Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Mabuse]

In all likelihood, the idea came from Kozminski's asylum record, which indicated the "Supposed Cause" of insanity as "self abuse".

RH

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. The idea at the time was that having one off the wrist too often would make you lose your mind.

But how did they know Kosminski was a self-abuser. I agree with mickreed, this whole thing is not very clear.

I'm willing to bet Kosminski had a cache of pornography someone found. Either that or they simply assumed he was mad because of masturbation. If he had the type of illness I surmise, he might have been spending a lot of time alone in his room just staring at the wall.

EDIT: Hang about, that's interesting. The "Duration of existing attack" has been amended to "six years". So he was showing significant symptoms since at least 1885.

That is a little supportive evidence for what I'd already assumed.

[Chris]

In his BBC radio interview Dr Jari described how he ‘authenticated’ the shawl. He compared the mtDNA derived from one of Kate’s descendants to that contained within a presumed bloodstain on the shawl, uncovered a match, and from there used this mtDNA match as the basis for assuming that the shawl had been present at the Mitre Square crime scene.

As someone trained in scientific research methodology I have to say that this is poor science. In fact, it isn’t science at all. It is speculation based upon the assumption that the mtDNA recovered from the bloodstain was Kate’s. At present there is no compelling scientific evidence to support this contention. The mtDNA in itself is insufficient to prove that Kate came into contact with the shawl. Even if she did, this wouldn’t prove that the shawl was at the crime scene.

Like I said: poor science.

Actually, Dr Louhelainen explicitly said there were other possibilities, and explained that what was presented in the book was considered the most plausible explanation:

AR: So let me just be absolutely clear about this. From tracking one of Catherine Eddowes, who was the prostitute who was murdered - by tracking her descendants - a direct descendant - her daughter's daughter's daughter or son ...

JL: Exactly.

AR: ... and taking a sample of their DNA you managed to match up the DNA that you found on the shawl with the living descendant's, thus, you claim, demonstrating that the shawl had been in her presence.

JL: Well yes, so there are probably other possibilities, but this is the most plausible one.

AR: Tell me what the other possibilities might be.

JL: In that case, someone in the family would have been in touch with the shawl, and her DNA would be in that shawl in [?]greater [?]percents. So this is now DNA which has been extracted from the shawl not just from the surface so just touching I would say it's not enough for that.

[There follows more discussion about the specificity of mitochondrial DNA compared with nuclear DNA, the possibility of contamination and so on.]

As you'll know, there's more discussion later, for example, about the possibility that the DNA on the shawl may simply reflect an "interaction" between a prostitute and her client, which Dr Louhelainen agreed was possible.

[Chris]

If I am mistaken, so sorry.

He HAS funding then?

No, where do you get that from?

The point is that the factors you mentioned were raised in connection with when the work would be published, not whether it would be published, as your post implied.

[Garry Wroe]

Thanks, Mick. And Lynn.

You, too, Chris. But what I stated in my post was taken from the BBC radio interview. Dr Jari explicitly stated that he had linked the shawl to the crime scene by way of the mtDNA.

But let's wait and see. I confidently predict that Dr Jari will be torn to shreds should his work ever go to peer review. Which would be a shame because he seems like an extremely nice man. A nice man, however, who failed to appreciate the ramifications of his involvement with the Ripper case.

[mickreed]

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. The idea at the time was that having one off the wrist too often would make you lose your mind.

But how did they know Kosminski was a self-abuser. I agree with mickreed, this whole thing is not very clear.

I'm willing to bet Kosminski had a cache of pornography someone found. Either that or they simply assumed he was mad because of masturbation. If he had the type of illness I surmise, he might have been spending a lot of time alone in his room just staring at the wall.

EDIT: Hang about, that's interesting. The "Duration of existing attack" has been amended to "six years". So he was showing significant symptoms since at least 1885.

That is a little supportive evidence for what I'd already assumed.

Problem is, when was it amended. In 1891 or years later?

[robhouse]

I would like to post this, just as a point of interest... (I have posted it before, but I know a lot of people here did not see it.)

When I last visited the LMA, I found this in the Colney Hatch admission register: it is a loose sheet letter to the Medical Superintendant of Colney Hatch, hand written by Robert Anderson, and headed from the "Convict Supervision Office" at New Scotland Yard. This letter relates not to Kozminski, but to another inmate named George Hall who, as Anderson noted, was "subject to Police supervision." The letter continues "I shall therefore feel obliged if you will cause me to be informed in the event of his discharge from your care."

I just thought it was interesting to note that this "Convict Supervision Office" did apparently keep tabs on certain inmates of Lunatic Asylums, and I would assume they kept tabs on Kozminski in this way. If they did, given the high-profile nature of the case, and the police wish to presumably keep the suspect under wraps, I highly suspect that they would have not made this "supervision" generally known at CH, but rather known only to higher-ups at the Asylum (perhaps only the Superintendant.)

