Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[sauropod]

Hello all

Mrs Beeton recommends soaking in cold water overnight ...

Not, presumably, if the item has non-colorfast dye on it, since a good soak would cause the colors to run, ruining the garment.

[curious4]

Washing silks

Hello all

Mrs Beeton recommends soaking in cold water overnight, repeated if the stain does not disappear (as in the case of a silk handerchief stained with snuff). The garment was then washed with soap and lukewarm water with a handful of salt in the final rinsing water. In the case of a black silk dress which has turned "rusty", ordinary spirits (not quite sure what constitutes ordinary spirits) should be added to the last rinse. I would say that bleach was a definite no-no. Not from Mrs B but elswhere on the internet, ox-gall soap would be used to remove stains from wool or silk. Still in use today. Made me wonder how that would affect dna samples. From a previous washing, I mean.

Best wishes
C4

P.S. This is presuming that the shawl had been washed before the event, of course.

[curious4]

Washing silks

Hello all

Mrs Beeton recommends soaking in cold water overnight, repeated if the stain does not disappear (as in the case of a silk handerchief stained with snuff). The garment was then washed with soap and lukewarm water with a handful of salt in the final rinsing water. In the case of a black silk dress which has turned "rusty", ordinary spirits (not quite sure what constitutes ordinary spirits) should be added to the last rinse. I would say that bleach was a definite no-no. Not from Mrs B but elswhere on the internet, ox-gall soap would be used to remove stains from wool or silk. Still in use today. Made me wonder how that would affect dna samples. From a previous washing, I mean.

Best wishes
C4

P.S. This is presuming that the shawl had been washed before the event, of course.

[Mabuse]

Oh, one more thing: According to them, David Melville Hayes' Aunt was going to burn the shawl when clearing out the house, but it was saved by DMH's mother.

They also said that it had been something of a "family myth" for a very long time.

[Mabuse]

This all means that there is only one source for this 'family story - DMH. I'd assumed from Mabuse's earlier telling of the story, that it was a widely-known story within the family. My fault, probably.

Actually, that is a good point. It is not entirely clear, but the implication is that the story was told in the family, but this would be the generations coming after David Melville Hayes. He seems to be the "keeper of lore" in this matter.

I wasn't going to badger this person with questions, because that's uncool, so I just had to go by what they willingly told me.

They actually said "that is the story my [familial relative] told me..." "... from a very young age." In context, DMH.

This person said they were actually completely unaware of the shawl until DMH's mother passed away.

One might gather that this is not a hugely important part of family tradition, since the item was rarely removed from the chest, DMH was leery of it, and it was unknown to the younger generations of the family until it came out of hiding. This might suggest that it was rarely talked about, supporting DMH as the source of the legend in its current form.

It's not clear, either, how other members of the family view the veracity of the tale, but this particular person has expressed their doubt, for the very same reasons that we do; oral histories distort in the retelling. They don't appear to doubt that the central elements of the story are true, that Amos Simpson got the shawl and that it was associated with a Ripper murder, just the details.

[mickreed]

This story came to this person via David Melville Hayes. As mickreed observes, David Melville Hayes likely got that story from his grandmother, since his mother stated she did not know for sure.

You probably said this previously, Mabuse, but I don't recall.

So your source also got the information from David Melville Hayes. He probably got it from his gran who died, from memory, in 1966, but in 1997 he was reported as being 'confused' as to what he got from his mother, and what from his gran due to his youth when he heard it.

This all means that there is only one source for this 'family story - DMH. I'd assumed from Mabuse's earlier telling of the story, that it was a widely-known story within the family. My fault, probably.

For me, this weakens the notion of a 'family story'. It seems to emanate, probably quite genuinely, from youthful recollections of a man, who by his own admission, filled in at least some gaps, with speculations.

I could speculate endlessly , but there's no point. It just means, for me, that the provenance of the shawl is even weaker than I already thought.

[mickreed]

My bet is someone snotted on the damned thing!

Thanks Mabuse, for such a thorough recap.

[Mabuse]

Also there is the fact that it is uncertain it is sperm on the shawl. No actual sperm has been discovered on the shawl. As I mentioned on a previous thread ( the first part of this one before it was moved ) the skin/DNA sample could conceivably have come from someone hand washing the garment with soap...

As the sample is alleged to be 126 years old and the actual substance that made it fluoresce can't be identified as the substance it is claimed to be, isn't it just as likely to be some other substance. Noone has said its sperm, just that it would be convenient to their argument if it was.

