Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[christoper]

Yes, or just as good as Aaron. I guess I'm concurring with the theory that trying to make evidence fit a particular suspect is not ideal.

If it happens to fit Chapman as well, then ?

Look up his genealogy--trace the maternal line only, go back a few generations. Do the same for AK. See if any of the maternal line are in common.

Because mutations occur randomly, going back much further will give DNA that is different from what the descendents have today-so you can't go back forever.

Theoretically we would all have common ancestors if you went back far enough. But, we wouldn't exactly match our ancient ancestors--because mutations are introduced in the genome over the generations.

[Pontius2000]

Yes, or just as good as Aaron. I guess I'm concurring with the theory that trying to make evidence fit a particular suspect is not ideal.

If it happens to fit Chapman as well, then ?

That, I totally agree with. No serious study should ever be to prove a pet theory, I agree.

However, if the mtDNA really does match Kosminski, I doubt it would also match Koslowski. Your point is well taken though.

[christoper]

Originally Posted by Jeff Leahy:

Actually if you look at the pictures of Aaron Sister and cousin they don't look (And I don't wish to offend anyone here) typically jewish or what might be termed orthodox jewish but actually very polish.. quite fair


And the guy who left his semen on the shawl was darkhaired, according to Louhelainen. A straw in the wind, perhaps?

The best,
Fisherman

I've read (some years back) but only in secondary sources, that Kosminski was recorded as having fair hair when he was admitted to the workhouse and/or asylum. Given the fair hair of his relations, this seems quite likely.

Where does that leave our dark-haired suspect.

Cheers

Mick

this needs to be investigated. I'm confused that he even knew hair color from the limited DNA available. A dark haired person could have a recessive gene for blonde hair--but someone with blonde hair does not carry the gene for dark hair.

[wolfie1]

Look up his genealogy--trace the maternal line only, go back a few generations. Do the same for AK. See if any of the maternal line are in common.

Because mutations occur randomly, going back much further will give DNA that is different from what the descendents have today-so you can't go back forever.

Theoretically we would all have common ancestors if you went back far enough. But, we wouldn't exactly match our ancient ancestors--because mutations are introduced in the genome over the generations.

if the lines were researched further back of both Kosminsky and all other Jewish suspects , all lines may well go back to Sephardic Jews who over centuries were continually driven out and resettled in parts of Europe, and then dispersed globally over time.

[wolfie1]

Hull Daily Mail 1/10/1888 p3

Article in Hull Daily Mail. 1/10/1888 p3

"More Atrocities in London"
"Two Women Murdered"


Following is direct quote from article, of women found at murder scene.

...."Her dress was made of green chintz, the pattern consisting of Michaelmas daisies"

Other articles, same incident, added. "Michaelmas Daisies with Golden Lily Pattern" London Standard 1 Oct 1888

The green chintz with daisies matches the shawl/runner fringe end, with nil reference to the red color material in between both ends of the green chintz pattern.

Hence author claim that Eddowes dress, as described in this article, is actually in fact the shawl/table runner now in his possession.
The dress in this article does not appear in clothing inventory in later articles or official publications.

[christoper]

Back on the subject of souvenirs, this shows what can happen at a crime scene when the public has an intense interest in a crime.

Souvenir hunters tried to cut off parts of Bonnie and Clyde at the scene of their deaths.

With acrid gunsmoke still lingering in the air, hordes of people flocked to the scene of their death and later to the coroner’s to retrieve “souvenirs.” The crowd descended upon the ambush site and attempted to leave with macabre souvenirs from the bodies of the outlaws still slumped in the front seat. According to Jeff Guinn’s book “Go Down Together,” one man tried to cut off Clyde’s ear with a pocket knife and another attempted to sever his trigger finger before the lawmen intervened. Others clipped locks of her hair, took snippets of Parker’s blood-soaked dress, or shattered window glass. One man offered Barrow’s father over $30,000 for Barrow’s body—the equivalent of over $600,000 today.

Their bullet-riddled “death car” is on display at a casino. Following the ambush of Bonnie and Clyde, a Louisiana sheriff who was a member of Hamer’s six-man posse claimed the pockmarked Ford V-8 sedan, still coated with the outlaws’ blood and tissue. Still speckled with bullet holes, the “death car” is now an attraction in the lobby of Whiskey Pete’s Casino in Primm, Nevada, a small resort town on the California border 40 miles south of Las Vegas.

[dropzone]

That quote is a prime example of the problem I have within this whole thread...dismissing the whole thing outright without any real proof to the contrary.

The Maybrick story was a fantasy concocted around someone who was previously completely unconnected to the JtR story.

The Sickert story was a fantasy concocted around someone who was previously completely unconnected to the JtR story.

The Gull story was a fantasy concocted around someone who was preciousl completely unconnected to the JtR story.

This "shawl story" is connected to someone (Simpson) who, at the very least, was a cop in the area at the time of the crimes. A strenuous connection, but still a connection. Dismissing the entire story outright without any evidence to the contrary, to me, is just as bad as accepting something in face value. It deserves more research, not to just be dismissed with a laugh.

What you are missing is that there is also vanishingly little real proof to the positive. At anything deeper than a cursory glance it's every bit as much a fantasy as Maybrick, Sickert, or Gull, and the deeper research can be done in minutes. I don't think many people in this thread dismissed it out of hand. It was just that obviously fishy. However, I look forward to further research.

I'll say it again...If the shawl was Eddowes' and Simpson took it, then Simpson was her killer. Plain and simple.

