Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Henry Flower]

Hi Henry,
Just noticed a book called 'Jack the Ripper - catch me when you can' by igloo books. The last chapter quotes:
" in a theory propounded by Trevor Marriott who has extensively studied the documents pertaining to the case, Jack the Ripper is only an urban legend".

Funny how Trevor has a lot to say about a chap that didn't exist!

Amanda

Amanda, I used to think 'Trevor Marriott' was an urban legend, but I had to ask myself: what are the chances of more than one writer exhibiting -

(a) a callous disregard of anything approaching elegance in prose
(b) an arch, dismissive tone towards the work of superior researchers
(c) cutting and pasting page after page of Coroners' reports, then claiming to have undertaken a ground-breaking modern, forensic investigation?

The chances of two writers sharing these terrifying traits are so slim that I am now convinced the works attributed to 'Trevor Marriott' were indeed inflicted by one hand.

[Amanda]

Oh bugger...

Amanda, I used to think 'Trevor Marriott' was an urban legend, but I had to ask myself: what are the chances of more than one writer exhibiting -

(a) a callous disregard of anything approaching elegance in prose
(b) an arch, dismissive tone towards the work of superior researchers
(c) cutting and pasting page after page of Coroners' reports, then claiming to have undertaken a ground-breaking modern, forensic investigation?

The chances of two writers sharing these terrifying traits are so slim that I am now convinced the works attributed to 'Trevor Marriott' were indeed inflicted by one hand.

Ahh Henry,

You've just made me splutter my second cup of coffee

It's ok, I'll use some pages of 'The 21st Century Investigation' to mop it up !
Yep, sadly I did buy it, but only cos I couldn't reach my top shelf & needed something to stand on!
Amanda

[Henry Flower]

Standing on the shoulders of giants, Amanda.

[Chris]

Correct me if I'm going off on a tangent here, but could the blood stains just as easily have been menstrual blood or would there have been a difference?

I suppose the only thing that might argue against it would be the fact that Dr Louhelainen thought the shape of the stains was "consistent with arterial blood spatter caused by slashing". But I don't see that any of the other tests would distinguish.

[Amanda]

I suppose the only thing that might argue against it would be the fact that Dr Louhelainen thought the shape of the stains was "consistent with arterial blood spatter caused by slashing". But I don't see that any of the other tests would distinguish.

Hi Chris,
Just thinking through a few scenarios...

A) A blood spatter (although not arterial) could be caused by a hard punch to the nose, causing a bleed

B) the shawl could have been discarded, pawned or given away by someone else BECAUSE of the unsightly blood stains on it

Amanda

[Henry Flower]

I suppose the only thing that might argue against it would be the fact that Dr Louhelainen thought the shape of the stains was "consistent with arterial blood spatter caused by slashing". But I don't see that any of the other tests would distinguish.

Chris, this aspect interests me, and I'm surprised it hasn't received more attention.

Are there any blood-splatter experts here? Or people who aren't currently pretending to watch Peppa Pig with a demanding two year old daughter while secretly reading about the Whitechapel Murders when she's not looking, and thus have more time than I do to look into it?

• How distinctive is arterial spray splatter?
• Has such a thing been observed of the staining on the shawl ever before?
• 'Consistent with' is hardly definitive. Are there any pictures or diagrams of the staining? in the book, or anywhere else?

If it is arterial spray, then does it swing the pendulum in the shawl's direction at all? No, I know - provenance, provenance, provenance.

[Amanda Sumner]

Hi,
Quite right. What I was getting at was that the blood on the shawl might not necessarily be there as the result of a crime.

Amanda

To one Amanda to another, hi.

Any blood on the 'shawl' certainly had nothing to do with this crime. Before anyone can speculate what's on the 'shawl' surely we need to know it was at the crime scene in the first place?

Until that is established, and I can't see how it can be as there is no record of it, anywhere, back in 1888, then everything else, surely, can only be hypothesis and conjecture? If not moot....

Amanda

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm bothered by Dr. Jari's statement in the Finnish paper that he was taken advantage of. Are we confident in that translation? Because that's a pretty bold statement.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Chris, this aspect interests me, and I'm surprised it hasn't received more attention.

Are there any blood-splatter experts here? Or people who aren't currently pretending to watch Peppa Pig with a demanding two year old daughter while secretly reading about the Whitechapel Murders when she's not looking, and thus have more time than I do to look into it?

• How distinctive is arterial spray splatter?
• Has such a thing been observed of the staining on the shawl ever before?
• 'Consistent with' is hardly definitive. Are there any pictures or diagrams of the staining? in the book, or anywhere else?

If it is arterial spray, then does it swing the pendulum in the shawl's direction at all? No, I know - provenance, provenance, provenance.

Yes, provenance - that would be good. But until we have it, we may need to keep in mind that Gordon Brown specifically pointed out that there was not a speck of blood on Eddowes´jacket and no blood at all on the front of her other garments.

