Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Theagenes]

Thank you, good to have an objective review of the book.
In summary,
1. Eddowes blood on item confirmed to be from Eddowes, verified by DNA match to direct desc.
2. Item at some point was in possession of Simpson, or other persons, unable to confirm how, when,where or why, as it was handed down to family, passed through several hands, current owner is Edwards
3. suspect, is not confirmed by DNA, as A Kosminski but could be from over 7000 persons in area. Semen, not confirmed as semen on item, and not able to date supposed stain on item to c1888.

So, Edwards has simply obtained firm evidence of Eddowes blood in an item in his possession, from a source that may or may not be correct.

I think he probably has (though I'd like to hear Jari confirm the global private mutation) and that is actually a pretty big deal. Unfortunately it is being overshadowed by his overreach in trying to tie it to Kosminski as well, without nearly as solid the evidence.

[Archaic]

Interesting Book Review On Amazon.com

Hi everyone.

I read a book review of 'Naming Jack the Ripper' on Amazon.com (the US site) that I thought others might find interesting. The reviewer's name is Dr. Mike Sutton.

Here is the entire review, and below it is the link to it on Amazon's website:


We must not forget the Piltdown Man Fraud.
September 9, 2014
By Dr Mike Sutton
Format:Hardcover

I pre-ordered this book on my Kindle and read it cover to cover today inside seven hours.

`Naming Jack the Ripper' is over 300 pages in length and fairly well trips along with background details of the Ripper's killings, the times he murdered in and the unfortunate social circumstances of his victims. At face value I very much like the book and I like the author's voice. Its well written and will undoubtedly sell well.

The story in this book is essentially that the author - Russell Edwards, who is a businessman - obtained a shawl at the reserve price after it failed to sell at auction. The scarf was blood stained, supposedly with the blood of the Ripper's victim Catherine Eddowes. To cut to the chase, DNA analysis of the scarf purportedly found that stains on it matched the DNA of Ripper suspect Aaron Kosminski and one of his victims named Catherine Eddowes.

However, there are some big problems with this book. Those problems all stem from the fact that many key scientific protocols seem to have been non-existent in the handling of the scarf and the modern DNA samples used to establish the provenance of supposedly old 19th century DNA on it. In this respect I am reminded of what led scientists astray in the case of the Piltdown Man fraud.

The author, Edwards, frequently has the entire shawl in his lone and sole possession along with modern DNA samples that are used to match allegedly old DNA samples on the shawl. Surely, with the shawl, being in two pieces, he should have begun from the start by securing one piece away with a trustworthy independent third party (such as a highly notable and entirely independent solicitor at the very least, but an independent and esteemed academic body at best). Furthermore, Edwards, the author, should not have been the one to collect and be in possession of the DNA samples from the victim's and suspect's modern day genetic descendants. Why Edwards's scientific collaborator, Dr Louhelainen, failed to stop this scientific faux pas requires public explanation. Because, most unfortunately, we learn, it is the author himself who collects a DNA swab from a surviving genetic descendent of Eddowes and also from the surviving genetic descendant of the author's sole chief suspect - Aaron Kaminski. Moreover - to repeat the essential point for emphasis - it is the author who has these DNA swabs and the shawl in his possession together for some time before handing them over to Dr Louhelainen to see if the blood on the scarf contains DNA matching that of Eddowes' modern genetic descendant, and the same for Kaminski's.

I'm no expert on DNA analysis, but since we are told that Dr Louhelainen took samples of his own DNA and Edwards's in order to rule them out, it seems that he was unable to tell the age of the DNA he was examining. If so, then this means that we cannot rule out the possibility that the author - Edwards - could possibly have taken small amounts of DNA from Eddowes's descendant's sample and used it to contaminate the blood stain on the shawl before he handed both over to Dr Louhelainen to examine. Moreover, since research proves that scientists do - most unfortunately - commit science fraud far more frequently than we would wish or imagine - we cannot rule out the possibility that Dr Louhelainen (who we are informed was working on the shawl alone and in his own time) might have deliberately or accidentally contaminated the blood stain on the shawl with the DNA sample taken from the victim's living descendant.

