Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[mickreed]

Fair enough. Unfortunately environmental exposures are causing mutations at a rapid rate nowadays--I'm sure if we could go back in time thousands of years DNA might stay unchanged for hundreds of years. It is a personal issue to me--as I have done some cancer research--and it is horrifying that so many, many young children are dying now at 4-5 years old--because their mothers DNA was mutated and it was passed on to them This is unprecedented. And highly upsetting to me.

'Strewth, Christopher. Even without the personal involvement, I find the above part of your post very upsetting as well. It sure makes JtR seem unimportant 126 year on.

Cheers

Mick

[wolfie1]

“I initially just wanted to prove that the shawl was genuine. I never dreamed that I was actually going to solve the mystery. It’s quite overwhelming and moving that we can say with certainty to Kosminski was the Ripper. It’s been a long personal journey.” Said Edwards, who claims to have spent about 750,000 pounds solving this case but won’t say how much he spent on the shawl itself.

End quote.

I kind of feel sorry for the guy now.

[mickreed]

“I initially just wanted to prove that the shawl was genuine. I never dreamed that I was actually going to solve the mystery. It’s quite overwhelming and moving that we can say with certainty to Kosminski was the Ripper. It’s been a long personal journey.” Said Edwards, who claims to have spent about 750,000 pounds solving this case but won’t say how much he spent on the shawl itself.

End quote.

I kind of feel sorry for the guy now.

Not too sorry, I hope. As others have said, it looks much more like a stuff up than a conspiracy, but you have to wonder at the naďvity of anyone who can say with such aplomb that he has 'solve[d] the mystery'.

Edwards may have come up with an important artifact - time will tell on that - but he is still a very long way from solving anything.

[RavenDarkendale]

JtR takes the "shawl" from the scene, and while escaping through Gloucester Street, writes on the wall and tosses the bloody aperon. He then hands it off to Amos Simpson with the curt explanation "Have a souvenir, kid." He then pops by Maybrick's place to write a few lines in an old diary, instructing Maybrick to hang on to the diary, it would be golden some day. Reaching his hideout in Sickert's studio, he takes the time to quick sketch out a painting and to write another letter to the police.

Then it's off to the informal meeting of Ripper suspects to tell Montague John Druitt. William Gull (who is supporting a bloodied Price Eddie), and every suspect on our list just how he did the deed. He sends a telegram to Joliet, Illinois to Dr. Neville Cream to keep him in the loop. he has a long talk with Lewis Carroll who will record this in a weird anagram in Alice in Wonderland. He doesn't stop until all suspects (whom he somehow knows) receives the news of his crime.

Yes, this is sarcastic. But it covers everybody...

[GUT]

JtR takes the "shawl" from the scene, and while escaping through Gloucester Street, writes on the wall and tosses the bloody aperon. He then hands it off to Amos Simpson with the curt explanation "Have a souvenir, kid." He then pops by Maybrick's place to write a few lines in an old diary, instructing Maybrick to hang on to the diary, it would be golden some day. Reaching his hideout in Sickert's studio, he takes the time to quick sketch out a painting and to write another letter to the police.

Then it's off to the informal meeting of Ripper suspects to tell Montague John Druitt. William Gull (who is supporting a bloodied Price Eddie), and every suspect on our list just how he did the deed. He sends a telegram to Joliet, Illinois to Dr, Neville Cream to keep him in the loop. he has a long talk with Lewis Carroll who will record this in a weird anagram in Alice in Wonderland. He doesn't stop until all suspects (whom he somehow knows) receives the news of his crime.

Yes, this is sarcastic. But it covers everybody...

No it doesn't cover everybody what about Van Gogh?