The family member I spoke to (I'm protecting their identity because they haven't explicitly told me they want to be known) has stated several things.

First, the story of the shawl (PC Simpson taking the garment from the crime scene) is the one they "were always told."

This story came to this person via David Melville Hayes. As mickreed observes, David Melville Hayes likely got that story from his grandmother, since his mother stated she did not know for sure.

The family source says they personally doubt that this story is true, but they do say that the story that has been published is the one they were told.

What this person did say is that the shawl has never been washed.

They seem quite certain about this, but we must remember that they weren't around the whole time to know for sure.

It remained in a sea-chest for the majority of the time it was in the possession of the family, and was not an item regularly brought out for discussion or display. It was, however, stored with other clothes in the sea-chest - another vector of contamination.

David Melville Hayes was reportedly "scared of" it, which I take to mean repulsed.

This source does not remember heavy soiling on the garment, but had only seen the item briefly a few times, and was not certain. The soiling, if it was present, might not have been very obvious. Available photographs do not show obvious soiling, either.

The story of it being washed or dabbed with bleach is probably apocryphal.

Such an item in the 19th Century would not have been immersed in water, ever, unless by accident. The dye would not be colour fast. It would have been aired and brushed only.

It is relatively certain that a contemporary lady would be aware of this, the idea of someone dabbing it with bleach does not seem tenable. It would have destroyed the material. Maybe, again, this is a distortion via transmission, and some mild soap or other solution was used on it, and this could explain the removed sections, because they were damaged. Entirely speculative and untestable conjecture, IMHO.

The DNA could have come from anywhere during this 126 year period, but is most likely to have contaminated the garment during its emergence on the scene in the 1990s til present, IMHO. There were absolutely no controls whatever on handling. Someone sneezing or coughing over it could have been enough to introduce DNA and epithelial cells, and a blob of sputum (forgive me) would also soak into the material. But there are so many possible vectors that it is not worth the conjecture.

There are many organic compounds and even some common minerals which will produce fluorescence under various wavelengths of light, not just human bodily fluids, as you rightly point out. Fluorescence alone reveals very little. It is absolutely not enough to definitively identify the source as semen. It could be tonic water, for all we know! The source being a cleaning compound or bleach is not the only vector, so the cleaning story is not necessary to invalidate the fluorescence results - the entire history of the garment's handling is sufficient.

This garment was once put under a plant pot to hold it on a cabinet for a photo! Plant pots are often damp and can carry organic materials which would produce fluorescence. This is just one example.

My bet is someone snotted on the damned thing!

[mickreed]

The DNA Lab

I've just received an excellent post that referred me to this article:

http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA#Methodology

The ISOGG is highly reputable and has some excellent articles. I've yet to read this article and its references fully, but I did notice this paragraph:

1. The work must be conducted in a proper facility

Ancient DNA laboratories must be physically isolated from laboratories in which modern DNA is handled, and also from spaces in which researchers work with post-amplified DNA. It is NOT sufficient to work with ancient DNA in a hood in the corner of a regular lab. To get rid of contamination, ancient DNA labs are isolated, positively pressurized, and regularly bleached and irradiated with UV light. The only people allowed into the labs are those who are specially trained in ancient DNA work, and they can only enter the lab if they haven’t been in any other lab earlier in the day. (does this sound crazily stringent? It is absolutely necessary, because it’s easy to bring modern DNA into an isolation lab on your clothes or shoes). Everything that enters the lab–from pipettes to reagents to tubes–is bleached and/or UV irradiated to get rid of surface DNA.

http://violentmetaphors.com/2014/02/07/how-to-tell-if-an-ancient-dna-study-is-legit/

We know RE was in the lab because we've seen it on TV which contravenes one of these stipulations.

The articles also answered one of Deb Arif's questions - what defines ancient DNA?

The techniques used in extracting aDNA are however applicable to any situation where DNA has degraded to the extent that conventional fresh DNA extraction techniques cannot be used. Practically speaking, the term aDNA relates to the condition of the DNA, not necessarily the age.

Even on this cursory reading, you'd have to say that a peer-reviewd piece seems unlikely from what we know of the process.

[mickreed]

[QUOTE]

Sorry, I was wrong - the stains that looked bleached were meant to be the "semen" stains, not the "blood" stains./QUOTE]

Keith Skinner, John Ross, and Kevin O'Donnell thought, in 1997, that 'bleach stains' could be blood splatter. Why would they have thought that?

After all, Keith knows his stuff.

