Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Wickerman]

If what I've just read in the daily mail is true and the scientific side of it can be independently confirmed then it is case closed you can't argue with hard facts we might have exciting times ahead and please let's keep an open mind.

"To extract DNA samples from the stains on the shawl, I used a technique I developed myself, which I call ‘vacuuming’ – to pull the original genetic material from the depths of the cloth."
Dr Jari Louhelainen

It might be worth asking if this procedure is acknowledged by his peers, or has a proven success rate.
Heaven forbid that this has never been tried before.

[Harry D]

These types of scientific results need to be independently replicated before being accepted as "facts". (This may already have been done, but the article doesn't give us much detail at this stage.) Further, without identifying the descendant of Kosminski's sister (so far as the article goes, we only have Russell Edwards' word about her), the link with Kosminski's mtDNA can only be settled by testing whatever remains of Kosminski there may be, or some other matrilineal descendant of his sister who is prepared to be identified as such.
The provenance of the shawl - conditions of storage, who came into contact with it (possibly some smutty pun in there somewhere - sorry) - is, and very likely will forever remain, very problematical. Even if we get to the stage of having independent replication of the results, we would simply have the facts of a shawl with blood from the Eddowes family and some very small measure of epithlial cells from the Kosminski family. What that would mean for the whole case might be less than the Mr Edwards believes. For instance - if Kosminski was at any time visited by a policeman who wanted to question him about the Whitechapel murders, and that policeman brought along the bloodied shawl to try to prompt some reaction from Kosminski, then the presence of any material from Kosminski would no longer link Kosminski to Mitre Square, but instead would link him to meeting a policeman who had possession of the shawl. ("How could Kosminski's semen get on the shawl?" you may ask. The answer is that he was a man with a serious mental illness and a known proclivity for masturbation.) This line of thought may be seen as a bit of a stretch, but if you're going to convict a man for the ages, your evidence should be required to stand up to the old test of being beyond any reasonable doubt, and I certainly see it as reasonable that Old Bill went to have some chats with Aaron Kosminski and they may have taken along a few prompts to aid the conversation. (How good are the visitors' logs for the institutions that held Kosminski? Would the police have bothered signing in if they felt certain he would never come to trial due to his persistant insanity?)
So, unless the proponents of the shawl determining Kosminski's guilt can (a) have independent confirmation of the results (may have already been done - we don't know) and (b) demonstrate that there was never any other opportunity for Kosminski to be in contact with the shawl, I will retain some skepticism.

BTW mtDNA only identifies matrilineal ancestor/descendant lines. Apart from his brothers, there may have been many cousins of various degrees sharing the same mtDNA and living close enough to London's East End to join Aaron Kosminski in the frame.

Which is exactly why this case will never be solved. Even if a piece of evidence was categorically proven to contain traces of victim and suspect's nuclear DNA and not mitochondrial, people (rightly or wrongly) would still propose various innocent scenarios which could lead to this, and that's without getting into the whole dirty business of victim canonicity.

[c.d.]

I am a little confused as to the effect of possible contamination. Perhaps someone can enlighten me. If you are seeking a desired result, as is the case here, and you achieve that result, doesn't that indicate that contamination had no significant effect? On the other hand, contamination seems to be a scapegoat. If you don't get the desired result, it could be because of contamination.

Can somebody help out a graduate with a degree in English Literature?

c.d.

[Stewart P Evans]

Sensible

Let's be sensible about this. It's amazing how these wild and exaggerated claims always garner one or two gullible supporters.

Please read and internalize all available information before supporting these grandiose claims made in a newspaper article promoting a new book and the owner of the disputed article. In examining all the contemporary evidence, as I said, there is no evidence whatsoever of a shawl, especially an enormous length of material such as this. Add to that the fact that there is no possibility that a Metropolitan police constable was anywhere near this murder scene deep in City Police jurisdiction, on a crime scene, property, clothing, and body removal that is very well documented, let alone the fact that he claimed to have obtained what would have been the largest 'garment' in her possession (he would never have been able to do this) then the alarm bells should be deafening.

Also recognize that the claimed DNA sample found was so microscopically small it could have originated from anywhere (the process used claims to have been replicated the DNA sample by millions to enable analysis - a process used in the Hanratty analysis I believe), and the fact that the resultant profile could fit 400,000 of the population (not just a 'Kosminski', it's more like blood grouping than anything), then everyone should be able to see how exaggerated the claims being made here are.

Not only that if you allowed (and I won't) that such a match had been made, then even then it could not prove who the murderer was. Anyone who understands the rules of evidence and continuity would know this.

[eddie1]

I'm afraid that were never going to get that 100 percent proof piece of evidence that some people are after some people don't want it solved as it ends there theory others want a total positive proof which will never happen. As it stands what's been done here is the best we can hope

[Stewart P Evans]

Sorry...

...
As it stands what's been done here is the best we can hope

Sorry, no it's not. The so-called 'shawl' has been around for many, many years, it was in Ripperana way back in 1997, and there is not one recognized Ripper authority that I know of who believes it to be genuine. It's another Ripper red herring.

[eddie1]

A red herring with possible DNA from both murderer and victim. I'm aware there is no reports of a shawl but does that really prove it didn't exist and can it be proven that it wasn't taken before the report of items listed were created ??

[Beowulf]

Well there is the sketch in the article

The sketch is not based on Kosminski though. There is no surviving photo of him. His face is unknown.

Some of the comments on this are good. It's good to be skeptical, but at the same time I don't believe in throwing out new possible leads because I favor a certain suspect.

Whoever the Ripper was I will accept it. I do think the most likely is Kosminski, though.