I do not know if there are any extant files from the Convict Supervision Office... of course, Kozminski would not have been a "convict" in any case, but he may still have been subject to Police Supervision anyway.

RH

[Lechmere]

Mickread
The real world is where all sorts of things, good and bad happen.
But I was talking about the real world of book publishing and historical discussion, so your comments about murder rape and pillage are somewhat irrelevant. Actually they are totally irrelevant and pointless.
It doesn’t trouble me in the least of someone who is enthusiastic for his cause talks enthusiastically about it.
It doesn’t trouble me if someone genuinely believes in the rightness of his cause tells other people about it.
It doesn’t trouble me if that person makes money out of doing that. It is up to me whether I believe it all or in part. Or not at all.
I suspect that you are not in a position to comment on the integrity of anyone involved in this book.
I welcome the fact that interest in this field has been reawakened in the masses.

[mickreed]

Thanks, Mick. And Lynn.

You, too, Chris. But what I stated in my post was taken from the BBC radio interview. Dr Jari explicitly stated that he had linked the shawl to the crime scene by way of the mtDNA.

But let's wait and see. I confidently predict that Dr Jari will be torn to shreds should his work ever go to peer review. Which would be a shame because he seems like an extremely nice man. A nice man, however, who failed to appreciate the ramifications of his involvement with the Ripper case.

That seems very fair Garry and I agree. He does seem a really nice bloke, and it seems a shame that he's in the middle of this. He may also not be at his best on the TV or radio. I know I'm not.

The problem is that, presumably, he has been told (and believes) that the shawl was at the crime scene.

I don't care who you are, you cannot place anything at the crime scene just from DNA. Not after 126 years.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

Thanks for re-posting that.

Has it been firmly established that, prior to his admittance to Colney Hatch, Kosminski had been "subject to Police Supervision"?

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

You, too, Chris. But what I stated in my post was taken from the BBC radio interview. Dr Jari explicitly stated that he had linked the shawl to the crime scene by way of the mtDNA.

And then there was a lot more discussion in which he carefully qualified his position, all of which you omitted.

But let's wait and see. I confidently predict that Dr Jari will be torn to shreds should his work ever go to peer review.

Based on what?

[Henry Flower]

I welcome the fact that interest in this field has been reawakened in the masses.

Wow. Just wow.

As one of the masses, Your Highness, can I just say how grateful I am for that comment?

[Mabuse]

Problem is, when was it amended. In 1891 or years later?

Hmmm. OK .. yeah that is curious. I'm going to assume it is a correction to the original entry, because that seems more logical. It would be interesting to know why and when those red additions were made, however.

[Roy Corduroy]

... but neither do I elevate discussion on here to some rarefied plane where answers are demanded of private individuals and where people should be vilified for supposed transgressions of what self important people on here regard as what is right and proper.

Good morning Margin Eddie,

Recall your big thread here where you stomped your foot demanding answers of private individuals, with folks going hither and yon digging up old typewriter ribbons and whatnot.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Roy

[Lechmere]

Roy
If you dredge your memory banks, you may recall that I questioned the over-elevated claims that were being made that the Marginalia's authenticity was essentially proved by the provenance that was revealed, mainly, by an article in the 'Ripperologist'.
It was claimed that this showed that 'Ripperology' was a genuinely reputable field of study because it was scrupulous about what it did and didn't accept. I pointed out that this wasn't the case as there were various flaws in the chain of evidence given to support the provenance of the Marginalia.
(Scientific tests would not have been of any use in establishing the authenticity due to the use of pencil).
In common with this tread, this provoked howls of outrage, wounded indignation and rash accusations on both sides.
I didn't demand that extra validation be done. But I pointed out that unless it was, attempts to sell the Swanson collection would likely be blighted. It was also demanded of me that I list what extra validation could possibly be done - and as I am an agreeable sort of chap, I obliged.
In the end Adam Wood - who I have great respect for as an author, enthusiast in the field and researcher - recognised that there were indeed holes and he took the trouble to plug them by obtaining the extra validation which completed the chain of evidence.
I'm not sure what relevance this trip down memory lane has to the issue at hand.

[Patrick S]

Good morning Margin Eddie,

Recall your big thread here where you stomped your foot demanding answers of private individuals, with folks going hither and yon digging up old typewriter ribbons and whatnot.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Roy

I see the estimable Eddie Lechmere is still making friends by the truckload.

I'm sure this has been asked here (the thread is so huge you can't possibly stay current), but am I the only one hoping the DNA proves solid, totally conclusive, even......if for no other reason than what that will mean to Ed's foundering Lechmere industry? Those 'tours' may be impacted a bit. Forgive me. I am normally not prone to schadenfreude. Alas, arrogance, ugliness, and a complete lack of reason.....not really a combination one can pull for, is it?