Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[mickreed]

[QUOTE=Toofew;309727

Chris, did you find Kosminkski in the 1891 census?

Thanks,

Billy[/QUOTE]

He's there Billy, in Colney Hatch asylum, listed only as A.K.

[Toofew]

He's there Billy, in Colney Hatch asylum, listed only as A.K.

AHHHH! Many thanks Mick.

Billy

[Chris]

One other question. I've seen various numbers on the possible matches to Kosminski mDNA from very high numbers to more reasonable numbers. Are there any numbers as far as the likelihood of Kate's mDNA being matched with others?

Yes. According to the book, the segment from the "shawl" that matched Karen Miller's mitochondrial DNA contains a rare mutation, designated 314.1C, which is found in only 1 in 290,000 people worldwide.

[wolfie1]

Mick, would direct male desc DNA sample produce a more definitive match result than a female DNA desc test from a direct male sample?

Sorry, it is has been covered before but need to know for potential follow up.

Edit, would not be direct, as AK had nil children, but secondary male match.
Wolfie

[Tom_Wescott]

We sure go round in circles on this thread. I suppose it's inevitably given the size of the thread, and the fact that new people are joining all the while. But Tom raised this earlier, Phil did, I did, and Mabuse, about three days ago, stated that a family member had confirmed directly that they are sceptical of the story which the consided 'dubious'.

Actually, what I was trying to subtly suggest was that a family member might have been reading about Amos Simpson theories here on the Casebook and then incorporating them into the story Edwards heard.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil,

A cynic would be right regarding a bunch of dilettantes who unfailingly profess to know everything, and more, about anything Ripperdom cares to throw their way.

Hi Mick,

How do I know? Call it a hunch. If there were any professional DNA experts on Casebook this thread would have lost the will to live long ago.

Regards,

Simon

[Mr Lucky]

I feel it might be worth pointing out what I believe may be a potential reason for Dr Jari's comments as translated earlier by Fish.

Dr Jari Louhelainen has devised a new DNA extraction technique, he wants to demonstrate it's effectiveness to the world and to do this he needs to do what is known as a controlled experiment, one where all the variables are already known. The reason for this is to enable a comparison between the actual results given by the new technique and the expected results of the experiment, and loosely the success of the process can be effectively measured by the closeness of the actual results to that of the expected results.

I suspect the provenance of the sample may have been over stated, and Dr Jari may have believed that it was good enough to be used as a test to demonstrate the effectiveness of this new DNA extraction technique - (which is the only reason I can see why the results would ever need to be peer reviewed, if the testing was an accepted standard then the usual procedure would be to simply have two separate labs do the tests) - perhaps he now realises that isn't the case, and the provenance (and by which I mean of the shawl and the solution - ie that Kosminski was the killer) are both simply not good enough for this.

[dropzone]

Colored pencils were first developed and made around 1920 by the A.W. Faber company, located in Stein, Germany.

A researcher of not much repute would disagree with you:

In the nineteenth century, editors and censors commonly marked up manuscripts with colored pencils so their comments stood out. By the 1880s, British military censors had standardized on blue pencils, and their use became so widespread that "blue-penciling" became a synonym for editing or censoring.

Part of the article is quoted here, but a server crash at straightdope.com ate the published article and the author is too lazy to look for it.

=I just read the (freebie) Look Inside of Russell's book and I note that the entire first chapter rambles on about his personal history and his romantic life. I find that a bit weird. Is this padding?

Yes, and the full technical is "padding the **** out of it."

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.

And as the carotid dumps 100ml per beat and death isn't quite instantaneous when it's severed, much less nicked, as in this case, the cloth, or some cloth, would be soaked with a half-pint of blood, not just splatter, for her death to have been caused by bleeding out through the carotid, as the post-mortem says.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hello Caligo ,

Hanbury street & Leather apron . if it was there we would be aware

moonbegger

Yes, Moon, I take your point.
That apron was obviously felt at the time to be in someway relevant to the investigation and was thoroughly investigated and had several mentions in the press of the day also.
It would seem odd that until the Eddowes murder it was generally believed that no sexual 'connection' had occurred between the perpetrator and his victims and that no specific sexual motive was ascribable.
Here was a shawl that was not only newly splattered with blood from the victim but also had quantities of, presumably fresh, semen upon it.
This would be significant evidence of a direct sexual motivation that the items retrieved from the previous murder scenes and the circumstances of those scenes themselves, gave rather less indication of.
It would be a very odd thing indeed that such a potentially significant piece of evidence should be allowed to walk away from the scene in the pocket of a police sergeant.
I accept that there was at the time no way to test the blood or semen for how it might relate to any suspect or victim but that surely would not diminish its value to the investigation as a piece of vital evidence.

[mickreed]

[/I]A researcher of not much repute would disagree with you: Part of the article is quoted here, but a server crash at straightdope.com ate the published article and the author is too lazy to look for it.

Yep. What I actually said, was that I didn't know whether the 1920 date was right or not. Earlier discussion on this has confirmed that it was not. Actually relating to artists' pencils only.