[Mycroftacd]

baffulling

Baffulling to me why tampering with DNA on "shawl" is not considered more seriously. One. Doesn't seem that complecated, all that would be required is a minite or two of being alone with "shawl" and Eddowes family desendant DNA and Kosminski family desendant DNA and wala "new evidence" solving the case.
Two. Motive, money need I specutate about the difference in value of a questionable "shawl" with a inconcusive DNA test and questionable family history of a police officer who worked across the city in a different juristdiction that has no record or reason for him to be at the murder site and the value of the piece of "new evidence" that "scientifically" solves the most famous crime in the history of the world? Would millions be too much or to little? This "shawl" hasn't come out of some secret Scotland Yard or Home Office vault and been in the constant custody of disinterested public servants with nothing to gain. But in the custody of a family with a questionable family history and a man who sells "Jack the Ripper" yoyos who has a great deal to gain. Absurd hardly seems a strong enough condemnation.
As for "incontributable DNA proof" it's a fantasy for at least the next 125 years. You'd have to have a break through of nuclear DNA reconstruction of the existing DNA fragments. You'd have to have numerous controls taken now by numerous independent scientist so that you'd know what the control's DNA was. Then after storing the to be reconstructed DNA in the same conditions for the same amount of time. Then compare the reconstructed DNA to the control DNA. And that's assuming you can positively identify whatever remains of Eddowes and Kosminski. And even then you haven't proven anything but that at some time a prostitute came into contact with the semen of someone who by all accounts was very fond of masterbation. Again absurd hardly seems strong enough.

[Henry Flower]

It covers Van Gogh. It mentions "every suspect on our list".

[lynn cates]

discourage

Hello Henry. Thanks.

Yes, such a "stroke" would discourage hard work and genuine research.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

address

Hello Mick.

"Did the police go to Eddowes digs after they found her body?"

According to her story, her last address was Mile End Casual Ward.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

suspect

Hello Jeff.

"It's not looking good for Aaron if further new evidence can be substantiated"

Actually, I have never thought it looked good for Aaron--or any other suspect.

But that's for a different thread.

Cheers.
LC

[curious4]

Shawl/tablerunner

Of all the things likely to be taken on a hunt for a victim these come far down on the list. "Check: knife, suitable container for body organs, false mustache, right yes, oops almost forgot, piece of chalk!" Perhaps he was planning on a picnic?

Best wishes
C4

P.S. With you all the way on the royals, GUT :-)

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff.

"It's not looking good for Aaron if further new evidence can be substantiated"

Actually, I have never thought it looked good for Aaron--or any other suspect.

But that's for a different thread.

Cheers.
LC

I agree it was a poor use of the english language…

I was just trying to point out that there are those of use who believe there is every reason to suspect Aaron Kosminski long before the Shawl.

And if the DNA did prove correct there's over 126 suspects who would suddenly find themselves in the clear….not that some of them deserve it, Chapman fore instance..

But poor old Druit and Gull might celebrate? lets not open the campaign just yet

Yours Jeff

[Chris]

Baffulling to me why tampering with DNA on "shawl" is not considered more seriously. One. Doesn't seem that complecated, all that would be required is a minite or two of being alone with "shawl" and Eddowes family desendant DNA and Kosminski family desendant DNA and wala "new evidence" solving the case.

I think there would be a lot more practical difficulties than you're suggesting.

But in any case, according to the book Dr Louhelainen extracted the material from the region of the possible semen stains in Autumn 2012. That was the material that was later compared with the sample from Aaron Kozminski's relation. That sample wasn't obtained until the following year.

Similarly, the material that was compared with Karen Miller's DNA appears to have been extracted from the shawl before Russell Edwards contacted her (though the dates are not entirely clear from the book).

[Prosector]

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.

I agree with everything you say and it raises an interesting point - I wonder if the various companies who do mtDNA profiling for purposes of genealogical research would be willing to compare the alleged Eddowes and Kosminski results with their databases and see just how many exact or near matches there are? It could be done anonymously without revealing the names of the donors involved but it might put it in context.
Prosector

[Admin]

Posters are asked to please follow our copyright rule, as outlined in the Major Rules. This includes photos. Please do not upload photos if they are copyright protected. If you would like to link to the photo and the article, that is fine, but please do not load them here as we can be sued for infringement and end up having to pay a use fee.

Thanks for your co-operation, carry on.