A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Chris]

Archaic, from what I gather Dr. JL viewed the shawl under a special light (probably a fancy UV light) to visualise the stains. There are pics taken for promo purposes showing Dr. JL shining a light on the shawl.

Fancy Light on Shawl

Yes. The book seems to confuse reflective UV with fluorescence caused by UV illumination.

But at any rate it says "It is known that urine and saliva fluoresce under ultraviolet light but they tend to give off an orange hue, whereas seminal fluorescence is usually greenish."

The picture Bunny posted above suggests otherwise.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Aren't test samples also injected with special dyes to get them to fluoresce under the microscope?

Archaic, from what I gather Dr. JL viewed the shawl under a special light (probably a fancy UV light) to visualise the stains. There are pics taken for promo purposes showing Dr. JL shining a light on the shawl.

Fancy Light on Shawl


cheers, gryff

[Chris]

Isn't this just a reference to Kos?

I suppose it could be, but it seems to me to read more like a description of the murderer's modus operandi:
... his eyes lit up and he said this is exactly what has been reported about Jack. This is his way of operating and this is a great find.

[MrBarnett]

It's interesting that RE doesn't (I think) say anything like that about the Ripper murders in the book, though he does discuss other serial killers who ejaculated at the scene of the crime.

I don't think I'd altogether rule out the possibility that JL misunderstood RE saying this was a known phenomenon more generally.

Hi Chris ,

Isn't this just a reference to Kos?

MrB

[Chris]

As for RE's remark about a possible "semen stain" fitting Jack's "way of operating" I am unaware of a single report from any contemporary source of any semen found on or near any of the Ripper victims.
On the contrary, the historical record attests to the fact that doctors, police, etc. examined the murder victims specifically searching for traces of semen and failed to find any.

It's interesting that RE doesn't (I think) say anything like that about the Ripper murders in the book, though he does discuss other serial killers who ejaculated at the scene of the crime.

I don't think I'd altogether rule out the possibility that JL misunderstood RE saying this was a known phenomenon more generally.

[Archaic]

Interesting how similar semen looks to urine.

Yes, that's what I thought. The 3 examples I posted are all modern "fresh" stains, not "ancient" stains that (as I understand it) have been injected with some sort of enzymatic solution to liquify them so they can be "vaccumed" up in "partial segments" which are somehow reassembled like a "jigsaw puzzle".

Aren't test samples also injected with special dyes to get them to fluoresce under the microscope?

I think gryff is correct that a wider sample ought to have been taken of material around the suspected "semen" stain for control purposes. Perhaps this was done but not mentioned in the book?


As for RE's remark about a possible "semen stain" fitting Jack's "way of operating" I am unaware of a single report from any contemporary source of any semen found on or near any of the Ripper victims.
On the contrary, the historical record attests to the fact that doctors, police, etc. examined the murder victims specifically searching for traces of semen and failed to find any.

There's no evidence that any of the Ripper victims were physically raped by the killer, other than with his knife. (Or if Emma Smith was an early victim, a metal bar.)

It's a complete myth that all sexual serial killers ejaculate at the scene of the crime.

Many serial killers, including "trophy" type killers, deliberately delay until they successfully get away from the scene of the crime and are are in what they deem to be a "safe" place. An example of this is Ed Kemper.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Hey Gryff, there are four known date estimates for the shawl.

The original one done at Sothebys (I think) some years ago and based of a physical examination. They thought Edwardian.

Three done at RE's request, all from photos only. Two (Christies and Dianne Thalmann) thought earlyish 19th-century and Sothebys thought 'later'.

In short, I wouldn't put much faith in any of the estimates.

Mick I was under the impression RE had a preference for Dianne Thalmann as er ... she did not know if it was Russian ?

cheers, gryff

[mickreed]

Archaic, according to Edwards, he dates the shawl as early 1800s (1810-1830?). They had the blue dye tested using NMR spectroscopy and claim it was - woad (I'd like to know more about that but it is off topic).
cheers, gryff

Hey Gryff, there are four known date estimates for the shawl.

The original one done at Sothebys (I think) some years ago and based of a physical examination. They thought Edwardian.

