A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Caligo Umbrator]

Which book, please? I am not going by any book in my observations--just by my knowledge of DNA and what I know of the Eddowes murder from a dissertation on this very site.

Signed,
Lux Perpetua

Hi, Aldebaran.
I was referring to the Russell Edwards book, 'Naming Jack the Ripper'.
This thread and several others on Casebook were started in direct response to the book and the claims that it makes.
You might do well to read through this entire thread. In doing so you'll discover that many of the issues you are bringing up have been already addressed.
On this page, post #908 from Chris http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=315772 deals with the sperm cells issue, for example.
Other threads pertaining to the book and DNA -
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8296 (430 pages)
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8384 (continuation of previous thread, 46 pages)

I'm not intending to stifle any conversation. Evidential ground quite often gets retrodden around here and it can be useful to re-evaluate one's stance from time to time.

Yours, Caligo

[GUT]

Hasn't this all been done to death, if you read the threads it's a dud, go to woe

No shawl at the site
No Simpson at the site
No copper would knock off evidence of virtually nil value
Wife keeps it covered in blood and semen for years without washing it
Problems with the typing


And even if you are prepared to suspend credibility, how do you prove that both the semen and blood were put on the shawl at the same time? Answer you can't!

Again suspend credibility Koz the chronic masturbatur masterbates shortley thereafter wearer if shawl sits in the spot, what do we have, semen on shawl, owner then killed a short while later, blood and semen on shawl, (now I don't buy it for one second because the table cloth/shawl or whatever it was is never recorded as bellowing to the victim or being among her possessions) but there is a perfectly good explanation consistent with innocence.

Sorry but until someone addresses these issues the shawl is a dead issue to me.

[lynn cates]

"expert"

Hello (again) Aldebaran.

"That shawl! If it had been found on Eddowes . . . "

. . . should have been included in the inventory. It was not.

As for the "expert," not only did he get the haplogroup wrong, he also made a beginner's error in math. Have you kept up with the discussion? These items were pointed out over a year ago.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

honest

Hello Aldebaran. It has never been conclusively shown that there was ANY semen on the fabric.

Please be aware, moreover, that not every scientist is honest.

Cheers.
LC

[Aldebaran]

I see I wrote one word too many when I stated "I don't know what Edwards has claimed because I have not yet read his book. But I don't know how you can contend that something those experts have concluded was wrong. So far, the first expert has not retracted his conclusion that the DNA obtained from the blood on the shawl was not a match to that of the Eddowes relative."

It should say "the first expert has not retracted his conclusion that the DNA obtained from the blood on the shawl was a match to that of the Eddowes relative."

[Aldebaran]

I have seen a picture of the shawl being held by three people before Russell Edwards brought it. None had gloves on. Would that have made a difference?
I did scan R E's book quickly but did not see if they had discounted anybodys DNA, did they say, does anybody know?
For using my tiddly bit of info on Kosminski (Providence Street) all I asked of Mr Edwards was a signed book. I never got it and after reading the book I dont think I mind.

Pat.........

Pat, all I can say is that testers, when looking for DNA that is not freely given by a living subject in a vial of blood or saliva, always seek the area that is the least likely to have been contaminated by handling. For example, when samples were taken from Egyptian mummies, that came from boring straight into their bones. The insides of teeth are a good source as well. If the shawl had a lining, the best place to take a sample [and they can be quite minute] would be from between the cloth and the lining. Or as deep inside the fiber of the cloth as possible, the part least likely to have come in contact with human hands.

[Aldebaran]

If the first part of the suggested provenance cannot be proved, then the highly contentious DNA findings are totally irrelevant, because they do not conclusively prove what Edwards and his expert say they do, and therefore cannot point specifically to Kosminski.

So forget Kosminski as a suspect based on everything Edwards and his expert say. In fact forget him as a suspect based on all that has been put forward to date.

You say "DNA findings are totally irrelevant, because they do not conclusively prove what Edwards and his expert say they do, and therefore cannot point specifically to Kosminski."

I don't know what Edwards has claimed because I have not yet read his book. But I don't know how you can contend that something those experts have concluded was wrong. So far, the first expert has not retracted his conclusion that the DNA obtained from the blood on the shawl was not a match to that of the Eddowes relative. If I am missing something there, perhaps someone can supply a quote. I have tried to explain that, while at first he said their shared haplogroup was rare, he later had to admit that it was not. Yet that does not mean it wasn't a match. But that is a separate issue from Kosminski and his DNA, which was the result of work by a second expert. The haplogroup discovered in the other body fluid matched to that of a Kosminski relative. It is rare among Jews and non-Jews alike. So, yes, the odds are good there that it does point to Kosminski. What information do you have in order to aver this is wrong or that the DNA is faulty in some way?

