Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Patrick S]

I will put no credence in this biz at all unless the shawl owner allows three more independent tests. One lab chosen by casebook, one lab chosen by the London Times and the last chosen by the NY Times.

Well...let's reconsider the NY Times, shall we? They have a tough time getting the facts right in your average dog bits man story. Spelling and syntax have been a mystery there for decades now. In all probability they'd select the guy who mixes the paint at 'Home Depot' to substandiate the findings.

[ghoulstonstreet]

I think comparisons to Sickert & the Maybrick Diary aren't appropriate at this stage. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is the first piece of forensic 'evidence' we've ever had that links victim and suspect, IF of course the DNA testing is reliable.

Could you refresh me on the upshot of Sickert etc? Author compared stamp lickings to Sickert relatives? Was that it? Thanks

[ghoulstonstreet]

Hello Jason.

"you can't argue with hard facts"

What hard facts? If it were established that, say, a Polish Jew were perpetrator--well, there were thousands. So, too, with mitochondrial DNA.

Cheers.
LC

Plus, if I'm not mistaken, mtDNA is going to show a haplotype. That means a group of people. That means it fits a whole bunch of Russians, a whole bunch of Poles and they don't necessarily have to be Jews. I believe this finding is far more general than the shawl owner would have the world believe.

[lynn cates]

yup

Hello Amanda.

"I really don't understand these endless discussions of shawls and DNA. There is no basis for the claim. The shawl never belonged to Eddowes or JtR. Even if it had, it was not at the crime scene. Neither was Amos Simpson. I'm afraid the whole thing is based on fiction and not fact."

And THIS is what I am bellyaching about.

Cheers.
LC

[ghoulstonstreet]

I read the article several times. The words and phrases used and the way the story unfolds seem to follow the classic quest plot. The protagonist somehow gets drawn in to pursuing his goal even though he knows it is fraught with difficulties. The odds are against him but he is able to overcome perils and stumbling blocks by ingenuity and plain old good luck. His success comes because his heart is pure and his intentions noble. The universe is on his side.

I'll withhold judgment for now but the whole tone of the article suggests B.S.

c.d.

Or the classic requirements for a movie script.

[ghoulstonstreet]

Contemporary evidence is enough to prove this one a nonsense before you even start looking at alleged DNA.

I am no DNA expert and no doubt I will be corrected if necessary. However, I believe the DNA being used in this instance (as in Cornwell's) is only mitochondrial and not nuclear. Mitochondrial DNA is accurate to only 400,000 of the population so how can any single 'match' be achieved?

That is if any original DNA survived on this much-handled piece of cloth, when previous tests showed there to be none present.

I have been posting DNA comments on just this fact - mtDNA is going to indicate a group of people. Please give us the skinny on those older tests that showed nothing on the shawl. Got a link? Thanks Stewart, can you believe all this stuff? Ripper Convention tickets are going to sell out years in advance now.

[lynn cates]

my place

Hello Gwyneth. Thanks.

On the contrary, I find it quite fun. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[ghoulstonstreet]

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.

Has the piece of cut apron been lost? The Goulston Street piece? From descriptions it seems bursting over with DNA.

[ghoulstonstreet]

Hello JeffHamm,

So, I am correct in saying that if, in any generation, (however many families are involved) only boys are produced for example, then mtDNA stops. Correct?

So the next question, is simple. How many female siblings did Aaron have, and how many of them had females, and how many of them had females, and so on?

One would hope that the mtDNA samples taken had a control group set up? And another line to confirm/deny the first?


best wishes

Phil

Yes it quits with the boys. The staggering thing is that as a female I am linked back thousands of years to all great great gandmas etc who all had female offspring. It's really astonishing. I did my mtDNA and it goes back to Judea of 6000 years ago. What??? Yes.

[ghoulstonstreet]

Well...let's reconsider the NY Times, shall we? They have a tough time getting the facts right in your average dog bits man story. Spelling and syntax have been a mystery there for decades now. In all probability they'd select the guy who mixes the paint at 'Home Depot' to substandiate the findings.

Okay, pick some other worthy standard bearer. But aren't they hard to find these days? LOL

[Paddy]

Napper and the Australian Suspect

Observer,
It seems that the shawl was dated 1886 by Arabella Vincenti, a fine art picture framer, possibly the one in Colchester. (On the back of the framed piece shown on The Australian Suspect at 29.30)
I wonder how authentic this dating was? Anybody know?

Jeff,
Aaron didnt live in Dutfields Yard, His brother Woolf, family (and possibly Aaron) were living next door to what was to become IWMC at number 38, when Woolfs daughter Rebecca was born in 1882. Chris Phillips found this on Rebeccas birth certificate (on our piece in RIP128)
At the time of Strides murder Woolf and family were living in Providence street. The house was in the next street east of Berner street opposite an alleyway that ran through to the lower part of Berner Street.

