Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[mickreed]

The book appears to me to be a bunch of Koala droppings [if you get my drift].

I get it, GUT. Koalaminski was JtR - proven by the droppings.

[RockySullivan]

I don't thinks it suspect he's getting paid... It looks suspicious that there claiming he's not paid...

[GUT]

I don't thinks it suspect he's getting paid... It looks suspicious that there claiming he's not paid...

Well even that's not really suspicious, if he WAS trialing a new method he may do it for free, especially given the failure in the Deeming attempt [and was he paid for that].

[mickreed]

I don't thinks it suspect he's getting paid... It looks suspicious that there claiming he's not paid...

I don't know any more than you do Rocky. I don't feel suspicious without evidence.

What does seem to be the case is that JL used his university's facilities to do these tests. He even said in a Finnish press interview, that some of his colleagues were upset about that. I can understand why they would be. If I were a UK taxpayer, I'd be asking the questions as well.

I would think that if money changed hands, the university would have something to say about it. It was their facilities used and they would want to get the financial benefit surely, even if JL did the work in his own time. I think it would be unlikely for an institution, or large company, to allow its staff to use its facilities to line their own pockets.

[drstrange169]

Hello Sauropod,

"I must admit I'm a little nonplussed at all the hostility toward Edwards."

Mick's post #325, pretty much some up my views, must be an Australian thing;-)

Edwards research went no further than simply repeating other peoples work, I would actually categorize his research as lazy, compared to some here.

He has provided one useful service, in that, he has sparked some genuine researchers to look into new areas.

All that said I. for one, have no hostility towards Edwards, but after seeing his website cashing in on the slaughter of innocent women and glamourizing the killer buy selling trivial, branded junk like yo yo's and lip gloss, I was morally disgusted. Do you think that's wrong to fell that way?

[RockySullivan]

I don't know any more than you do Rocky. I don't feel suspicious without evidence.

What does seem to be the case is that JL used his university's facilities to do these tests. He even said in a Finnish press interview, that some of his colleagues were upset about that. I can understand why they would be. If I were a UK taxpayer, I'd be asking the questions as well.

I would think that if money changed hands, the university would have something to say about it. It was their facilities used and they would want to get the financial benefit surely, even if JL did the work in his own time. I think it would be unlikely for an institution, or large company, to allow its staff to use its facilities to line their own pockets.

That's a pretty fair explaination and seems like a reasonable guess. I'm really just take the piss out of them a bit...they seem to like jumping to conclusions after all!

[mickreed]

That's a pretty fair explaination and seems like a reasonable guess. I'm really just take the piss out of them a bit...they seem to like jumping to conclusions after all!

Nothing wrong with a bit of piss-taking Rocky. After all, some have said (who me?) that RE is a past-master at it.

[mickreed]

As no sperm heads were found, I would like to know if areas of the shawl away from the "semen stain" were also sampled for epithelial cells - internal control samples. And if so did they also have the same mtDNA as those from the stain and the Kosminski relative?

cheers, gryff

I wish we knew Gryff.

[mickreed]

[/B][/I]Mick's post #325, pretty much some up my views, must be an Australian thing;-)

Less of the Aussie stuff, Dusty☺

I'm a Pom who just happens to live here. I love it, but I still know who I want to win the Ashes.

And, like you, I don't feel hostile to RE personally. Just to his lazy work, and his crappy shop.

[drstrange169]

"I'm a Pom who just happens to live here. I love it..."

Ditto.


Back to the "shawl", were samples of Simpson DNA taken?
It seems such a basic scientific requirement that maybe I missed it?

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Back to the "shawl", were samples of Simpson DNA taken?
It seems such a basic scientific requirement that maybe I missed it?

That is a very good question drstrange169
.

The whole question of adequate elimination of other people and controls bothers me. I read or heard Dr. JL say that Edwards and Dr. JL himself were eliminated - but nothing about Simpson family members.

mickread has suggested that a Simpson family member tried to clean spots on the shawl. Could rubbing with a wet cloth lead to contamination with epithelial cells? And as I have posted previously, were samples taken from areas away from the "semen stain" to see if they contained epithelial cells, and if detected how did the mtDNA analysis compare?

They may have been thorough, but as mickread puts it - we don't know.

As I think about Edwards and his book, I find myself thinking of a curious speech Donald Rumsfeld gave about "known knowns", "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns".

From what I gather about the book, all this is left right until the end - and in fact may have been added at the last minute. We may have a lot of "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns".

cheers, gryff

[Krinoid]

Not likely. Copies of my book sell out too quickly at his store to be of any practical use.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

There's just no accounting for people's lack of knowledge on which books to buy then, which explains why Edwards and the above are doing so well.

[Krinoid]

Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley of KISS are acknowledged in my book.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

they would be as they are both brain dead.

[mickreed]

"I'm a Pom who just happens to live here. I love it..."

Ditto.


Back to the "shawl", were samples of Simpson DNA taken?
It seems such a basic scientific requirement that maybe I missed it?

This was discussed somewhere a while back, Dusty. I don't think anyone ever saw a suggestion that it was. I definitely don't recall. Here's what the book says (allegedly in JL's own words):

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).
…
When analysing the other mtDNA sections, we found two other mtDNA segments to have apparent contamination from fresh DNA (matching with one of the reference samples).

The entire process seems devoid any rigour. Moreover, JL analysed it for an earlier TV show in connection with Deeming, plus it was analysed by another mob circa 2006. Despite the claim above that because it is silk any newer touch DNA will have gone, it seems very slack.

[mickreed]

[QUOTE]

mickread has suggested that a Simpson family member tried to clean spots on the shawl. Could rubbing with a wet cloth lead to contamination with epithelial cells? And as I have posted previously, were samples taken from areas away from the "semen stain" to see if they contained epithelial cells, and if detected how did the mtDNA analysis compare?
/QUOTE]

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.

So far as I know, Here's what David Miller says - in the book - about the epithelial cells:

The fact that I didn’t find any sperm does not automatically exclude their presence, but considering that squamous cells are a minor component of a typical semen sample (they get into the semen by mechanical sloughing from the urethral epithelium during ejaculation), I would have expected to see them if they had been there. On the other hand, squamous cells like these are also found in other bodily fluids including saliva, sweat etc (basically any fluid that washes over or bathes an epithelial surface).

Reach your own conclusions.