Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[mickreed]

"It was Druitt not me!"

He's get around.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic8VEmGJKXs

[mickreed]

" ... when it was turned over he could see a set of fluorescent stains which were very possibly semen."

(chapter title, "finding human blood)

This seems to indicate they were otherwise invisible and therefore not the "bleach" stains.

I just wish we had a more detailed notion of what happened. The claim in the book is that the fluorescence was greenish hence the possibility that it was semen, but other deposits will also glow green, and, importantly, no sperm heads were found by David Miller who said he 'would have expected' to find them had they been there.

It's not really JL's suggestions of 'possibilities' that are the issue, but rather RE's slow progression from possible, through probable, to, effectively, definite:

he started work on comparing M’s mitochondrial DNA with that of the cells extracted from the semen stain on the shawl.

Quote from the book

[drstrange169]

" ... when it was turned over he could see a set of fluorescent stains which were very possibly semen."

(chapter title, "finding human blood)

This seems to indicate they were otherwise invisible and therefore not the "bleach" stains.






"It was Druitt not me!"

[mickreed]

Surely it must depend what happens to the garment in the meantime. If it's just put in a box and left there, that must be very different from the garment being worn.

So far as I read it Chris, it was implied that touch DNA on silk would disappear within 12 months whereas in wool it would stay longer. I accept that if it's placed in a box, rather than sloshing around in the open, that would affect things.

My point was about the persistence of touch DNA in a range of circumstances, and on a range of materials. From what I could discover - admittedly by a less than intense search - there has been little work done on this, and it's becoming a subject for research because of its importance in crime detection. So, I suggested that JL's claim just might not quite stack up. But of course, I don't know for sure.

[mickreed]

I thought the idea was that the white spots that looked like bleach turned out to be (possibly) blood. But I may be wrong.

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.

[Chris]

From the book Gryff.

That is the basic version set out by David according to the original family story, but over the years he has added new observations; for example, he believed that it was possibly his grandmother, Eliza Mary, who had cut the large chunk from the shawl to be rid of the heavy bloodstains and that she may also have attempted to bleach out other smaller stains.

I thought the idea was that the white spots that looked like bleach turned out to be (possibly) blood. But I may be wrong.

[drstrange169]

" ... a brown portion of the shawl was detached when he saw it (along with Keith Skinner) at the Crime Museum (p. 212). Of course we don't know anything much, but the recent photos don't seem to show a detached portion. Could it have been repaired?"

To be fair to Edwards, he does say he received the shawl in two pieces and states the various sizes of each piece. Presumably the smaller piece wasn't sexy enough to photograph for the book.






"Judging by those stains, I'm diagnosing, self abuse."

[Chris]

It just struck me reading the claim by JL quoted above. How does he know this?

Answer - he almost certainly doesn't. It's an assumption, albeit possibly a reasonable one.

Surely it must depend what happens to the garment in the meantime. If it's just put in a box and left there, that must be very different from the garment being worn.

[mickreed]

So if we accept the "history" and for the moment the silk/skin relationship, then of the known six people to have handled the fabric, two do not have the "314.1c mutation" - and four do? Not exactly rare

Hi Gryff,

In fact we only know that 'at least' two of the six didn't have the 314.1c bit. We don't know about the rest, apart, I suppose, from Karen Miller.

Based on what is in the public arena, the entire edifice is a farce. Unless JL tells us more, I am assuming nothing. Someone on a DNA forum said this:

It is possible that he realized his mistakes (after they were pointed out to him) and he just does not know how to admit to them.

Makes you wonder.

[mickreed]

mickreed beat me to it. I take a long time to post.

Yes, Mabuse. You have a much better handle on the detail though, so thanks.

I'm just re-reading the account given of the shawl in Kevin O'Donnell's 1997 book about the Parlours' work.

He claims that a brown portion of the shawl was detached when he saw it (along with Keith Skinner) at the Crime Museum (p. 212). Of course we don't know anything much, but the recent photos don't seem to show a detached portion. Could it have been repaired?

He refers to the 'bleach stains' and wondered if they were blood splatter (p. 213). Edwards makes the same point. Does blood bleach with age?

Much of the material in RE's book resembles these passages. However, since they derived from the same source - David Melville Hayes - that's not necessarily surprising.

It's made clear in this book that it is ONLY an assumption that the cut-out sections were blood-stained and that bleach was used on the shawl. Another possibility occurs to me. If, as we are told, the shawl was taken home (from somewhere) for use by a seamstress, maybe she did use part of the shawl for that purpose and cut it out. There is absolutely no evidence that the missing pieces had blood on them.