Sorry dont mean to nit-pick its just it might affect others research.

Pat..............

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff:
Hmmm... are you quite sure he wasn't faking it all along? I thought there was considerable doubt about that diagnosis.

His entire pitch was that he was schizophrenic, on a mission from God to kill prostitutes. He claimed to find the blood distressing, and to gain no pleasure from the acts, but was merely following divine instructions.

Which was clearly bs. Several victims were clearly not prostitutes. He had manufactured bespoke masturbation pants, had sex with at least one woman while she was dying, and penetrated others vaginally with a screwdriver, (something that Mr Wescott might find interesting - I mean in light of his findings, not personally). Sutcliffe fooled the doctors with religious mumbo jumbo, most of which he had picked up from studying his wife's illness. He even bragged about going to a loony bin rather than a prison.

Ironically Ian Brady did the exact opposite. But both were diagnosed by experts.

The trouble is we still know so little about Schizophrenia. The old classifications. Catatonic, Hebephrenic and Paraniod are hotly disputed by some experts today, who state schizophrenia is a syndrome with wide spectrum.

You also have to consider that like every other human being they will also sit on the Sociopathic scale. So your probably looking at more than one factor when judging a Schizophrenic serial killer.

Actually we know very little about Arons illness. Although I studied what we have with an expert. As we all know Experts are people who won't commit to anything and only kill their own

But he thought Kosminski's illness was fairly typical of the illness reaching the burnout phase in his early thirties where he would be in an almost permanent dream world and quite harmless. The only really important factor in terms of him being 'Jack the Ripper' is what happened in the early stages, when the crimes were committed and Aaron was at large.

We also have know idea what if any medication or calming drugs were administered. The Asylum notes relate largely to Aarons physical not mental condition.

Personally I think Sutcliffe is a paranoid Schizophrenic. But not typical to some extent, to old but we have know idea when it first kicked in? He is now also medicated so I agree we must be careful with comparisons but serial killers per ce are fairly rare animals.

I'm currently particularly interested in 'Harold Jones' and hope someone does some DNA checking on him

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

nothing

Hello GS. Thanks.

But he has made NOTHING (nor ever shall) from me.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

reader

Hello (again) GS. Thanks.

"Plus, if I'm not mistaken, mtDNA is going to show a haplotype. That means a group of people. That means it fits a whole bunch of Russians, a whole bunch of Poles and they don't necessarily have to be Jews. I believe this finding is far more general than the shawl owner would have the world believe."

And that is troubling. Would not an honest man leave such for the reader to decide?

Cheers.
LC

[Poch]

I've finished the book. I'll write my thoughts on it, but just to clear up some things, since I haven't really posted before (nearly, a few times), I don't count myself a ripperologist, research doesn't really interest me, nor do I have the means. I've simply read a fair few books about the subject and enjoy the mystery. I don't know a fraction of what a lot of people here know. I also don't really even have a 'suspect No.1', as I say, I just enjoy the mystery.

So, the book. Edwards makes no bones about being an amateur sleuth, albeit with the means to take amateur to a blurry level. The writing is fine, it's as good as many ripper books and better than many. The science talks were the most interesting for me and made compelling reading. His emotions get in the way of the writing at times, I don't really need to know about his 'cold shivers' when standing in certain places, but that's forgivable in my opinion, at least the guys passionate and this doesn't occur at an unhealthy rate in the text. He makes some mental leaps in some of his theories, which I'm not that comfortable with but for the most part they are superficial and can be discarded in the context of the greater core, which is to say the shawl and the DNA profiling that was done.

The science is well explained for a laymen and sounds on the face of it, credible. The work wasn't done by ol' jimmy labcoat in a mobile lab, but people in solid positions, with solid credentials. Of course it'd be great to have the work reviewed and more work done etc. but as I say, on the face of it, I don't see any glaring reasons to debunk it. What I will say is that a lot of the things being thrown around in this thread, I assume gleamed from the tabloid articles are explained in the book, the 1/400,000 number being one example.

Convincing? Yes and no. The science is interesting and to a laymen such as myself, believable. The mental leaps he makes in his theories are less so. There are a few things not really explained, for starters why the shawl was there in the first place, but if you're willing to go along with the science, you pretty much have to accept that it was, which is obviously going to be a big issue. It does try to explain some of these things and obviously there will always be things we just have to accept we'll never know, but I think these will just fuel the debate over the book for years to come.

I suppose in summary I'd say.. science was great, very interesting. Theory is ok, I've read a lot stronger. Overall, it's worth a read with an open mind and no agenda but I think to say CASE SOLVED! Is a little premature. Perhaps with a few more years and a few more tests, it'd be easier to forgive the mental leaps and seem a lot more convincing. Fascinating read all the same though.