Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[lynn cates]

provenance

Hello Gwyneth. Right you are. Do the bloody provenance first.

Cheers.
LC

[Theagenes]

Hi Theagnes

I won't pretend to fully understand. I hope you will give ripperologists who specialise in other areas your patience.

I'm Stil a little unclear how this contamination question is? Or the probability of contamination?

It does however seem relevant if I'm being asked to except the science.

Bear in mind that people like myself have no expertise in this area. We have been told by experts that the shawl was one thing…and now being asked to except it is something else.

Those of us who are enthusiasts about the case can only accept expert analysis and opinion (The Marginalia being a point in fact)

So any advice you can give would be gratefully received.

Yours Jeff

Sure, let me try and explain this in laymen's terms. We're talking about mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA for short. This is a type of DNA that is only passed down from a mother to her children. Males have this kind of DNA (they got it from their mother) but they can't pass it on to their children -- only females can.

Dr. Louhelainen found some segments of mtDNA in the blood on the shawl that fortunately contained a very rare mutation. So rare that accoring to the numbers that have been given it would have only been present in about 20 people or so in London the 1880s -- essentially Catherine Eddowes are her extended family. That mtDNA was compared to Karen Miller's mtDNA and it matched including the rare mutation. Karen is apparently a direct descendent of Eddowes in an unbroken female line so she would inherited this rare mtDNA -- she is the daughter of the daughter of the daughter of daughter of Catherine Eddowes or something like that.

So while many people may have handled the shawl and left their DNA on it over the years, the person who left the rare mtDNA that was found in the blood by Louhelainen could only have been Catherine or one of the other relatives of Catherine who carried that rare mtDNA. If you're talking about post-1990 contamination how people could that have been? We know Karen Miller has it. She would have gotten from her mother. Karen's siblings if she has any would all have it. Karen's children if she has any would have it. If she has sisters, their children would have it. Certain cousins of hers would probably have it. But you aren't talking about a huge group of people. If somebody here knows more about the descendants we could probably name them all. If the shawl was contaminated or if fraud was committed then the contamination had to come from one of these people.

However, the rarity of this mtDNA is of course based on what Edwards says Louhelainen told him, so there's that. Personally, I want to hear this from Louhelainen himself and preferably in a peer-reviewed paper.

[Tom_Wescott]

Who do you mean? I haven't seen anyone say they "accept the science". I've seen a lot of people trying to understand the science.

Adam Wood says he buys Edwards' theory of why Simpson was in Mitre Square. Really? Why, since the shawl was not there in the first place? If he accepts the theory that Simpson was there and took the shawl, he's saying the shawl is legit, thus the science is legit.

Begg says the provenance of the shawl is irrelevant if someone can produce Eddowes' DNA. Really? DNA can't get onto an item in other ways?

To my knowledge, neither of these very respected individuals gave two hoots about the shawl a year ago because its history was crap. Now all the sudden it's a serious historical item worthy of thousands of dollars/pounds of research.

Wow.

Score one for Phil Carter.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Who do you mean? I haven't seen anyone say they "accept the science". I've seen a lot of people trying to understand the science.

You will note that I sad "accepting the science over the history". The history of the shawl is that it was not in Mitre Square and has no connection to Catherine Eddowes. That's the history of the shawl. So there's no science to understand. Get it?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Sure, let me try and explain this in laymen's terms. We're talking about mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA for short. This is a type of DNA that is only passed down from a mother to her children. Males have this kind of DNA (they got it from their mother) but they can't pass it on to their children -- only females can.

Dr. Louhelainen found some segments of mtDNA in the blood on the shawl that fortunately contained a very rare mutation. So rare that accoring to the numbers that have been given it would have only been present in about 20 people or so in London the 1880s -- essentially Catherine Eddowes are her extended family. That mtDNA was compared to Karen Miller's mtDNA and it matched including the rare mutation. Karen is apparently a direct descendent of Eddowes in an unbroken female line so she would inherited this rare mtDNA -- she is the daughter of the daughter of the daughter of daughter of Catherine Eddowes or something like that.

So while many people may have handled the shawl and left their DNA on it over the years, the person who left the rare mtDNA that was found in the blood by Louhelainen could only have been Catherine or one of the other relatives of Catherine who carried that rare mtDNA. If you're talking about post-1990 contamination how people could that have been? We know Karen Miller has it. She would have gotten from her mother. Karen's siblings if she has any would all have it. Karen's children if she has any would have it. If she has sisters, their children would have it. Certain cousins of hers would probably have it. But you aren't talking about a huge group of people. If somebody here knows more about the descendants we could probably name them all. If the shawl was contaminated or if fraud was committed then the contamination had to come from one of these people.

However, the rarity of this mtDNA is of course based on what Edwards says Louhelainen told him, so there's that. Personally, I want to hear this from Louhelainen himself and preferably in a peer-reviewed paper.

Many thanks for this detailed explanation which has been ,most helpful.

Sorry to pry but are you based in UK or Other?

Yours jef

[Theagenes]

Theagenes: That's certainly true, but just saying "it could have been contaminated" doesn't really mean anything. I can't have been contaminated by just anyone. It would have to be someone in direct matrilineal descent from Catherine (or one of her sisters maybe).

If Louhelainen is on the money, and if nothing´s been tampered with, that´s true - then we are looking for close relatives. But we need to add women prior to Catherine Eddowes too, would we not?

Yes, but given that it is so rare, the common female ancestor that first carried the mutation must have been not much earlier than Catherine's generation. But presumably her mother and her mothers sisters if any would have it as would Catherine's two sisters. Their matrilineal descendants would also carry it.

What are the chances of that prior to the shawl's first appearance in 1990?
I wouldn´t propose to know. Do you?

