A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[mickreed]

Of course the Kosminski descendants deserve the truth (and I have always given the descendants of victims, suspects and so on the highest priority), but perhaps the descendantsin have been reassured by Russell and Jari that their findings are correct and that their critics can be answered.

My point is that IF Russell and Jari continue to believe that their findings are correct, they can sincerely reassure everyone who needs to be reassured and then play the game as they see fit.

Jari's treatment of your "lengthy" email is wrong, of course, although a clue to his reaction might be found in the word "lengthy", and a knee to the groin seems the initial suitable response to the "nutter" remark. Talk about digging holes!

I doubt that all the descendants could have been contacted, Paul. I doubt RE and JL know who they all are. After all, if I understand correctly, M was found by a member of this forum. Most of them will have got the news from the press. Only a public exposition will reach these people.

I'm fully prepared to believe that RE may continue to believe, but given the status of the critics of JL's work, the latter surely must need to look at his work in the light of their comment. After all, the only piece of precise information in the book about the 'Eddowes' DNA is the bit about 314.1C and that is, indisputably, wrong.

Well, yes, a 'lengthy' email suggesting you're wrong might be very annoying to have to read, but when the fan is hit, you won't be able to say you were not warned

[Chris]

Can anyone provide a statement from JL or RE as to:
a. The type of samples taken from the relatives.
b. Where and how those samples were stored.

According to the book, Russell Edwards posted the materials to Karen Miller, she took buccal swabs and posted them back to him, then they went into his freezer, before they were delivered to Jari Louhelainen, who put them in his freezer.

For 'M', the descendant of Aaron's sister Matilda, she took buccal swabs when she met Russell Edwards and the next day he took them to Jari Louhelainen in person.

On the timetable in the book, the material was extracted from the shawl before the sample was taken from 'M'. The epithelial cells had been found by 12 December 2012. We can confirm that Russell Edwards was sent the contact details of 'M' in October 2013.

I've never thought that there was any likelihood of these DNA result having been deliberately manufactured. I think the problem with the squamous epithelial cells is that they could be the result of contamination, because they could just be skin cells. If - as the book seems to imply - results from two different cells were combined and then matched with a unique entry in the database, then obviously there would need to be some check that the two cells came from the same person.

[mickreed]

On the timetable in the book, the material was extracted from the shawl before the sample was taken from 'M'. The epithelial cells had been found by 12 December 2012. We can confirm that Russell Edwards was sent the contact details of 'M' in October 2013.

And of course, Chris, the book makes it plain that RE had AK in his sights long before October 2013 and that JL was aware of this. Which, of course, utterly transgresses the rules about blind testing. Jari knew what result was wanted, and duly found it. That's not to say it's fraudulent, but it is well-known that unwitting prejudice can colour interpretation of results.

Another of many reasons why this will never go to peer review.

[Archaic]

According to the book, Russell Edwards posted the materials to Karen Miller, she took buccal swabs and posted them back to him, then they went into his freezer, before they were delivered to Jari Louhelainen, who put them in his freezer.

For 'M', the descendant of Aaron's sister Matilda, she took buccal swabs when she met Russell Edwards and the next day he took them to Jari Louhelainen in person.

On the timetable in the book, the material was extracted from the shawl before the sample was taken from 'M'. The epithelial cells had been found by 12 December 2012. We can confirm that Russell Edwards was sent the contact details of 'M' in October 2013.

I've never thought that there was any likelihood of these DNA result having been deliberately manufactured. I think the problem with the squamous epithelial cells is that they could be the result of contamination, because they could just be skin cells. If - as the book seems to imply - results from two different cells were combined and then matched with a unique entry in the database, then obviously there would need to be some check that the two cells came from the same person.

Hi Chris; thank you.

Agreed.

I'm baffled why a scientist encountering "epithelial cells" on a piece of antique fabric would make the leap to "semen satin" when the most likely causes would be contamination by skin cells or by a source as simple as saliva - which could also occur from a person merely wiping their mouth or perhaps sneezing and later touching the fabric.

There seems to have been a great deal of extrapolation.

Thanks,
Archaic

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

I'm baffled why a scientist encountering "epithelial cells" on a piece of antique fabric would make the leap to "semen satin" when the most likely causes would be contamination by skin cells or by a source as simple as saliva - which could also occur from a person merely wiping their mouth or perhaps sneezing and later touching the fabric.

There seems to have been a great deal of extrapolation.

Thanks,
Archaic

Archaic, as I understand it, Dr. JL felt a stain fluoresced like semen. A qualitative opinion not a quantitative measure. Then cells were extracted from within the fabric of the "semen stain" (not surface cells) to be tested.

However, to my way of thinking, areas outside the "semen stain" should have been examined and any cells found using similar extraction methods should also have been tested. A control for the "semen stain".

cheers, gryff

[mickreed]

Archaic, as I understand it, Dr. JL felt a stain fluoresced like semen. A qualitative opinion not a quantitative measure. Then cells were extracted from within the fabric of the "semen stain" (not surface cells) to be tested.
)

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.

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?

[GUT]

G'day Mick

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?

As I understand it, with proper testing that can be determined, but there is no evidence presented that any such testing was done n this case.

[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.

[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

[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

[Chris]

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

Interesting how similar semen looks to urine.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.