Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[lynn cates]

understatement

Hello Christer.

"As such, that is problematic."

Great understatement! Well done. You're just going to grow up and become a Brit. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

Not off hand. I saw it on Facebook.

Then I'll believe what you said when you can back it up.

[Theagenes]

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.

Well it will take longer than that for the peer review process, but yes, ultimately we will see this published properly I have little doubt. But if I were in Louhelainen's place I would be vociferously writing grant application right now, as I would want to do more work on the nDNA recovered from the purported semen.

But as to where to go from here? Track down patrilineal descendants of Aaron's brother and do a Y-DNA test. Work on getting Aaron exhumed. Continue to try and get nDNA from the blood -- don't just give up on that. If you are someone that has access to the DNA of one of the other suspects via a descendant or otherwise then contact Louhelainen and see if a comparison can be made to the DNA he recovered from the semen -- he want it as a control if nothing else. Work on tracing the history of the shawl particularly since it became public and try to find out if there is any way that descendants of Eddowes or Kosminski could have come in contact with it.

They is actually quite a lot that can be done at this point.

[Tom_Wescott]

No. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Perhaps not to someone who thinks the shawl was dropped by Kozminski in Mitre Square, after being rubbed with her kidney and her blood, and then stolen by an apparently deranged Amos Simpson. To anyone not of that mindset, my post makes absolute sense.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Then I'll believe what you said when you can back it up.

My objective is not to convince you of anything. You can accuse me of lying all you want. I love Adam and support him 100%. It just so happens I disagree with him on this. If I'm mistaken or have taken him out of context, I'm sure he'll point it out to me at some point. If I haven't, I'm sure he'd be happy to tell you that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[NRTomasheski]

For me (as for others) the provenance is indeed a big problem.
Even if the DNA could be conclusively (by which I mean within a scientifically accepted +/-) shown to belong to Aron Kosminski and Catherine Eddowes, and not any of their relatives; and the stains conclusively shown to be blood and semen; it would show only an intriguing connection between the two.
Without the shawl having been shown to be a part of the murder scene, there can simply be no conclusion that Kosminski killed Eddowes.
And even if the shawl could be conclusively placed at the scene, unless its positioning in situ indicated that it was directly involved in the crime - e.g., wrapped around her throat - then it still only proves a highly suspicious, but not conclusive, connection between the two.

[AdamNeilWood]

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.

Actually Tom, I said that Russell Edwards' explanation of how Simpson might have got there was a perfectly plausible one. That's not the same as saying I accept or dismiss it.

I haven't mentioned anything about Simpson taking the shawl, or that the shawl may or may not be legitimate.

For anyone who hasn't read the book, Edwards suggests that Simpson may have been seconded to H Division from his 'home' N Division as a result of the murders (as PC Long was, drafted in from A Division) and heard a police whistle from Mitre Square, arriving shortly after the body was discovered.

Neil Bell is checking Police Orders to see whether there's a record of Simpson being sent to H Division, and then we'll have an answer.

Adam

[Chris]

You can accuse me of lying all you want.

What I'm saying is that I'm not willing to believe what you said about Adam unless you can back it up.

Whether you're lying, misinterpreting, misremembering - or even whether it's true - I have no way of knowing, unless you can quote what Adam said, do I?

[Theagenes]

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.

DNA is only "magic" if you treat it like magic rather than science. And by treat it like like magic, I mean not just those who accept it blindly, but also those who run screaming from it because it's something they don't understand and fear.

Look no one here is suggesting that this be accepted unquestioningly -- far from it. But, yes, if what is being claimed is even partially true then this is a game changer. I know many are having trouble accepting that, but it is what it is. DNA has revolutionized a number of fields, including my own -- archaeology, and it hasn't always been pretty, with a lot of scholars having to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting new paradigms. Why should Ripperology be any different?

[Trevor Marriott]

As I said, I think it's a valid question to ask. I don't object to the question at all. Just to your incredible rudeness and obnoxiousness.

And some of us object to your know it all sarcastic attitude which has again shown itself

[Tom_Wescott]

Actually Tom, I said that Russell Edwards' explanation of how Simpson might have got there was a perfectly plausible one. That's not the same as saying I accept or dismiss it.