As for me, I was not the one to point to Kosminski as a suspect. That happened more than a century ago and some still maintain he is the best suspect. Yet I was quite clear in stating in a recent post that the DNA [while
I believe it to be that of Kosminski, which is hardly irrelevant] does not confirm him to have been Jack the Ripper or even a copy cat killer. The best it can do is suggest he had contact with that shawl. I doubt Kosminski will be dismissed as a suspect yet.

That shawl! If it had been found on Eddowes, it would have been handled by countless persons by now and perhaps hopelessly contaminated by the DNA of others. On the other hand, the fact that it was put away and not much bothered with allowed it to be viable for testing. Sometimes one just can't win. Regardless, not one person participating in this thread has given me what I asked for--a theory about why or how these body fluids would be on an old shawl if not connected to the murder of a prostitute.

[Paddy]

I have seen a picture of the shawl being held by three people before Russell Edwards brought it. None had gloves on. Would that have made a difference?
I did scan R E's book quickly but did not see if they had discounted anybodys DNA, did they say, does anybody know?
For using my tiddly bit of info on Kosminski (Providence Street) all I asked of Mr Edwards was a signed book. I never got it and after reading the book I dont think I mind.

Pat.........

[Trevor Marriott]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I will address your link now, obviously written by someone who is not that well versed in the subject. First:

"If true, it would mean his calculations were wrong and that virtually anyone could have left the DNA that he insisted came from the Ripper's victim."

Virtually anyone? Did everyone in 19th Century London have the same mitochondrial DNA? From my understanding, a full mitochondrial sequence could not be obtained from the blood on the shawl. This often happens with ancient or degraded DNA. However, a molecular geneticist would look at the rest and compare that to the full sequence of the living person. It comes out as a long chain of numbers at various markers and, if there wasn't a close enough match, that would be quite obvious. The mtDNA of Catherine Eddowes would already be known. No bloody shawl necessary. It would be exactly the same as her living maternal relative. That is a given.




Fair enough, but unless you have already read another publication of DNA findings, don't be so sure. They are not easily comprehended, neither their language nor their charts. Oh--and your URL said that the problem with the Eddowes DNA undermined the case against Kosminski as a suspect. How? The Kosminski DNA was not under controversy.

If the first part of the suggested provenance cannot be proved, then the highly contentious DNA findings are totally irrelevant, because they do not conclusively prove what Edwards and his expert say they do, and therefore cannot point specifically to Kosminski.

So forget Kosminski as a suspect based on everything Edwards and his expert say. In fact forget him as a suspect based on all that has been put forward to date.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The evidence never lies,but it doesnt always tell the truth

[Aldebaran]

Aldebaran - the quote in my post was from the link that I provided. I never suggested it was something that you posted.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I will address your link now, obviously written by someone who is not that well versed in the subject. First:

"If true, it would mean his calculations were wrong and that virtually anyone could have left the DNA that he insisted came from the Ripper's victim."

Virtually anyone? Did everyone in 19th Century London have the same mitochondrial DNA? From my understanding, a full mitochondrial sequence could not be obtained from the blood on the shawl. This often happens with ancient or degraded DNA. However, a molecular geneticist would look at the rest and compare that to the full sequence of the living person. It comes out as a long chain of numbers at various markers and, if there wasn't a close enough match, that would be quite obvious. The mtDNA of Catherine Eddowes would already be known. No bloody shawl necessary. It would be exactly the same as her living maternal relative. That is a given.

Believe it or not, I do understand the DNA implications - I will take another look at the findings when the parties concerned submit their research for peer review, which I imagine will make people more comfortable with the evidence that has been provided.

Fair enough, but unless you have already read another publication of DNA findings, don't be so sure. They are not easily comprehended, neither their language nor their charts. Oh--and your URL said that the problem with the Eddowes DNA undermined the case against Kosminski as a suspect. How? The Kosminski DNA was not under controversy.

[MsWeatherwax]

Is it too late to get Gandhi? If he's been reborn as something, maybe we could track him down?

We could use DNA testing.