When it comes to the DNA sample from an unnamed descendant of the Ripper suspect - Aaron Kaminski - the book becomes rather unclear. We are told that a number of microscope slides taken from the shawl were collected from a possible semen stain that contained no sperm. The slides do nonetheless contain cells that may or may not have come from the inside of a male urethra at ejaculation, or else some other unrelated part of their body. We are told that one cell found, amongst others, on these slides was a very significant match to the DNA of Kosminski's surviving genetic descendant who gave the author, Edwards, a DNA sample.

Most importantly, what we are not told in the book, however, is whether as part of this analysis Dr Louelainen needed to take other samples from the shawl after Edwards was in sole and lone possession of both it and the modern Kosminski's genetic descendant's DNA sample. Moreover, we are not told whether or not it would have been possible at any time for the author to contaminate any of those slides, anyway, with modern Kosminski descendant DNA.

Finally, since Dr Louelainen was working in his own time and alone, we cannot, I'm afraid to say, rule out the possibility that he deliberately or accidentally contaminated the slides with modern DNA.

I was drawn to read the book because Edwards himself and his scientific associate - Dr Jari Louhelainen - relied in no small part on the 'big data' science that facilitated the DNA checks, identification of victim and suspect modern day descendants and related research around the textile industry, fabric dying and other facts. I am, for reasons of my own recent research endeavours very interested in the role of big data analysis in solving problems - including the detection of crimes. I very much wanted to find that Edwards really had unquestionably cracked the case of who was Jack the Ripper. Unfortunately, the book has raised a number of questions that need answering before I am in a position to raise a glass to Edwards and Louhelainen. But I sincerely hope that one day I will.

In the meantime our skeptical alarm bells should sound, because in his quest for modern DNA to detect the Ripper Edwards most "fortunately", it so rapidly turned out, initially set about solely looking for a suitable genetic descendant of Aaron Kosminski - a Polish Jew who has been favored by only some Ripperologists, and allegedly others in the police service named by Edwards, as the most likely person to have been the Ripper. Edwards makes a fairly plausible case (in places creative, insightful unusual but not at all irrational) for why he focused first on Kosminski - and I won't give too much about that away here (you should read the book) - but, unfortunately, his initial choice of suspect should not be enough to allay our suspicions in light of the unfortunately undeniable multiple opportunities for science fraud that I believe existed.

I apologize profoundly to both Russell Edwards and Dr Jari Louhelainen for pointing my finger of suspicious skepticism their way. I sincerely hope that neither committed any kind of science fraud. Moreover, I sincerely hope that the forensic tests used were done properly and will be considered reliable by the expert scientific community under peer review.

Meanwhile, we have some facts that might allay all my horribly nagging suspicions if more research is undertaken. Firstly, we are left with the fact that Edwards tells us that before he bought the shawl that Scotland Yard's "Black Museum" took a sample of stained cloth from it. Secondly, we are told that, also before he bought the shawl, two other samples of fabric were cut from it and have been framed and that they remain in the possession of other parties known to the author. These "independent" other samples from the shawl provide one possible route for scientists to conduct a second round of tests, in properly controlled scientific conditions, to rule out the possibility of fraud or other route of contamination of the old stains with modern DNA from the genetic descendants of Eddowes and Kosminski. Until such analysis is conducted, I am afraid that we cannot yet safely concur with the final words of Edwards's otherwise excellent book: "Aaron Kosminski is Jack the Ripper."

