Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Prosector]

I agree. Quite apart from the scientific shortcomings regarding the alleged DNA evidence Kosminsky was by all available accounts a low grade (ie poorly functioning) schizophrenic. Motivation or personality don't really come into it. The idea that he could have carried out such sophisticated murders and left clues relating to the Russian and English Michaelmas is stretching the imagination somewhat. In any case he was Jewish so the Christian festival of Michaelmas was not part of his culture.
Prosector

[Stewart P Evans]

No!

I agree. Quite apart from the scientific shortcomings regarding the alleged DNA evidence Kosminsky was by all available accounts a low grade (ie poorly functioning) schizophrenic. Motivation or personality don't really come into it. The idea that he could have carried out such sophisticated murders and left clues relating to the Russian and English Michaelmas is stretching the imagination somewhat. In any case he was Jewish so the Christian festival of Michaelmas was not part of his culture.
Prosector

No! Don't mention schizophrenic, you'll start Jeff Leahy off.

[Stewart P Evans]

Nothng like...

Hopefully sans stains.

Nothing like a stain or two ... or a skid-mark.

[pinkmoon]

Indeed, so why not help him. I'm told he runs the 'Jack the Ripper shop' in the east end, whatever that may be.

The two-page article in the Mail on Sunday is copyrighted to Russell Edwards with a bullet point at the end - 'Naming Jack the Ripper, by Russell Edwards, will be published by Sidgwick & Jackson on September 9, priced £16.99.'

At 16.99 a pop this guy is going to make a small fortune I don't mind anyone doing well out of this subject as long they have done proper research and not simply made it up.I think the police might come knocking over the claims made in this.

[spyglass]

Hi all,
Without going through all the posts, I thought the shawl was put in the black museum. So how was the guy able to buy it....or have I missed something ?

Regards.

[Prosector]

Does anyone know how much he paid for the shawl? He has to recoup that before he orders the yacht.
Prosector

[pinkmoon]

Hi all,
Without going through all the posts, I thought the shawl was put in the black museum. So how was the guy able to buy it....or have I missed something ?

Regards.

I think it was donated to the museum but they thought it was rubbish and never put in on display and then Mr Edwards bought it at auction and then his research started and that leaves us here.By the way spyglass where do you stand on this.

[Rob Clack]

The offending shop. Cheap and tacky.



Rob

[lynn cates]

bingo

Hello Robert.

"The papers keep talking of descendants but as far we we know, Aaron had no descendants."

Bingo.

Cheers.
LC

[wolfie1]

Dear Lyn, Stewart et al.

I have not yet had an opportunity to read the book by Russell Edwards but as someone who deals in DNA on a daily basis perhaps I can make a few cautious observations.
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is passed down in the female line. Although it is possible to analyse the mtDNA of a male it will have been acquired from his mother. Therefore for any comparison of the putative mtDNA from the Eddowes shawl with present day relatives to be valid they must be related in an unbroken female line to common ancestors of either Kosminski or Eddowes as the case may be. I don’t know if that is the case with either Karen Miller or the anonymous relative of Aron Kosminski but if there is any descent through the male line it would immediately and irrevocably invalidate the comparisons.
The only way to prove with 95% confidence (the normally accepted level of statistical proof) that the samples on the shawl came from either Kosminski or Eddowes would be by a direct comparison with samples known to be from either of them. As far as I know such samples are not available. Even then, as in the Cornwell comparisons, there is only a between 0.1 and 10% chance that matching samples came from the same individual. Given a gap of at least 4 generations to common ancestors of either Eddowes or Kosminski, the chances of being able to say with certainty that the mtDNA is definitely that of either of them is even smaller. The population of London in 1888 was about 5 million and therefore a ‘perfect’ mtDNA match with someone alive at the time would mean that it could have come from anywhere between 5,000 and 500,000 other Londoners.
Then there is the question of the epithelial cells. Edwards asserts that they came from Kosminski’s urethra. The urethra is lined with squamous epithelium but so is the skin, the nose and the mouth. Anyone touching or even breathing on the shawl could, and most probably would, have left such cells behind.
Finally the kidney cell. I have a good deal of experience of histology. I certainly could not identify a single cell as having come from a kidney. I would need a cluster of tens or hundreds of such cells to be able to identify their origin as being the kidney.
I will suspend my final judgement until I have read the whole book but I thought it might be of some interest to make a few preliminary observations.
Prosector

Terrific explanation, thank you so much for clarifying the scientific process of DNA matching.
so, in the case of identifying Eddowes blood on the shawl, please explain to me how the DNA in this case, differs in Richard 111 example, here of course, apart from not having a skeleton, but instead sampling blood stains, did the Academics in that case also stab in the dark with identifying a great, g,g,g, nephew of Richard 111 also via the female line and thus proclaiming a DNA link back to Richard 111.
So, to scientifically prove a match on the shawl , and subsequent DNA match of female DNA of both lines, can that only be proved by exhumation of both Eddowes and Kosmisnki to extract original hard samples?

[wolfie1]

Hello Robert.

"The papers keep talking of descendants but as far we we know, Aaron had no descendants."

Bingo.

Cheers.
LC

Correct, Aaron had no primary desc, but he had, and still has, secondary maternal desc via his sister and also subsequent cousin lines.
it is the desc of female siblings that carry the DNA tested in this case .

[lynn cates]

trophy

Hello Barbara. If Kosminski kept the shawl as a trophy, surely Simpson could not have picked it up that night?

Cheers.
LC

[pinkmoon]

The offending shop. Cheap and tacky.

[ATTACH]16192[/ATTACH]

Rob

Any idea of the phone number or email address I think we might have a couple of questions to ask the owner in fact I can see a minibus been hired here.

[MrBarnett]

Surely it would be his sisters' descendants?

Wolfie beat me to it.

[Prosector]

Terrific explanation, thank you so much for clarifying the scientific process of DNA matching.
so, in the case of identifying Eddowes blood on the shawl, please explain to me how the DNA in this case, differs in Richard 111 example, here of course, apart from not having a skeleton, but instead sampling blood stains, did the Academics in that case also stab in the dark with identifying a great, g,g,g, nephew of Richard 111 also via the female line and thus proclaiming a DNA link back to Richard 111.
So, to scientifically prove a match on the shawl , and subsequent DNA match of female DNA of both lines, can that only be proved by exhumation of both Eddowes and Kosmisnki to extract original hard samples?

A good point. I believe but am not sure that in the case of Richard III the relatives (not of course descendants) were both descendants in the female line of a common ancestor with Richard III. That would still mean that they were one (or two) of between 5,000 and 500,000 possible hits. It was the fact that the body was found exactly where Richard III was known to be buried and that he also had the characteristic deformity that clinched it. The mitochondrial DNA evidence by itself was not conclusive.
Prosector