No, I don't, but I would think it would considerably less than after it made it's public debut and started being displayed. According to the family story it was apparently kept shut up in a chest for many years right? I guess it depends on whether that seems credible. And during the 20th century there would have been at most a few hundred people maybe that carry the rare mtDNA that could contaminate it? I think you can rule out intnetional DNA fraud pre-1990 for obvious reasons. Honestly it seems very unlikely to me that one of those few people carrying that DNA could have come in contact with it pre 1990.

After 1990 when this shawl became public and was claimed to be Eddowes it seems like there would be more of chance, at events like the one that has already been discussed.

I think we must keep an eye on both time periods, actually.

Sure but it seems far more likely that if contamination did occur it would be during this period when it was on display publicly in various venues. That's when I could see a curious descendant of Eddowes wanting to check it out. I assume when it was on display in the Crime museum it was under glass?

I don't want to downplay the contamination aspect at all, because it's extremely important, but it really has to be looked in terms of who are the few people that actually carry the mtDNA that could contaminate it and did that opportunity ever arise? What about when the 2007 documentary was filmed? Was Karen Miller involved in that?

No idea, but I don´t think so - they got no conclusive results and I don´t remember them thinking they may have Eddowes´DNA, so there would be no much reason to involve Karen Miller.

I think we need to wait to get a better understanding of the DNA involved - if somebody funds further research. If the shawl is just tucked away in a bank vault, we may never see those efforts.
Up til that time, there can be no decisions made.

All the best,
Fisherman

I agree somewhat, we aren't going to reach any definitive conclusions until more work is done, but we actually have been given quite a bit to chew on while we wait.

[Theagenes]

Many thanks for this detailed explanation which has been ,most helpful.

Sorry to pry but are you based in UK or Other?

Yours jef

I'm in the states sadly. Would love to chat about this stuff with you gents in person over a pint!

[Chris]

Adam Wood says he buys Edwards' theory of why Simpson was in Mitre Square.

Can you quote exactly what Adam said, please?

[pinkmoon]

Unless this shawl can be placed at any of the murder scenes then it is impossible to say case closed as it is impossible to place the shawl at any of the murder scenes then we have nothing at all and to say case closed is just wrong but to write a book about it and make money out of it is just well I'm speechless.

[Jeff Leahy]

To my knowledge, neither of these very respected individuals gave two hoots about the shawl a year ago because its history was crap. Now all the sudden it's a serious historical item worthy of thousands of dollars/pounds of research.

Wow.Score one for Phil Carter.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Leta hope it doesn't score one for Phil Carter. But forgetting the bluster, you do make a good point which I am also trying to get to the bottom of..

Its fairly late here in the UK and I doubt if you ail get an answer tonight.

But why the excepted explanation of the shawl seems to have changed so radically in such a small space of time does appear to require addressing.

DNA or No DNA

Yours jeff

[Chris]

You will note that I sad "accepting the science over the history". The history of the shawl is that it was not in Mitre Square and has no connection to Catherine Eddowes. That's the history of the shawl. So there's no science to understand. Get it?

No. It makes no sense whatsoever.

[paul g]

Just a small point.

Regarding the testing of the shawl/tablecloth what happens now ?

After publishing his results albeit through the vehicle of the book the investigating scientist has in fact left himself open.
There is know doubt where this will end and believe me it will not be on this forum or any other. While we all debate the in,a and outs weather knowledgable, interested have a understanding or or no understanding of the techniques and history of the shawl it will end quite simply.

Regardless of weather the shawl is allowed to be re inspected will become irrelevant.
The testing , the techniques and every tiny bit of scientific research will eventually enter into the scientific world and then and only then will we see a informed opinion on the claims.
You cannot tell me that the two scientists involved would not be aware of how much scrutiny there claims and results would come under, after all some of procedures are actually ground breaking by there description.
While we go back on forth on the message boards debating and discussing and rightly so ,you all may not be aware of how much the scientific claims and evidence forwarded are being debated in the scientific circles.

Now you may claim ,ah but the shawl will never be made available MR Edwards will make sure of that. They don,t need it.

All they have to do is reproduce the tests on semen and blood or either and this will either verify the claims or debunk them

While we natter and chatter on here there is more of a debate and just as vicious on scientific forums and throughout the industry, both for and against in equal measures.
There is no doubt in my mind that within the next month or two in one scientific journal or another there will be verification or dismissal.

[Jeff Leahy]

I'm in the states sadly. Would love to chat about this stuff with you gents in person over a pint!

A pint of 'Adams' pure nectar

Gonna make getting you on camera difficult however

But your input is much appreciated. many thanks

Yours Jeff

[Tom_Wescott]

Can you quote exactly what Adam said, please?

Not off hand. I saw it on Facebook. And he's perfectly free to form his own opinions, but I confess it thoroughly surprised me to see it. To be fair, I'm STILL waiting for my copy of the book to arrive, so Adam has read it and I have not. But I'll need more than a theory to put Simpson in Mitre Square and convince me that he's pilfering corpses for bloody garments when the man is not even known to have been a crime memento collector. It don't add up.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Outlaw]

You will note that I sad "accepting the science over the history". The history of the shawl is that it was not in Mitre Square and has no connection to Catherine Eddowes. That's the history of the shawl. So there's no science to understand. Get it?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I would agree with that Tom, as I thought it was common knowledge that the 'Shawl' had been examined previously and there had been much doubt over it's provenience then.

I think that many people are going to accept this latest theory simply because the magic word 'DNA' has been attached to it.

I thought that the present owner Russell Edwards had it DNA tested previously, when he was attempting to 'Prove' that Frederick Deeming was the killer.

The DNA proved 'inconclusive' on that occasion I believe.