In sum, this story - as it currently stands- is potentially (at least) not too dissimilar to the story of Charles Dawson supplying, by various clever contrivances, Arthur Smith Woodward of the British Museum with absolutely ALL of the forensic physical evidence - which he obtained and solely possessed - for Piltdown Man. And just look how badly that turned out. History has some hard lessons to teach us. We would be foolish to ignore them.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00LB89OXY/ref=cm_cr_dpvoterdr?ie=UTF8&thanksvoting=cr-vote-R13YEQVEETWA0G#R13YEQVEETWA0G.2115.Helpful.Reviews

Best regards,
Archaic

[mickreed]

Thank you, good to have an objective review of the book.
In summary,
1. Eddowes blood on item confirmed to be from Eddowes, verified by DNA match to direct desc.
2. Item at some point was in possession of Simpson, or other persons, unable to confirm how, when,where or why, as it was handed down to family, passed through several hands, current owner is Edwards
3. suspect, is not confirmed by DNA, as A Kosminski but could be from over 7000 persons in area. Semen, not confirmed as semen on item, and not able to date supposed stain on item to c1888.

So, Edwards has simply obtained firm evidence of Eddowes blood in an item in his possession, from a source that may or may not be correct.

Hey Wolfie,

Agree regarding review. Some points match detailed notes sent me by a forum member. My responses to your specific points:

1. Not sure that Eddowes blood is confirmed on the shawl. An Eddowes family connection may be plausible, even likely, but surely no more than that. But if even if it is Kate's, here's as good a speculation as any Edwards seem to have made.

Simpson is out and about, and finds, steals, or buys a secondhand shawl somewhere and thinks 'My wife would like that'. Stuffs it in his pocket. Somehow finds himself at the Eddowes crime site, or by the trolley on the way to the nick, or at the mortuary, and get's some of her blood on it. Wife says, 'Bloody hell! That's blood, get it away from me'. Simpson says, 'Oh sod it, I've just been next to Kate Eddowes's body. Must have brushed up against it. Sorry love'. And the family story develops from there.

I mean, surely that's perfectly plausible argument as any others I seen. Non? Maybe I should take up creative writing.

2. No argument with that.

3. I am not surprised.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi Phil,

1. If it's a shawl, my Aunt Doris is a Chinaman. If it's a skirt we're looking for a woman with a huge waist and very short legs, or perhaps a miniscule waist and extremely long legs. Of course, it could always be a kilt belonging to the McDaisy or McLily clan.

Hello, Simon.
I must say it is sometimes a tad difficult to fathom if you're being jocular or serious.
Are you letting us in on part of your family history regarding your Aunt Doris?
If she isn't a Chinaman, then what rational do you have for believing that the item under discussion is not a shawl?
Apart from the obvious and vandalous damage inflicted upon it when one end was rudely hacked away so it could adorn the inside of a picture frame, it reflects in every the form a shawl from the 1820's to 1840's would have taken.
It would be reasonable to expect that, as that type of shawl was not terribly fashionable by the mid 1880's, its resale price would have dropped considerably, despite the materials used and the quality of the item.
An examination of any charity shop that sells clothing today will demonstrate that good quality, well made items can be found at very attractive prices simply because most people consider flared trousers and 'kipper' ties to be un-stylish.
What are your thoughts as to why this item is not a shawl?
Thanks, Caligo.
P.S. what did you mean by Daily and Express?

[Mabuse]

...
By Dr Mike Sutton

... Furthermore, Edwards, the author, should not have been the one to collect and be in possession of the DNA samples from the victim's and suspect's modern day genetic descendants ... it is the author himself who collects a DNA swab from a surviving genetic descendent of Eddowes and also from the surviving genetic descendant of the author's sole chief suspect ...

What what what????? Edwards collected the samples???

...
it is the author who has these DNA swabs and the shawl in his possession together for some time before handing them over to Dr Louhelainen ...

WHAT????

I had at least expected there to be independent scientists performing this function. By all the gods.

This torpedoes Louhelainen's findings. Completely. Final straw.