Troy McClure: But of course, for that ending to work, you would have to ignore all the Simpson DNA evidence. And that would be downright nutty.

No amount of argument or wishful thinking will turn the shawl story into anything other than a farrago of nonsense.

Ah, but it's glorious nonsense! Does anyone here actually expect that these cases will be solved to the satisfaction of all reasonable, non-crackpot investigators? After all this time? With evidence coming and going all the time, and most of it lost a century ago? Instead we have the chase to keep us going, and now and then when someone announces something “new” we get to have fun looking it over, kicking its tires, and maybe ripping it to shreds. If you want to play real detective and help solve recent cases—y'know, help people—there are sites like websleuths.com. JtR is more for fun.

You do get points for using “farrago.”

[NRTomasheski]

That's a great theory. I just started Robert House's book last night--and have been thinking about The Batty Street “Lodger” and how his bloodstained clothes brought him to the attention of the police. If that was the ripper--he may have been more careful afterwards--and brought a cloth to clean himself and the knife up a bit.

Hmm - or wrap himself in, lab coat* style? (Really: you have to picture the visual for the full effect! The mad toff!)

edit: *To be more descriptive: lab-coat-cum-sarong-style

[christoper]

Hmm - or wrap himself in, lab coat style? (Really: you have to picture the visual for the full effect! The mad toff!)

LOL---some people say the Ripper dressed up like a woman so that his victims would trust him. Some even say the Ripper was a woman. it could be cool if pretty, silky cloth WAS the Rippers....

[Jeff Leahy]

They did apply to exhume the body but it was rejected on religious grounds. They wanted to do it graveside, just using a couple of teeth. The author said he could go down a route of using the law to allow them to exhume it and over rule the religious grounds but he didn't really want to do it that way. As they were pursuing the idea of exhuming the body, the scientist said that it wasn't neccesary as they had found enough DNA on the shawl anyway.



You've clearly not read the book, I think you should be more careful with your words whilst you're trumpeting 'fact' and 'truth'.

Hi Poch

Thanks for that further info. Now thinking its time to order the book myself. Largely because some time ago I looked into the notion that Jack attacked from behind using a garrotte and silk would have made a good material leaving few marks.

I can't help thinking we have two very different DNA questions.

The first being the match to Eddows which should be fairly simple if their is blood splatter.
(The Shroud of Turin was a different case in hand as they were using samples from the edges handled over a long period and they were just looking to date the artefact)

And on the other hand the match to Kosminski. Which seems more complicated

Many thanks

Yours Jeff

[drstrange169]

"Hence author claim that Eddowes dress, as described in this article, is actually in fact the shawl/table runner now in his possession.
The dress in this article does not appear in clothing inventory in later articles or official publications."

So it's the authors contention, that Simpson took Katherine Eddowes dress of as she was being wheeled through the streets to the mortuary?

Really?

[mickreed]

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.

[moonbegger]

Article in Hull Daily Mail. 1/10/1888 p3

"More Atrocities in London"
"Two Women Murdered"


Following is direct quote from article, of women found at murder scene.

...."Her dress was made of green chintz, the pattern consisting of Michaelmas daisies"

Other articles, same incident, added. "Michaelmas Daisies with Golden Lily Pattern" London Standard 1 Oct 1888

The green chintz with daisies matches the shawl/runner fringe end, with nil reference to the red color material in between both ends of the green chintz pattern.

Hence author claim that Eddowes dress, as described in this article, is actually in fact the shawl/table runner now in his possession.
The dress in this article does not appear in clothing inventory in later articles or official publications.

Hello Wolfie ,

Very interesting indeed , what are the chances of both Kate and her Killer wearing the same outfit

A reasonable explanation could also have Simpson taking Kate's under garment/Petticoat/Shawl/Runner/whatever, from outside the mortuary where her clothes were pilled up . But surely if it was upon her during her mutilation , there would have been a lot more soaked in blood than just the arterial splatter described .

Also , does anyone else find it an odd coincidence that Mr Edwards brand new shop in Tonybe street is opposite the Hairdressers shop "Jack the Clipper" ..

cheers , moonbegger .

[mickreed]

Hi Poch


I can't help thinking we have two very different DNA questions.

The first being the match to Eddows which should be fairly simple if their is blood splatter.
(The Shroud of Turin was a different case in hand as they were using samples from the edges handled over a long period and they were just looking to date the artefact)

And on the other hand the match to Kosminski. Which seems more complicated

Many thanks

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff

And this is interesting, if correct.

It suggests a Kosminski relative (broadly defined) and an Eddowes relative (again broadly defined) did live something on the shawl. The chances of that are mathematically very low, I'd have thought. My maths is shite.

Cheers

Mick

[wolfie1]

Hello Wolfie ,

Very interesting indeed , what are the chances of both Kate and her Killer wearing the same outfit

A reasonable explanation could also have Simpson taking Kate's under garment/Petticoat/Shawl/Runner/whatever, from outside the mortuary where her clothes were pilled up . But surely if it was upon her during her mutilation , there would have been a lot more soaked in blood than just the arterial splatter described .

Also , does anyone else find it an odd coincidence that Mr Edwards brand new shop in Tonybe street is opposite the Hairdressers shop "Jack the Clipper" ..

cheers , moonbegger .

Article in The Cornishman, of Eddowes inquest also states that Kate was known to be a Hawker and Cleaner of Jewish homes, so not impossible to consider the fancy shawl, dress, etc was stolen from a Jewish home by Kate when cleaning as she had personal direct access to Jewish houses.
Cheers