I haven't mentioned anything about Simpson taking the shawl, or that the shawl may or may not be legitimate.

For anyone who hasn't read the book, Edwards suggests that Simpson may have been seconded to H Division from his 'home' N Division as a result of the murders (as PC Long was, drafted in from A Division) and heard a police whistle from Mitre Square, arriving shortly after the body was discovered.

Neil Bell is checking Police Orders to see whether there's a record of Simpson being sent to H Division, and then we'll have an answer.

Adam

Thanks for that, Adam. I'm glad to know I didn't imagine your post and I hope I haven't inadvertently pissed you off. Tensions seem to be running high with a number of folks, particularly on this thread. I was simply surprised that you find it plausible that Simpson was in Mitre Square. I believe this theory of Edwards was postulated quite some time ago, was it not, and by someone other than Edwards? It was also postulated that Simpson was part of some covert Fenian group?

The thing is, we could plausibly put almost anyone in Mitre Square. But then how is it plausible he'd remove a large, blood shawl and prize it for the rest of his life and not say a word to the City Police or turn over the shawl, which according to Edwards belonged not to Eddowes but the murderer himself?

How is that plausible?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

...we actually have been given quite a bit to chew on while we wait.

You can say that again!

Not only did the DNA team find mtDNA along the Eddowes bllodline - it was a also a mutated mtDNA meaning that we may exclude any other people than those very closely related to Catherine.

And not only did the team find mtDNA for the Kosmisnki bloodline - they also managed to extract genomic DNA here, so that we may move very close to Aaron Kosminski, and close unwanted side alleys.

Not only did the team find blood on the shawl - it was also distributed in a pattern that spoke clearly about blood spatter having come about as a result of a knife attack.

Not only did they find semen on the shawl - when they gave it a go and tested one randomly chosen suspect, they hit gold immediately and got a match.

Not only did the shawl hold all these treasures, it also provided a single cell that seemed to have come from a kidney - the precise organ that Eddowes had cut out of her body along with the uterus.

Thatīs one lucky crew, wouldnīt you say? They couldnīt have asked for more. The only thing they didnīt find was a shoeprint of George Morris, running over the shawl, whistle in mouth. But maybe that comes along when they test for mud, who knows?
Otherwise, the shawl tells the whole story, missing out on absolutely nothing.

For a shawl that cannot be proven to have been anywhere near Mitre Square on the murder night, thatīs not half bad.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

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?

In the event, it seems it was a mixture of misremembering and misinterpreting, but in any case, how does any of this stuff amount to "accepting the science"?

What you claimed about Adam has absolutely nothing to do with the science, and what Paul Begg said was prefaced by the word "if". Saying that "if we accept the science, then X follows" is obviously completely different from saying "I accept the science".

[Trevor Marriott]

Mandy Rice Marriott!

But what relevant questions. For the most part he'd been spouting incorrect figurew which he thinks challenges Dr Louhelainen, then he switches tack to make out that he's been asking about the previous tests done for the TV company. And he implies that Dr. Louhelainen's tests have to be either faked or screwed up because, with typical bias, he accepts the previous tests which found nothing.

I would suggest you get your facts right before posting such improper suggestions.

I don't accept the previous tests at this time simply because I do not know the full extent of those tests, and I simply highlighted the fact that if those light and visual tests had been done previous and had found no semen then it would go to show that the semen must have found its way onto the shawl after those tests.

A right and proper question to ask and no independent person has answered that question. Edwards is not independent.

[Theagenes]

For me (as for others) the provenance is indeed a big problem.
Even if the DNA could be conclusively (by which I mean within a scientifically accepted +/-) shown to belong to Aron Kosminski and Catherine Eddowes, and not any of their relatives; and the stains conclusively shown to be blood and semen; it would show only an intriguing connection between the two.
Without the shawl having been shown to be a part of the murder scene, there can simply be no conclusion that Kosminski killed Eddowes.
And even if the shawl could be conclusively placed at the scene, unless its positioning in situ indicated that it was directly involved in the crime - e.g., wrapped around her throat - then it still only proves a highly suspicious, but not conclusive, connection between the two.

If all of those conditions you listed were satisfied, you still wouldn't be convinced? Really?

If all that were the case you'd probably be the last Ripperologist left. Be sure to turn out the lights and lock up when you leave.