Christoper,

Welcome to Casebook.

Interesting first post, but for Amos Simpson to have done what he is supposed to have done, he would need to have discovered the body before anyone else and done nothing at all except steal an item of clothing from the scene. Is this something a police officer would boast about to his descendants? Most unlikely.

The story of how the cloth came into this families possession seems ridiculous--I agree.

However, at least here in the US until 40-50 years ago it was common for people to try to take trophies from crime scenes. (not just people from law enforcement--but ordinary people as well).

My great grandfather was a sheriff--and his diary tells of having to hold people off with a gun and even threaten his own men--because they were trying to loot souvenirs from a crime scene. (same era--but small town in Texas). My fathers brother was a detective in LA in the 60s--he wanted to see the evidence from a high profile unsolved case from the 1940s and was told that hardly anything remained--officers had walked away with most of the evidence.

So it happens.

In the last 40-50 years we have better procedures for securing crime scenes--and we also realize the value of trace evidence. It was a different world then and many people didn't think it would hurt anything to walk away with a souvenir.

I suspect if the blood tells a convincing enough tale (no idea if it will or not), that the details won't matter much to the average Joe--but will be something for "Ripperologists" to ponder for years to come.

[Pontius2000]

Officers from, say, Stoke on Trent could have been used. We're talking probabilities, which is what science deals in, not absolute proof which is always impossible.
Prosector

Totally agree with you there. No absolute proof that he did or did not take the shawl, or that the shawl was ever there, or that he was or was not in the vicinity of Mitre Square. And since science isn't going to put a probability on any of those questions, we're left with what we as individuals can accept. I agree with all the naysayers that it's "not likely" that the shawl was ever at the crime scene, or that even Simpson was at the crime scene. However, I accept that it is at least plausible where many of the naysayers proclaim it a hoax outright.

[christoper]

Great post. I look forward to hearing your opinion after you've read the book.

I'm no DNA expert, so here's a question for you....if they exhumed the bodies of Eddowes and Kosminski and obtained hair samples, wouldn't that pretty much solve the shawl debate one way or other? Since they'd be comparing the blood DNA to Eddowes herself and not a descendant many generations removed, wouldn't they be able to say definitively that she did or didn't have contact with this fabric?

I'm not a DNA expert either (laughingly referred to them as gene jockeys) but have worked with many in my work as a humble, simple chemist/toxicologist.

My impression is that this particular test was chosen because DNA on the cloth was degraded from time and of course comparison with a living, willing relative is easier than exhuming a body (which would have also spoiled the element of surprise--which will sell books). But--yes a comparison with Eddowes herself (of Kosminski himself) would give much higher statistical odds that it was indeed those individuals.

[christoper]

I'm under the impression that pieces have been cut out of the cloth and framed? And that these pieces are not under the control of the book author?

If that is the case, I would start there (before exhuming bodies). Analyze samples that the author has not had control over--see if they show the same results.

[Trevor Marriott]

No we cannot say that. Not until the whole testing methodology has been scrutinized by experts and it has been peer tested.

I am happy to say that I do not believe that a connection between the 'shawl' and Eddowes and Kosminki can be established. I have said that already. But everyone has their own opinion on this.

For once we agree

[TizerisT]

Regarding 'why would JtR carry around an 8ft cloth' remember, once you have folded it 4 or 5 times it would be no bigger than a teatowel or handkerchief. And as for why would have it? To wipe his blade, one would assume. Within the scenario of the book, perhaps once he realised it was blood spattered (on the now-cut-off corner) he discarded it, either wiped the blade on something else (apron?) or made his escape without pausing to wipe it on anything.

[Trevor Marriott]

Great post. I look forward to hearing your opinion after you've read the book.

I'm no DNA expert, so here's a question for you....if they exhumed the bodies of Eddowes and Kosminski and obtained hair samples, wouldn't that pretty much solve the shawl debate one way or other? Since they'd be comparing the blood DNA to Eddowes herself and not a descendant many generations removed, wouldn't they be able to say definitively that she did or didn't have contact with this fabric?

I dont think it would because the DNA on the material will always remain secondary.

[Scobie]

Given the non specific nature of the DNA, couldn't Chapman (Klosowski) be a match as well?

I always thought he was a pretty good suspect, why isn't he being considered as well using the same evidence?

[christoper]

Regarding 'why would JtR carry around an 8ft cloth' remember, once you have folded it 4 or 5 times it would be no bigger than a teatowel or handkerchief. And as for why would have it? To wipe his blade, one would assume. Within the scenario of the book, perhaps once he realised it was blood spattered (on the now-cut-off corner) he discarded it, either wiped the blade on something else (apron?) or made his escape without pausing to wipe it on anything.

That's a great theory. I just started Robert House's book last night--and have been thinking about The Batty Street “Lodger” and how his bloodstained clothes brought him to the attention of the police. If that was the ripper--he may have been more careful afterwards--and brought a cloth to clean himself and the knife up a bit.

[christoper]

Given the non specific nature of the DNA, couldn't Chapman (Klosowski) be a match as well?

I always thought he was a pretty good suspect, why isn't he being considered as well using the same evidence?

Only if he shares that exact same maternal line. This is another thing that should be done---genealogical experts who have access to the appropriate databases should start looking at the maternal lines of the major suspects. Could any share a line with AK? (I have no idea)

[Mycroftacd]

whew

Finally and it looks briefly got finished reading all this thread. It seems to me that so far Edwards is no where near proving his case. And from what I've read it doesn't look to me that it even can be proved. If mDNA is the only is the only DNA that would survive for this length of time. The lack of any reasonable chain of evidence can not be dismissed out of hand. If making a claim it's the maker task to prove the claim standards of proving the claim should be high. It doesn't seem to have been proven here IMO.
As to Kosminski as a suspect, the only thing I've seen proven about him is that he was weird, Jewish, foreign and like to masterbate at inappropreate times and places. And that his family was probablely getting tired of supporting him under these circimstances. The first thing to bring him to police attention happened over a year after the crimes and there you have a failure produce an ID. You have unsupported statements by a top policemen trying to excuse why the most famous case of the time wasn't solved. Beyond the statement of what is probablely an in law trying to get rid of a mouching masterbating relative there is no accusation of violence. Masterbation is not evidence of murder.
As to those who say it deserves more investigation, here's some ifs for you, if you can convince one of the current owners, if you can finance the research by independent scientist, if they can reproduce the results, then you'll have proved that at some time, that the mDNA of Eddows or her extended family and desendants came into contact with this piece of fabric and that the mDNA of Kosminski or his extended family and desendants came into contact with this piece of fabric. You will not have proven murder. You will not have disproven tampering or manufacturing evidence for financial gain. The rules of evidence and chain of custody exsist for a reason.

[lynn cates]

rejection

Hello Pontius.

"But no true scholar who is interested in finding the truth would dismiss it outright without further research. And THAT is the problem I have with many of the posters on this thread."

Actually, there are times when it is our epistemic DUTY to dismiss such things. Example: a claim that one has a round-square table.

To allow for testing would go against the tenets of doxastology/epistemology.

Cheers.
LC

[Scobie]

Only if he shares that exact same maternal line.

On the basis that what actually has been proven (I think - losing track) is that the DNA could have come from a Polish Jew.

Surely if looking at this evidence Chapman should be tested and considered along with Kosminski.