He will have little hope in getting a paper through peer review. I'll bet you a pint he doesn't even try.

I shall see if I can cancel my pre-order of this book.

This is a massive balls up. This is pish!

[mickreed]

What what what????? Edwards collected the samples???




WHAT????

I had at least expected there to be independent scientists performing this function. By all the gods.

This torpedoes Louhelainen's findings. Completely. Final straw.

He will have little hope in getting a paper through peer review. I'll bet you a pint he doesn't even try.

I shall see if I can cancel my pre-order of this book.

This is a massive balls up. This is pish!

Yes, Thought exactly the same, Mabuse.

I hear that Jari is going to put some stuff on his website at the weekend. Dunno if it's right. We shall see.

[wolfie1]

What what what????? Edwards collected the samples???




WHAT????

I had at least expected there to be independent scientists performing this function. By all the gods.

This torpedoes Louhelainen's findings. Completely. Final straw.

He will have little hope in getting a paper through peer review. I'll bet you a pint he doesn't even try.

I shall see if I can cancel my pre-order of this book.

This is a massive balls up. This is pish!

Oh my word!
I don't doubt the credibility of the good Dr, you are are correct in that a peer review of these findings is not even a remote possibility now due to nil review and monitoring of sample collection and storage.

I had a faint hope that both sample subjects were in the presence of the good Dr when providing samples, and that both samples were kept in a lab at all times.

[mickreed]

This is a massive balls up. This is pish!

Strong words, Mabuse, but I suspect, accurate ones - certainly if Mike Sutton's review is right on those points.

So, if it is substantiated that this is the case, it will leave Edwards (who is really just an anonymous Joe without much of a reputation in the first place) discredited, but with big (huge?) book sales to his credit, so perhaps he won't mind.

And poor old Jari, who probably didn't take it very seriously in the first place, with an unexpected world-wide publicity bandwagon on the case, looking a complete pillock.

Fortunately for him, I doubt the world's press will be so keen on showing the debunking process as they were to give us the 'solved' story.

All the above applies only if it really does prove to be pish. I think it will.

[GUT]

Strong words, Mabuse, but I suspect, accurate ones - certainly if Mike Sutton's review is right on those points.

So, if it is substantiated that this is the case, it will leave Edwards (who is really just an anonymous Joe without much of a reputation in the first place) discredited, but with big (huge?) book sales to his credit, so perhaps he won't mind.

And poor old Jari, who probably didn't take it very seriously in the first place, with an unexpected world-wide publicity bandwagon on the case, looking a complete pillock.

Fortunately for him, I doubt the world's press will be so keen on showing the debunking process as they were to give us the 'solved' story.

All the above applies only if it really does prove to be pish. I think it will.

Well considering Mr Edwards opened his shop just a few short weeks before releasing his book I suspect he has achieved his result and really won't mind what happens now.

I wonder how long his lease is?

[mickreed]

This is a massive balls up. This is pish!

Notes from someone who read the book, and sent them to me:

Meanwhile Jari turned his attention to the fluorescent stains which might be semen, though he pointed out that there were other possibilities, such as washing powder.

David Miller was concerned about the absence of sperm in the sample. But the evidence of squamous cells meant [how?] that it could not be ruled out that some sperm could have been there.

However the material stored at David Miller's lab in Leeds had been lost. RE took the shawl back to Liverpool and JL took further samples.

And so on, and so on …

So, numerous caveats from the scientists, and lax procedures in at least one lab, where the samples went AWOL

[Caligo Umbrator]

Notes from someone who read the book, and sent them to me:

Meanwhile Jari turned his attention to the fluorescent stains which might be semen, though he pointed out that there were other possibilities, such as washing powder.

David Miller was concerned about the absence of sperm in the sample. But the evidence of squamous cells meant [how?] that it could not be ruled out that some sperm could have been there.

However the material stored at David Miller's lab in Leeds had been lost. RE took the shawl back to Liverpool and JL took further samples.

