Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo.

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.

*: ) *: ) *: )

[christoper]

Originally Posted by Pontius2000 View Post
There is another point of contention and confusion and I think Chritopher would be much better qualified to try to answer than me.

But some of the numbers I've read within this thread are hard to believe. I'm not going back through hundreds of posts to try to find it now. But something to the tune that mtDNA would not narrow the specimen down to Kosminski, but rather include him within a group of, say, 40% of London's population that would also match. Is that where you're guessing that Koslowski may also match? I'd be interested in reading where they got that from, but it does NOT gel with what I've read. What I've read is that mtDNA is absolutely a reliable method of identification. It is, and has been, allowed as evidence in court proceedings. I can't see how this could be if it is as unreliable as some within this thread claim. From what I've read, Kosminski and Koslowski would only have the same mtDNA match if they were of the same maternal line, which would have nothing to do with whether or not they are Polish or Polish Jew.

But again, I'm no expert and perhaps Christopher could clarify this.

Haven't read the book. It's not released in this country until 30 September but ...

From reports,we're told that the mtDNA from the unidentified Kosminski relative matched the mtDNA found on the shawl. That actually doesn't prove a great deal. Sure, suggestions that 40% of Londoners would match, are ridiculous, but it would almost certainly be a hell of a lot more than a dozen or two.

You get your mtDNA from your mother, who gets it from hers, who gets it from hers, and so on. It can be assigned to a haplogroup - in this case T1a1 which is, according to the reports, very typical of Ashkenazi Jews. It's not actually! Less than 5% of Ashkenazis are of haplogroup T. Those with T1a1 would be still fewer.

It is quite common amongst Scandinavians, many of whom came to Britain as Vikings, although how many women they brought with them is unclear. It's also common amongst many other parts of the world, Central Europe, Morocco and so on. One group it's uncommon in are the Russian/Polish Jews. Why is is uncommon amongst these? Well, the T haplogroup seems to have been in Europe for millennia. Probably came about 6,500 years ago. The Ashkenazis are late-comers by comparison, it being only about 1000 years sine they arrived.

The Y-chromosome haplogroup (relayed via the male line) of the same label (but quite different in every other respect) is quite common amongst Ashkenazis. It may be that the reports are confusing these two. If they only had mtDNA, then the Y-chromosome haplogroup is irrelevant.

What the match does confirm (assuming the analysis is correct) is that someone with a relationship in the maternal line to the Kosminski relative, left the mtDNA on the shawl. This could be Aaron but it could be all sorts of people.

It's hard to be precise since mtDNA mutates randomly, it could stay the same for a very long time, but it could change quite quickly. Overall, it seems that 100% identical mtDNA would suggest a relationship any time in the last 16 generations - or about 400 years. I dread to think how many people would have been in London and who descended from the same woman who may have lived in the 16th century.

I know for sure that I share my mtDNA profile with 507 people from all over the world. And that's just the tip of the iceberg as it includes only those people who have been tested and who entered their data into the relevant database. There will be squillions out there. I don't know any of them, let alone how we are related.

So, I'd be wary of any attempt to put a figure on the numbers of people who could be represented by the DNA on the shawl. 40%? - certainly not. A handful? Almost certainly not.

16 generations without mutation? Theoretically perhaps--if they all lived in glass bubbles. Post Industrial Rev mutations (usually slight) have occurred approximately every 5 generations, depending on the severity of the mutations the changes could be significant quickly. I don't match my own great grandmother at the 90% level--my grandmother had significant environmental mutations from working in a byproducts plant.

You say that you have 507 matches out of a world population approaching 7 billion.
That would be 50.7 matches in a population of 700 million,
5 matches in a population of 70 million.
0.5 matches in a population of 7 million.
London at the time had approximately 6 million.

[Monty]

Article in The Cornishman, of Eddowes inquest also states that Kate was known to be a Hawker and Cleaner of Jewish homes, so not impossible to consider the fancy shawl, dress, etc was stolen from a Jewish home by Kate when cleaning as she had personal direct access to Jewish houses.
Cheers

Pheobe the Jewess.

Monty

[Poch]

Hi Poch

Thanks for that further info. Now thinking its time to order the book myself. Largely because some time ago I looked into the notion that Jack attacked from behind using a garrotte and silk would have made a good material leaving few marks.

I can't help thinking we have two very different DNA questions.

The first being the match to Eddows which should be fairly simple if their is blood splatter.
(The Shroud of Turin was a different case in hand as they were using samples from the edges handled over a long period and they were just looking to date the artefact)

And on the other hand the match to Kosminski. Which seems more complicated

Many thanks

Yours Jeff

You're quite welcome Jeff, I thought the book was fascinating just purely from a 'science nerd' aspect personally, I'm not convinced on the guys theory on the book alone, but not a bad read at all.

You're right though, the 2 DNA samples seemed to be quite different and the process was different for both also. Apparently the scientist chap told the author that it wouldn't have been possible just a few years ago and apparently even since they've done the work there is now another even newer way to do what they did. Science eh, crazy stuff!

[Trevor Marriott]

Jeff
When are you and many others on here going to accept that the DNA on the shawl is not a positive match to Kosminski or eddowes.

If the percentages are as many as 400.000 then the DNA cannot all be connected by family ties.

You and I could have the same mtd god forbid that we are related.

On another note there was no evidence at the scene relative to blood splattering in fact there was very little evidence of blood on the upper clothing of Eddowes

[Mitchell]

Hello all. Long time lurker and first time poster. It's been said before on this monster of a topic but I think everything ultimately comes down to the fact that the only thing connecting this fabric to Mitre Square is little more than an urban legend. The historical record tells us that neither this piece of fabric or Amos Simpson were anywhere near the scene of Eddowes' murder. This means that the onus is on Edwards to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the existent historical record is wrong and his alternate "version" is the truth. Unfortunately for him he can't seem to do that.