[Phil Carter]

A red herring with possible DNA from both murderer and victim. I'm aware there is no reports of a shawl but does that really prove it didn't exist and can it be proven that it wasn't taken before the report of items listed were created ??

Hello Eddie1,

Umm excuse me for being perhaps a little dense... but surely the idea is to prove that it was taken, not to prove that it wasn't??

So what you are saying is... Kosminski leaves the "shawl" by the body which Amos Simpson steals, either in situ or whilst the body is being transferred to the mortuary, in doing so crossing out of his police division (N) and into not only another totally different police division (The City Police not the Met) and walked casually away with this 8feet long shawl in front of so many other policemen, who would not have known him from Adam, and who would have been guarding the body with their lives, and doctors who would have needed to keep a very wide circle around the body for breathing space to work in... didn't stop him sneaking away with bloodied evidence and casually getting out of Mitre Square without anyone even asking him "Who the bleedin' 'ell are you and Where the bleedin' 'ell are you going with that sunshine? Not to mention that entrances to said yard were already being sealed off by all and sundry.

Oh, and Kosminski isnt seen either, by anyone. Ever. and he never in all the years in an asylum, exhibited violent tendencies. And he was a perfectly normal person at the time of the murders worried more about, apparently, where his dog leash was.



Phil


Sorry, but this book is all rather silly and reminds this person of a cross between The Final Solution, Cornwell's Sickert theory and The Maybrick Diary.

[Monty]

A red herring with possible DNA from both murderer and victim. I'm aware there is no reports of a shawl but does that really prove it didn't exist and can it be proven that it wasn't taken before the report of items listed were created ??

Key word there...."Possible".

Not definite.


Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Avoid the Boards

A red herring with possible DNA from both murderer and victim. I'm aware there is no reports of a shawl but does that really prove it didn't exist and can it be proven that it wasn't taken before the report of items listed were created ??

This is why I normally avoid the boards. People have read but not understood.

I note you use the word 'possible' above which is a good start. But it also possibly matches 399,999 others! And it is also possible that the microscopic DNA sample originates from a time later than the murders (indeed if it is as old as the murders), the 'shawl' has been all over the place.

The 'time before the items listed were created' doesn't come into it. The Eddowes witness statements, lists, reports etc. begin from the minute the body was found in Mitre Square by PC Watkins of the City Police.

The body was never left unattended, was conveyed to the mortuary and was stripped and the property listed by the police. No Metropolitan Police officer was recorded as being present as indeed he shouldn't have been.

So, no, there was no 'shawl' (the damn thing is 8 feet long!) and no trespassing Met PC could have obtained it had there been one. Does anyone here understand the nature of evidence and continuity? Because I'm afraid most don't appear to.

[eddie1]

Key word there...."Possible".

Not definite.


Monty

But we will never have a definite answer to anything the case is to old the fact that its posibility we have potentionaly the only piece of scientific evidence and maybe the last from the event is quite a exciting development

[Jdombrowski89]

DNA has nailed Kosminski as the Ripper.

Modern science has matched The Ripper with at least one murder, possibly two.
Evidence of semen and victim blood on shawl links individuals together, the shawl was used either before the killing and provided evidence of a sexual act between the two, prostitute and client, or was it used after her death?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746321/Jack-Ripper-unmasked-How-amateur-sleuth-used-DNA-breakthrough-identify-Britains-notorious-criminal-126-years-string-terrible-murders.html

Kosminski relatives are owed a gratitude of debt to allow DNA to be analysed leading to this result.

Quick to put the cart before the horse, aren't we? Don't believe everything you read, especially in that article of all places.

PC Amos Simpson was a Constable for the Metropolitan Police, NOT the City of London Police. The City, as we all know, took charge of the investigation after PC Edward Watkins discovered the body. Simply makes me wonder how a bloke from the Met asked his superiors in the City Police if he could take the shawl home for his wife. Hmm. Considering we are talking about two different police forces here.

Second, there were already DNA tests performed on the shawl which was determined 'inconclusive'.

Some people will do anything to get books sold in the hopes of making $$$. In my opinion this book's premise and 'discovery' holds about as much water as Patricia Cornwell's implication that Walter Sickert was the Ripper because there was the *possibility* that he wrote a Ripper letter, amongst which experts claim mostly were a farce.

[Jdombrowski89]

This is why I normally avoid the boards. People have read but not understood.

I note you use the word 'possible' above which is a good start. But it also possibly matches 399,999 others! And it is also possible that the microscopic DNA sample originates from a time later than the murders (indeed if it is as old as the murders), the 'shawl' has been all over the place.

The 'time before the items listed were created' doesn't come into it. The Eddowes witness statements, lists, reports etc. begin from the minute the body was found in Mitre Square by PC Watkins of the City Police.

The body was never left unattended, was conveyed to the mortuary and was stripped and the property listed by the police. No Metropolitan Police officer was recorded as being present as indeed he shouldn't have been.

So, no, there was no 'shawl' (the damn thing is 8 feet long!) and no trespassing Met PC could have obtained it had there been one. Does anyone here understand the nature of evidence and continuity? Because I'm afraid most don't appear to.

Stewart,

Unfortunately I'm afraid your pleas fall on deaf ears. Most people these days are more than willing to accept something at face value rather than take the time to dissect fact vs fiction.

[Phil Carter]

Help...

The promo band wagon is off...

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-scientist-how-solved-mystery-7732111

If it is in the Liverpool Echo..... now where was it exactly I saw that newspaper in Ripperology again?... Oh yes, I remember now.

Help.

More rubbish in sight on the horizon. Wagons ho!



Phil