Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Phil Carter]

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.

Hello Justin,

I really want to know how someone is going to sneak out of Mitre Square with an 8ft long piece of cloth tucked underneath his arm, without being collared.

It really is fantasy league stuff this.



Phil

[Robert]

Photo of Kosminski issued by the Evans/Skinner archive? Eh???

[jason_c]

Any match of 1 in 400,000 would at face value seem pretty strong evidence. That wouldnt be enough to convict today in a court of law but as "evidence" in the Ripper crime it would be pretty damn strong. Certainly stronger evidence than almost any other book promoting a suspect. Plenty of other Ripper authors have made a bit of money out of lesser probabilities.

The problem comes from the provenance of the shawl, the new scientific technique used on the shawl and the possibility of accidental or deliberate contamination. All of which makes the DNA results almost meaningless in my opinion. Unless otherwise proven I will dismiss this evidence. Any further proof will have to be relayed to me second-hand as I will not be purchasing another cashcow of the umpteenth author who claims to have "sovled" the crime.

[Trevor Marriott]

You noticed that small detail?

and no mention of Pc Simpson anywhere !

[DeltaXi65]

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.

What Stewart said.

Come on guys - how many times have we seen this exact same scenario played out? Amateur sleuth discovers JTR's identity using modern forensic science techniques? It's as regular as the tides.

Let's be skeptical until we have a reason to not be skeptical. As noted mDNA is not as precise as other DNA testing. The shawl, even if the provenance is proven, has been handled by far too many people.

Edwards says he's not writing a book. We'll see.

[TomTomKent]

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??

Absolutely this. The Null Hypothesis here is a long the lines of: "The shawl was not mentioned in evidence at the time because it was not hers and and therefore could have come from anywhere, any when."

Suitable evidence to overcome this null and give us reason to believe the story attached to the item (which as far as I can see is about as convincing as all those haunted artefacts on E-bay) has to be a lot more convincing as it now stands. The DNA evidence seems weak at the moment. From the news articles I have read today I have concerns about the comparison pool for the tests.

Now I admit, my earlier posts tried to extend the benefit of the doubt and ask about implications if the evidence could be shown to be valid, but the more I read, the less inclined I am to feel that the benefit of the doubt is warranted.

Assuming the best possible case, where we happened to have DNA swabs not only of every other suspect ever named, but every other resident of London at the time... Those results could identify between 1 and 399,999 other suspects. There is a fair possibility that other named suspects might be in that pool.

Even in optimum testing conditions we would be appealing to the CSI effect of popular interest rather than supplying useful evidence to further our knowledge and understanding. And at the moment that would stand with a lot of conditions: That the authenticity of the shawl could be proven, that the
shawl could be shown to be stored in a suitable manner to prevent any kind of tampering or contamination. And so forth. Every single article I have read has raised more, not less, questions about the claims in my mind.

And of course, even if the DNA tests were beyond question we would still have to ask how we can be sure the stains were created as part of the murder. For all we know, the tests could just show the unfortunate victim had the misfortune to spatter her blood in an alley way Kosminski had already passed through, dropping his stained security blanket some unknowable time before....

[Trevor Marriott]

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, by the content of some of the posts you are so right they don't. It seems the word DNA is making some people lose sight of reality, despite several attempts to make the difference clear between Primary and Secondary DNA and the evidential value of both types.

[Trevor Marriott]

Any match of 1 in 400,000 would at face value seem pretty strong evidence. That wouldnt be enough to convict today in a court of law but as "evidence" in the Ripper crime it would be pretty damn strong. Certainly stronger evidence than almost any other book promoting a suspect. Plenty of other Ripper authors have made a bit of money out of lesser probabilities.

The problem comes from the provenance of the shawl, the new scientific technique used on the shawl and the possibility of accidental or deliberate contamination. All of which makes the DNA results almost meaningless in my opinion. Unless otherwise proven I will dismiss this evidence. Any further proof will have to be relayed to me second-hand as I will not be purchasing another cashcow of the umpteenth author who claims to have "sovled" the crime.

This is where some are getting their knickers in a twist it means that there could be 400.000 people who fit that same profile.

[pinkmoon]

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.

His eyes are to close together for my liking he looks a wrong UN

[Brenda]

.

About the most we can hope for from this is plenty of fodder to provide several years' worth of arguing here on the boards....

[Trevor Marriott]

Absolutely this. The Null Hypothesis here is a long the lines of: "The shawl was not mentioned in evidence at the time because it was not hers and and therefore could have come from anywhere, any when."

Suitable evidence to overcome this null and give us reason to believe the story attached to the item (which as far as I can see is about as convincing as all those haunted artefacts on E-bay) has to be a lot more convincing as it now stands. The DNA evidence seems weak at the moment. From the news articles I have read today I have concerns about the comparison pool for the tests.

Now I admit, my earlier posts tried to extend the benefit of the doubt and ask about implications if the evidence could be shown to be valid, but the more I read, the less inclined I am to feel that the benefit of the doubt is warranted.

Assuming the best possible case, where we happened to have DNA swabs not only of every other suspect ever named, but every other resident of London at the time... Those results could identify between 1 and 399,999 other suspects. There is a fair possibility that other named suspects might be in that pool.

Even in optimum testing conditions we would be appealing to the CSI effect of popular interest rather than supplying useful evidence to further our knowledge and understanding. And at the moment that would stand with a lot of conditions: That the authenticity of the shawl could be proven, that the
shawl could be shown to be stored in a suitable manner to prevent any kind of tampering or contamination. And so forth. Every single article I have read has raised more, not less, questions about the claims in my mind.

And of course, even if the DNA tests were beyond question we would still have to ask how we can be sure the stains were created as part of the murder. For all we know, the tests could just show the unfortunate victim had the misfortune to spatter her blood in an alley way Kosminski had already passed through, dropping his stained security blanket some unknowable time before....

There has developed what can only be described as something akin to a feeding frenzy with regards to this article. But of course one shouldn't forget that this article and its revelations are academic and when put into the correct perspective one can see why.

The evidence to suggest a polish Jew named Aaron Kosminki was ever a Ripper suspect, prime or likely is non existent. Living in the same area as where the murders were committed is not evidence to categorize this man in either of those categories

Kosminski is named in the MM and the marginalia but in surname only and there is a major doubt about how that came about having regard for the content of the later Aberconway Version and questions marks hanging over the Marginalia, neither of which I intend to go over again.

This post is to highlight the additional flaws in the current report suggesting that a man named Aaron Kosminski has been identified as the ripper.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

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.

Amen to the above. I don't believe it can be said clearer than that.
of course, one would think we would have learned by now...

All the best

[Moriarty]

Are there 400,00 viable ripper suspects all resident within a few square miles of 1888 Whitechapel?

It's funny to me that those who have nailed their colours to the mast in advocacy of an American quack with an alibi become antsy when something of genuine evidential consequence comes to light.

[Wickerman]

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

Fringe theorists always latch on to what is "possible" as an excuse to promote their belief. The important point to remember when conducting investigation is that the window of possibilities must be narrowed, not broadened.

The issue therefore is not to ask what is "possible", but what is "likely". Asking the question "what is likely" narrows the window, and that is after all the aim of investigation.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

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

Not to mention the fact that the sketch doesn't really resemble the character described by Joseph Lawende at all (and who most likely may have been Eddowes murderer - that is of course a matter of debate but I have always felt the sailor guy to be the most credible decription of the Ripper).
The guy in the sketch look more like Klosowski or the typical newspaper cartoon image of a Jew.