[mickreed]

Also there is the fact that it is uncertain it is sperm on the shawl. No actual sperm has been discovered on the shawl. As I mentioned on a previous thread ( the first part of this one before it was moved ) the skin/DNA sample could conceivably have come from someone hand washing the garment with soap.
See this link

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2F10.1197%2Faemj.9.10.1045%2Fpdf&rct=j&q=SOAP%20FLOURES%20AS%20SPERM&ei=ap8zVLGkA9a1sQTlsYGgDw&usg=AFQjCNHieQsmU9STmBGG6onca-OTFs7bqA&sig2=1L30yl-fVdbw0WWMwXi6yA&bvm=bv.76943099,d.cWc

As the sample is alleged to be 126 years old and the actual substance that made it fluoresce can't be identified as the substance it is claimed to be, isn't it just as likely to be some other substance. Noone has said its sperm, just that it would be convenient to their argument if it was.

Good link, Caligo, thanks.

Yes, there are so many possibilities. Of course RE would doubtless claim that it couldn't have been washed else the dye would have run, but a bit of dabbing could cause the same effect. Even somebody just dripping soapy hands over it, perhaps.

Where the heck is JL with a response to questions? I really am starting to wonder about this. Even a brief public announcement that he will issue clarifications by a specified time would help.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Also there is the fact that it is uncertain it is sperm on the shawl. No actual sperm has been discovered on the shawl. As I mentioned on a previous thread ( the first part of this one before it was moved ) the skin/DNA sample could conceivably have come from someone hand washing the garment with soap.
See this link

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2F10.1197%2Faemj.9.10.1045%2Fpdf&rct=j&q=SOAP%20FLOURES%20AS%20SPERM&ei=ap8zVLGkA9a1sQTlsYGgDw&usg=AFQjCNHieQsmU9STmBGG6onca-OTFs7bqA&sig2=1L30yl-fVdbw0WWMwXi6yA&bvm=bv.76943099,d.cWc

As the sample is alleged to be 126 years old and the actual substance that made it fluoresce can't be identified as the substance it is claimed to be, isn't it just as likely to be some other substance. Noone has said its sperm, just that it would be convenient to their argument if it was.

[Chris]

I don't think you are wrong, Chris. It's not at all clear. to me anyway. I don't think bleach was totally discounted. I'm not sure. If mean, if you bleach something, the original deposit is still there, but bleached. At least I assume so.

Sorry, I was wrong - the stains that looked bleached were meant to be the "semen" stains, not the "blood" stains.

I think the suggestion is that something in the semen - if it was semen - had affected the dye and made it fade (rather than bleach having been applied). This was said to be more likely for a natural dye, than for a synthetic one.

[mickreed]

I'm saying here that I find it.unlikely that bleach was ever used upon the item.

I probably agree Caligo.

I repeat, the real issue is that all we have is a story from, effectively, one person- the previous owner. By his own admission in the O'Donnell book from 1997, he really knew nothing about the shawl. His mother, who was alive then, aged 95, didn't know much either. So it was concluded that the story must have come from his grandmother when he was very young but he was hazy about this.

So, all we have is a vague origin story from which RE accepts those bits that suit, and rejects those bits that don't.

Mabuse got a version of the story from a different family source. As I recall, his source was sceptical.

All I'm saying is that I wouldn't bet a pint of King and Barnes Horsham bitter that any of it is true.

[Caligo Umbrator]

I don't think you are wrong, Chris. It's not at all clear. to me anyway. I don't think bleach was totally discounted. I'm not sure. If mean, if you bleach something, the original deposit is still there, but bleached. At least I assume so.

Does blood age so that it goes whiteish? I've no idea.

Hi Mick, Mabuse.
A few more thoughts on this subject.
Firstly, the manner in which silk would usually be cleaned of unpleaseant stains is in warm water. I don't mean soaking it, just carefully dabing away. If the area being cleaned is undyed, then it could be immersed in water. It seems unlikely that any ' lady of the house ' would attempt to use bleach as this is very unkind to silk and would require full rinsing after application otherwise it would (potentially ) rot through the material. Before the advent of tags on clothing that specified the washing instructions, many households would have in tere possession a 'household manual' such as Mrs. Beetons that would supply them with the information needed to clean.such an item.
I'm saying here that I find it.unlikely that bleach was ever used upon the item.
Secondly, as parts have been removed from the shawl and as mentioned in recent ^above^ posts it may have been at one time seperate and then rejoined, this would surely increase the opportunity for rogue, modern skin cells to populate the parts of the shawl from which skin/DNA was recovered.