Three done at RE's request, all from photos only. Two (Christies and Dianne Thalmann) thought earlyish 19th-century and Sothebys thought 'later'.

In short, I wouldn't put much faith in any of the estimates.

[mickreed]

Yes Mick, RE did go overboard.

And it is interesting Gryff, how often RE goes overboard, thereby seeming to put JL in the position of either having to contest or to go along with it.

'Brothers' they may be, but RE certainly looks like the big brother.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

I found a photo showing fluoresced specimens of 3 different bodily fluids side by side.

We should note that these are "fresh" specimens, not samples taken from 125 year old "degraded", "segmented", "ancient" DNA that has been liquified and "vacuumed" from antique fabric.

Archaic, according to Edwards, he dates the shawl as early 1800s (1810-1830?). They had the blue dye tested using NMR spectroscopy and claim it was - woad (I'd like to know more about that but it is off topic).

At that time there were two methods of dying fabric with indigo (the blue dye in woad). One of them was the urine vat process where the fabric is soaked repeatedly in a vat containing urine and woad. Urine contains epithelial cells. A technique that was considered superior to the alternative "copperas vat" process as it was gentler to the fabric. Other processes were invented later such as the "zinc/lime vat" (1845) and the "hydrosulfite vat" (1880) - but they don't fit in with the dates Edwards ascribes to the shawl.

I note the similarity of the urine and semen images.

cheers, gryff

[GUT]

G'day Gryff

[Jari - Yeah and that was the hard part. I thought we are done here until I found some stains which looked like a sperm or semen stain. I couldn’t understand why these are here as well and I told this to Russell and his eyes lit up and he said this is exactly what has been reported about Jack. This is his way of operating and this is a great find.]

What evidence is/was there that "This is his way of operating...". Sounds like RE baloney to me.

Only the constant references by police et al that he was sexually insane etc. from which RE has, it seems assumed a masturbator, others jump on homosexual, others a male nymphomaniac.

[Chris]

I found a photo showing fluoresced specimens of 3 different bodily fluids side by side.

Interesting how similar semen looks to urine.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

And, Gryff, the man who examined the epithelial cells could not find sperm heads which he said he would have expected to find were it semen. He also said the cells could likely have come from saliva etc. Ignoring this admirable caution, RE blundered on based purely on the fluorescence which also has multiple possible causes.

Yes Mick, RE did go overboard.

As Dr.JL said in "The Naked Scientists" interview:

Jari - Yeah and that was the hard part. I thought we are done here until I found some stains which looked like a sperm or semen stain. I couldn’t understand why these are here as well and I told this to Russell and his eyes lit up and he said this is exactly what has been reported about Jack. This is his way of operating and this is a great find.

What evidence is/was there that "This is his way of operating...". Sounds like RE baloney to me.

This bit is me and may not be right. If cells are found in a stain that fluoresces, are they necessarily part of the stain, or could they pre- or post-date it?

No, they are not Mick. That is why I suggest Dr. JL and co. should have looked at areas outside the "semen stain". Perhaps within a 6+ inch radius initially but excluding the area of the semen stain and using the same methods. A control for possible pre- or post- contamination.

And as far as I know, that did not happen.

cheers, gryff

[Archaic]

Thank you gryff.

I found a photo showing fluoresced specimens of 3 different bodily fluids side by side.

We should note that these are "fresh" specimens, not samples taken from 125 year old "degraded", "segmented", "ancient" DNA that has been liquified and "vacuumed" from antique fabric.

I wonder if JL took photographs of the specimens he examined, preserved them as slides, and kept a log of the equipment and materials he utilized for extraction, examination and comparison?

Best regards,
Archaic

[Chris]

The book does have some discussion of this:
Jari told me that David Miller [the expert on sperm head analysis] was concerned about the absence of sperm in the sample; however, the evidence of squamous cells meant that it could not be ruled out that some sperm could have been there (which could be revealed in some future analysis). For the moment he felt that finding the epithelial cells meant that no further investigation was necessary.

A bit later there is a direct quotation from Dr Miller:
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).

But Russell Edwards concludes:
As far as I was concerned at that moment, the most important bit was that the cells could provide us with the crucial DNA. And because the stain fluoresced like semen under Jari’s forensic lights , it was the likeliest candidate as a source.