It now looks, with higher resolution scans from Rob, plus comments from people who have seen the original documents, that it is probably red ink.

In any event, we need to know when, how, why, the amendments were made, and who by. There's been quite a lot of discussion on this over the past couple of days. No need to repeat it here.

[moonbegger]

Hello Caligo ,

also had quantities of, presumably fresh, semen upon it.

Really !! I Had no idea the seamen ageing test was introduced

Just kidding Caligo , but it does highlight the direction this thread is heading.

Cheers , moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Evening All

I think it's Edwards certainty in a very uncertain situation , garnished with the sensational headlines that grind folk the wrong way .. And at its very best , all we have , is possible evidence of Kate's Shawl with a trace of AK's seamen .. A well known seller of vice and a most likely buyer , rubbing shoulders in a very small and tight district .. far from an unlikely union by any stretch of the imagination .

By the same rule of thumb , every man who paid for her services and left a trace of seamen on her clothing was Jack the Ripper .

Was it just his unfortunate familiarity with prostitutes in the area that brought him under Police suspicion at the time ? And that being the case is it just these two flimsy bits of circumstantial evidence tied together that have Mr Edwards claiming he was 100% JTR ?

In all fairness to Ed & Fish , at least we know their man was there at a murder scene , alone with a freshly killed victim 100% . And although I don't buy into their theory , you cant argue with that particular fact , which for my mind is a lot stronger evidence than the unknown provenance and uncertain DNA findings surrounding the shawl at this moment in time .

And as far as the provenance goes .. Hanbury street and Leather apron , no one missed that !

moonbegger .

[mickreed]

And as the carotid dumps 100ml per beat and death isn't quite instantaneous when it's severed, much less nicked, as in this case, the cloth, or some cloth, would be soaked with a half-pint of blood, not just splatter, for her death to have been caused by bleeding out through the carotid, as the post-mortem says.

That's a good point. I asked about this a few days back. It might have been on JTRforums. I got no response that I recall. I asked whether, since there was 'not a speck' of blood on the front on the clothes, and since Kate was believed to be lying down when he was killed, how we could explain the spatter at one end of the shawl, and the allegedly blood soaked area at the other end, which was, allegedly, cut out.

I thought Horace Rumpole might have been able to help, but, unsurprisingly he's not been forthcoming.

I also asked how quick death would be after such an injury. Dr Browne said that death was 'immediate'. I wondered what that meant - instantaneous (I doubt it); 5 seconds, 30 seconds, 2 minutes?

[mickreed]

Mick, would direct male desc DNA sample produce a more definitive match result than a female DNA desc test from a direct male sample?

Sorry, it is has been covered before but need to know for potential follow up.

Edit, would not be direct, as AK had nil children, but secondary male match.
Wolfie

Hi Wolfie.

Well, as you probably know, mtDNA come through the purely maternal line, the Y-chromosome, through the purely maternal line. Autosomnal DNA comes equally from both parents, although not in any predictable way.

So far as I know, there is no test that can, over this time-span say for sure that the DNA belonged to a long-dead person. They can be suggestive only. Unusual mutations may narrow the possibilities and until we know exactly what these are (if any) then it's hard to say anything useful

All other things being equal (and they seldom are) Y-chromosome data might be more useful. I do not know whether Jari retrieved any, and if he did, what resolution was able to define.

Again, without detailed knowledge, Y-chromosome or mtDNA data would point in a particular direction. A personal example

My Y-chromosome matches 100% (on 37 markers) with my first cousin. This suggests that our grandfather was the same man. It could equally be though, that my grandfather was the man I have always thought, and that my cousin's grandfather was the brother of my grandfather, or even his cousin.

This is unsurprising and doesn't matter, but how would anyone know whether it was my DNA on a cloth or my cousin's? They would need additional data.

On 12 markers, I have a 100% match with squillions of people. At 25 markers it's much reduced with only a couple of 100% matches, at 37-markers, only a dozen or so (that I know of) and only my cousin at 100%, at 67 and 111 markers, I have no known matches.

The same thing (in very, very loose principle) applies to mtDNA analysis

So, until we have real numbers, it's hard to say anything definite.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hello Caligo ,

Really !! I Had no idea the seamen ageing test was introduced

Just kidding Caligo , but it does highlight the direction this thread is heading.

Cheers , moonbegger

Thanks, Moon.
I was inferring that if Mr. Edwards was correct in his assertion that the shawl was present at the scene immediately after the murder and had as he claims both the victims blood upon it and semen left by the killer, it would be a reasonable expectation that it would be an item entered into evidence.
I'm not suggesting that I believe the shawl was ever there but if it was then we would have to entertain the possibility that the semen later discovered on the shawl was deposited at around the time of the crime and possibly by the killer.
Therefore, although we may not be able to accurately date either the blood or the semen, the semen would at the initial moment of the discovery of the shawl in the square have been fresh.
What direction do you believe this thread is going in?