And so on, and so on …

So, numerous caveats from the scientists, and lax procedures in at least one lab, where the samples went AWOL

Hi Mick,
I've had a friend sending me a few excerpts from the book, too - its not published here until the end of September.
I'm not expert in this field but I was reading up on what may be the same passage you refer to - squamous cells as you may know make up the epidermis. The squamous epithelial cells, which I believe is what was discovered do pretty much the same and the discovered epithelial cells are cited as the source of the 'A.K.' mDNA
I too am at a loss to discern a way that would explain how the presence of squamous cells could confirm the presence of sperm on the mysterious stains on the material.
Might it not more simply indicate that someone had vigorously hand washed that area?
It does seem to indicate a shocking lack of control that some of the pertinent material stored at D.M's laboratory has been lost.
Despite the involvement of top scientists in this endeavor, from what I'm reading there appears to be a degree of amateurishness in the way the whole task has been approached. I should say here that I'm not blaming the scientists for this.

[mickreed]

Schizophrenia

Hey Mabuse

This article is interesting. I doubt JL tested the genomic DNA for this.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-genetics-of-the-schizophrenias/#more-7086

Mind you, I'm out of depth on these issues. Anyway, since it ain't Kosminski, it probably doesn't matter.

[John G]

Hi Theagenes,

Ref post 3238, despite my earlier cynical post I think this an excellent summary. I certainly don't think that Edwards' endeavours are completely without merit and, if the conclusions arrived at on the website link- that Kosminski had a uncommon haplogroup sub-type, likely too have been shared by only 7200 Londoners in 1888- are correct then that is interesting to say the least.

In fact,I believe the author did calculations including her own haplogroup- Eddowes' is unknown- and concluded that the chances of mtdna relating to both sets appearing on the garment was 1.2 billion to one- almost the population of the world at that time! However, from memory, her haplogroup was even rarer than Kosminski's so this is a bit of a cheat! Nonetheless didn't you say that Kate's mtdna had a rare genetic mutation? Sorry, I'm afraid all this technical info is a bit beyond me at times!

Also, how unusual was it to find genetic traces at all, considering the age of the shawl? I mean, if the shawl were subject to further analysis would we be likely to find matches to Inspector Abberline, George Hutchinson, James Maybrick and Walter Sickert as well? That would obviously put things in a very different light!

[mickreed]

Hi Mick,
I've had a friend sending me a few excerpts from the book, too - its not published here until the end of September.
I'm not expert in this field but I was reading up on what may be the same passage you refer to - squamous cells as you may know make up the epidermis. The squamous epithelial cells, which I believe is what was discovered do pretty much the same and the discovered epithelial cells are cited as the source of the 'A.K.' mDNA
I too am at a loss to discern a way that would explain how the presence of squamous cells could confirm the presence of sperm on the mysterious stains on the material.
Might it not more simply indicate that someone had vigorously hand washed that area?
It does seem to indicate a shocking lack of control that some of the pertinent material stored at D.M's laboratory has been lost.
Despite the involvement of top scientists in this endeavor, from what I'm reading there appears to be a degree of amateurishness in the way the whole task has been approached. I should say here that I'm not blaming the scientists for this.

Hello Caligo

Same here - unavailable until 30 September, so I'm reliant on my contact's detailed notes.

I agree about the scientists. Absolutely no reason to doubt their integrity or usual methods, but …

When you're doing a freebie and you don't necessarily think it's hugely important, and you've got all the pressures of your real work …

Then procedures may slacken … We're all human after all.

Edwards seems a complete amateur in all of this, and may have forgotten to old adage that if you pay peanuts, you might get monkeys.

Like you, I don't blame the scientists - certainly not at the moment.

[Gene Lewis]

Same here - unavailable until 30 September

Hi all,
What does it mean, actually ? Is there a press embargo or something ?