O'Donnell goes on to say (p. 215) that Hayes was 'slightly confused' about where he got the stories from. What came from his mother ,and what from his grandmother? He was only a lad at the time. As the interview with his mother progressed, it was clear that she 'knew very little of the shawl's history'. The conclusion was therefore that her mother must have been the source.

Go figure.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

The DNA from these samples were purified, as well as control reference samples from Karen Miller (descendant of Catherine Eddowes), Russell Edwards (the owner of the shawl) and the laboratory personnel who have been known to handle the shawl.
…
According to the history of this shawl, a maximum of six persons have handled it in the past twelve months. Because the garment is made of silk, skin cells from those handling it prior to the last twelve months will no longer be there (in the case of wool, the cells would remain for far longer). Based on the DNA work above, we know that at least two of these persons do not have this specific mutation (314.1C).

So if we accept the "history" and for the moment the silk/skin relationship, then of the known six people to have handled the fabric, two do not have the "314.1c mutation" - and four do? Not exactly rare

And now the silk/skin issue. Maybe the touching, which we have seen Edwards do, gets lost in 12 months, but serious rubbing with a wet cloth to remove some stain? And as drstrange169 asked was there a Simpson family control? What we apparently do know according to the book is that some epithelial cells, if we are to believe Edwards, survived over 100 years. So what is special about these epithelial cells?

Not convinced by these statements - and this alleged Kosminski "semen stain" match is not some super rare mutation.

As I said in my first post a few weeks back, I am uneasy about this science including both the DNA stuff and also the NMR dye testing, and I get more uneasy with time

cheers, gryff

[drstrange169]

If no unidentified DNA was found, why not? There should have been plenty.






Previously unreleased CCTV shot from the night of the double event

[Mabuse]

If, as is claimed in the book, skin cells with DNA can't be retained upon the material for any longer than a year, then how did the epithelial cells ( which are basically skin ) remain on the shawl for 126 years?

Two different types of DNA material are being referred to, here.

Dr Louhelainen said that the cells were retrieved from the central matrix of the cloth, rather than the surface. The hypothesis is that fluid seeped into the cloth and locked this material within the central layers (the shawl is not just one layer of cloth AFAIK).

This apparently allows the cells to survive for far longer than touch-DNA traces.

This I derive from the interview Dr Louhelainen did for the Beeb. His conclusions largely rest on the novel method of retrieving the organic material from the inner part of the cloth, not the surface.

Of course, there is a large chance that a mechanism for contamination of this nature could have occurred at some point since the emergence and display of the shawl; we've already noted its completely uncontrolled handling during photography at the Crime Museum, and it was photographed for a book in a pub - lots of moisture around in pubs.

Previous owners have claimed cleaning was attempted, as noted above. Dr Louhelainen stated in the BBC interview that his controls filtered for contamination, but it is apparent he was not fully aware of the shawl's full history and the many instances in which more serious contamination could have occurred.

Like being held under a bleedin' plant pot while draped over a filing cabinet for a photo.

EDIT: mickreed beat me to it. I take a long time to post.

[mickreed]

Hi, Mick.
There's a bit of logical problem here, don't you think?
If, as is claimed in the book, skin cells with DNA can't be retained upon the material for any longer than a year, then how did the epithelial cells ( which are basically skin ) remain on the shawl for 126 years?
I finally got my hands on a copy of the book.
And it doesn't seem to address this obvious conflict.
Yours, Caligo.

Hi Caligo,

I think (at least I think I think) that the theory is that the cells were in a fluid (blood, semen, or whatever, but not, presumably saliva) that penetrated the shawl and so they ended up in its interior, as it were.

But, as I think you imply, as expressed in the book, it just ain't clear.

From a DNA web site forum where I posted a question about this analysis. Here's an answer I got. Seems reasonable to me.

What is missing?
DNA extraction, purification, etc.: process, procedures, protocols adhered to, the equipment used, etc. mtDNA testing: choice and reasons for the choice of methods and equipment, calibration, reproducibility, repeatability, verification (was another lab used?), etc. Error discussion. Reporting: conventions, notations, standards used, etc.

[wolfie1]

>>http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/...mmon-questions<<


"... it has been shown that sweat also contains both epithelial cells..."

Interesting.





Rare photo of Koalaminski in Colney Hatch.

You have managed to find an image of the very rare and elusive Drop Bear....known to kill silently and swiftly.