[wolfie1]

Jeff
When are you and many others on here going to accept that the DNA on the shawl is not a positive match to Kosminski or eddowes.

If the percentages are as many as 400.000 then the DNA cannot all be connected by family ties.

You and I could have the same mtd god forbid that we are related.

On another note there was no evidence at the scene relative to blood splattering in fact there was very little evidence of blood on the upper clothing of Eddowes

I am positive the kind extremely well educated folk on this forum are DNA savvy, perhaps pose the DNa related questions here:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/forumdisplay.php/10-y-DNA-Haplogroups

[Poch]

Jeff
When are you and many others on here going to accept that the DNA on the shawl is not a positive match to Kosminski or eddowes.

If the percentages are as many as 400.000 then the DNA cannot all be connected by family ties.

You and I could have the same mtd god forbid that we are related.

On another note there was no evidence at the scene relative to blood splattering in fact there was very little evidence of blood on the upper clothing of Eddowes

This 400,000 figure has been tossed around since the start of this thread and I'm not sure where it comes from, is it the daily mail article? It's not the figures given in the book. I feel like I'm saying the same things over and over, and I'm not even a 'shawler' or whatever... I just want a debate on here that uses the correct information instead of all this stuff that isn't really related and yet for some reason, persists.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff
When are you and many others on here going to accept that the DNA on the shawl is not a positive match to Kosminski or eddowes.

If the percentages are as many as 400.000 then the DNA cannot all be connected by family ties.

You and I could have the same mtd god forbid that we are related.

On another note there was no evidence at the scene relative to blood splattering in fact there was very little evidence of blood on the upper clothing of Eddowes

Hi Trevor

I'll let other people handle the science details. I was simply pointing out that identifying connections to Eddows should be far more simple than Kosminski. Thats because we all know and have met direct descendants of Catherine Eddows thanks to the brilliant work by Neil Sheldon.

And if there is blood on the Shawl it should be much more easy to identify and test.

And what I'm saying is that if those tests prove conclusive then it would seem probable that the Shawl/Table runner/Garrot had something to do with Eddows Death.

I mean sure you could argue what if she had been using the shawl as a tampax… but that's just a cloud cuckoo argument is it not?

The probability is that it supports the story originally told by Amos family. Who from everything I've heard and read were always cincere in their belief it was Cathrine Eddows shawl taken by their relative after the murder.

Yours Jeff

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29106437

[wolfie1]

I am positive the kind extremely well educated folk on this forum are DNA savvy, perhaps pose the DNa related questions here:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/for...NA-Haplogroups

wonder if any of the Scientific community on the DNA forum would care to confirm the findings in the book as accurate and unquestionably correct?

[Poch]

wonder if any of the Scientific community on the DNA forum would care to confirm the findings in the book as accurate and unquestionably correct?

I doubt they would be willing or able to without access to the guys research, but I'm sure they could have a better stab at it than most, if not all here.

Unless there is any geneticists hidden away? I know I'm definitely not a geneticist, so I'm out!

[wolfie1]

I doubt they would be willing or able to without access to the guys research, but I'm sure they could have a better stab at it than most, if not all here.

Unless there is any geneticists hidden away? I know I'm definitely not a geneticist, so I'm out!

I also doubt they would be willing to verify the findings based on one test sampling published in a non scientific referenced journal.

[Gene Lewis]

For those wanting to know how carefully handled the 'shawl' was over the years, the O'Donnell (Parlours') book tells us -

'… David has always assumed that this had been bloodstained and his grandmother had cut this off and thrown it away, also dabbing out one or two more stains with bleach (David himself had cut out the two sections which were later framed.).'

Is DNA bleach resistant ?

[Aelric]

So, thanks to Stewart Evans and Monty, we know that Amos Simpson was not mentioned as being on any sort of special duties outside of N division at the time.

Surely this means that the only way Simpson could have got hold of the cloth (be it a shawl, table runner, pocket handkerchief for a clown or whatever) was

a. if he was out that night of his own volition for reasons unknown and just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

b. if he was the first person on the scene after the Ripper had legged it, saw the cloth and stole it.

and c. he then managed to get away before PC Watkins arrived?

When he got home, he span a yarn to his wife about being on special duties and how he'd asked to take the cloth home and been given permission. The cloth gets put away and the story is passed down with it.

The only other option is that he was sent out by a superior officer on special duties in an unofficial capacity, but then why would he tell his wife that if it was unofficial and, therefore, illegal?

All we can do is speculate since the records don't show him to be doing what he claimed, but that just makes his story the more unbelievable as he had to have lied to his wife for the "special duties" story to have been passed down.

Crediblity has been stretched so far that what was once an 8 foot shawl is now a big top, IMO.

Regarding the shawl and it's mis-identification as a dress, the Catherine Eddowes page on this site notes she had a "Dark green chintz skirt, 3 flounces, brown button on waistband. The skirt is patterned with Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies."
Is there any sign of a waistband or brown button on the shawl/cloth? If not, then the Edwards conceit that the dress mentioned in the newspaper and the shawl are one and the same is a mistake at best.

http://www.casebook.org/victims/eddowes.html

[Gene Lewis]

What's your thoughts.

The alleged table runner was at the murder site bought by kominsky carrying it through whitechappel that particular night.
Murders Eddowes.
Takes table runner home .
Eventually gets put in the asylum and the table cloth/runner is taken from his house as a momentous by our police friend.

Think I will write a book .

[- carrying it through whitechappel that particular night.]

- Murders Stride

[- Murders Eddowes.]