To be perfectly honest, I've had a quick search and it looks like this subject has already been completely exhausted by people more knowledgeable than myself.

Aldebaran - the quote in my post was from the link that I provided. I never suggested it was something that you posted.

Believe it or not, I do understand the DNA implications - I will take another look at the findings when the parties concerned submit their research for peer review, which I imagine will make people more comfortable with the evidence that has been provided.

[Aldebaran]

Hi, Aldebaran.

Can I ask if you have read the book all the way through?

And if you did, did you notice anything peculiar or unusual about it?

Your, Caligo

Which book, please? I am not going by any book in my observations--just by my knowledge of DNA and what I know of the Eddowes murder from a dissertation on this very site.

Signed,
Lux Perpetua

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, Aldebaran.

Can I ask if you have read the book all the way through?

And if you did, did you notice anything peculiar or unusual about it?

Your, Caligo

[Aldebaran]

Hi Aldebaran.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/jack-the-ripper-id-hinges-on-a-decimal-point-as-scientists-flag-up-dna-error-in-book-that-claims-to-9804325.html

I don't claim to be an expert on DNA analysis, because I'm definitely not. However, if Sir Alec Jeffreys is saying that the error means that no DNA connection can be made then I'm happy to take his word for it. In fact, what he actually said is that it's not even questionable...it's just wrong.

Also, even without his opinion, the fact that this study has never been submitted for peer review speaks volumes to me. That's before anyone...and I'm sure that they have already...goes down the route of the potential for contamination.

Assuming that this 'shawl' actually belonged to Catherine (and I'm afraid I really don't believe that it did), we have absolutely nothing to prove where it has been or what has happened to it in the intervening period.

Remember, Catherine was going to go to Bermondsey to borrow money from her daughter - her partner had just pawned his boots for their previous nights lodgings. I have a very hard time believing that her partner was walking around barefoot while she held on to a very expensive looking shawl (and where on earth did she get the money to buy it in the first place!)

Where did you get that quote? Not from the URL I provided! The error, to which the first DNA *expert* admitted [and he is a doctor, the same as Jeffreys] has to do with a subclade! That's it. The difference between a haplogroup or one of its subclades is the difference between *many* and *many less*. It's not a great error. It merely means that Catherine Eddowes and her modern-day relative *both* belonged to a different subclade within the haplogroup to which they had originally been assigned.

I just can't believe this. People in this group often hang their theories on the shakiest of evidence--where no science at all is involved--and seem willing to defend them to the death. But now--let's see--they are willing to make liars and/or incompetents out of the Simpson family [okay, they had a shawl instead of some other heirloom with lore attached to it] and everyone else attached to this shawl business. What does it matter what Catherine's bloke had done with his boots on the previous day? The woman was a prostitute. Why did she need money to purchase the shawl? She could have been given it by a customer [in lieu of money], even Mr. Aaron Kosminski. She could have gotten it from another prostitute by way of some transaction, if she had received some money and the other woman needed a drink badly enough. People in need pawn articles for much less than their worth in order to get hold of funds.

True, it is not a good thing that a policeman would take a shawl off a dead woman and that does seem strange but, if his family is admitting that this happened--then they are not exactly claiming the impossible. DNA has nobody's name on it. The name emerges when compared to a suspected relative. In this case, two actual relatives of two people connected to the murder, one the victim and the other a suspect, have a DNA match to that found on the shawl. And one of the DNA matches [the Kosminski one] is a rare one! To some people writing in this thread, that may appear to be the merest coincidence--but not to me.

Does this mean Aaron Kosminski is the killer? No, it's not proof of that. But it's quite indicative of Kosminski having been in contact with the shawl. These prostitutes didn't take off their clothes--nothing. They lifted their skirts, offered their backsides, and that was the pose. Under those circumstances, it was possible for seminal fluid to have come in contact with a shawl, which probably hung down at the back at the time.

Am I naïve to believe that people in the world of science know how to do their work and do it as well as they can? I think not. Trust me, this DNA business has come up in relation to another kind of history and any number of people, who freely admit they know next to nothing about DNA--are willing to dispute the findings of experts--just because that doesn't agree with their own pet theories. Now, if anyone would like to formulate a theory as to how both blood and semen got on and old shawl, involving both the DNA of an Eddowes and Kosminski relative--I am all eyes.

[Robert]

Is it too late to get Gandhi? If he's been reborn as something, maybe we could track him down?