So if there WAS any blood spatter at all, it seemingly all ended up on the shawl that wasn´t even there in the first place.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Patrick S]

I'm bothered by Dr. Jari's statement in the Finnish paper that he was taken advantage of. Are we confident in that translation? Because that's a pretty bold statement.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

In the radio interview I heard (link provided somewhere on this thread) it didn't sound as if a statement like that was beyond his grasp due to an inability to speak English fluently. I think he stated prespective very clearly:

He wishes he'd had more time with the samples, but the book deadline prevented that.

He is confident in his findings but not willing to go as far as Edwards in his pronouncement of Kozminski's guilt. He states that Edwards goes further based upon the scientific results combined with 'his journey' with the shawl, assembling the book, etc.

He would like to publish his work in a proper scientific journal and submit the science for peer-review when his professorial job and other research projects permit.

He states that he also tested for DNA links to anyone named 'Cross' or 'Lechmere' but found absolutely nothing....he further states that based on what little he knows of the 'Crossmere' theory he thinks that - in his scientific opinion - anyone who believes it should receive electric shock therapy as soon as possible. Later today, if possible.

Come to think of it, I may have messed that last point up....because of his accent.

[Fisherman]

I'm bothered by Dr. Jari's statement in the Finnish paper that he was taken advantage of. Are we confident in that translation? Because that's a pretty bold statement.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I´m absolutely sure, Tom - Hufvudstadsbladet is in Swedish (many Fins speak Swedish since the Westernmost part of Finland, Österbotten, used to be Swedish). It says "Redan bakpärmen avslöjade att de vill utnyttja mig..." (Already the back cover revealed that they want to take advantage of me...) and "utnyttja" cannot mean anything else but "take advantage of" in this context.

The best,
Fisherman

[John G]

Thanks for my first reply, Helen! Yes, it would be very interesting to see if there were dna matches from any other suspects. Of course, there is also added context, apart from the DNA, in respect of Kosminski, i.e Lawende's supposed witness identification directly linking Kosminski to Eddowes.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

History Of Shawl Testing

Hi all I'm a longtime on/off lurker at the Casebook due mainly to the fact that at least two of the JtR suspects - F.Tumblety and T. Neill Cream - passed through my current home (London Ontario). I have no real favourite suspect, just I am troubled and uneasy by/about some of the timing issues involved with this "shawl" including the history of DNA testing.

As far as I can see the "shawl" has been subjected to testing on a number of occasions :

1. Jack the Ripper: The First Serial Killer (2006*). Tester: unknown. Result: None.
2. Jack The Ripper: Prime Suspect (2011*) Tester: Dr. Louhelainen. Result: None (swab tests)
3. Naming Jack The Ripper (2014) Tester: Louhelainen. Result: Kosminski (new type of extraction).

(* date from copyright info for the documentaries.)

In item 2, former DCI Robin Napper, who seems to have been in the forensics business since the late 90s, asks Russell *Edwards if they can DNA test the "shawl". Edwards worries about damage. The scene switches to Louhelainen, Napper and Edwards standing in a lab and Napper getting conformation from Louhelainen.that there would be no damage to the "shawl". Edwards then hands a holdall type bag to Louhelainen. (Around 31.40 of the video/film documentary.)

First question: Who chose Louhelainen.? Napper, the documentary producers, or Edwards?

More recently we have the BBC interview with Dr Louhelainen. in which he says:

This was almost like a fluke 2011, one day there he was a fellow who I did not know had a brown briefcase and I might have something for you then he told me this is the last piece of physical evidence which is known,linked to the Jack The Ripper murders

A "briefcase" is not what is shown in the video, and no mention of Napper. Did Napper and Edwards just walk into his lab, or did Napper or his team set it up? So second question is why is it described as a "fluke"?

Just makes me feel uneasy.

Ohh, and I have somewhere on this thread seen reference to tests done in 2007. Are those the 2006 tests I list above?

Any thoughts and information, from the experts here, to ease my troubled mind gratefully accepted.

cheers, gryff

[Garry Wroe]

Dr Brown specifically detailed his failure to find arterial spray on and about the body. He and others also described the pool of blood lying beneath Kate's neck, head and shoulders. One would assume, therefore, that if the shawl was in a position such that it could have been sprayed with arterial blood, it would also have become soaked by the blood that had collected beneath Kate's neck. Yet this is apparently not in evidence on the shawl examined by Dr Jari.

Something doesn't add up.

[Patrick S]

Hi all I'm a longtime on/off lurker at the Casebook due mainly to the fact that at least two of the JtR suspects - F.Tumblety and T. Neill Cream - passed through my current home (London Ontario).

Any thoughts and information, from the experts here, to ease my troubled mind gratefully accepted.

cheers, gryff

Interesting story about Tumblety and Cream. I'd love to see you expand on it when you have a chance (on the appropriate thread(s), of course).

I'm not sure your troubled mind can be eased. There are many problems with the shawl. However, I think the use of the word 'briefcase' is likely innocuous enough. Recollections are sometimes unclear. There's a language issue. He may have just used the wrong word.

I've been trying to find how he found Louhelainen myself. I'm sure it's in the book. I should be knee-deep in it by the weekend, so perhaps I'll learn it then.