"The Shawl" with Professor Turi King

[jmenges]

Thread for the next episode of Rippercast.

A round table discussion about the paper by Jari Louhelainen and David Miller recently published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences.

Welcoming our special guest Professor Turi King.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turi_King

If you have any questions or comments you'd like us to bring up on the show, please message them to me no later than Saturday 23 March at 5pm GMT. That's when I hit "record".

The Casebook link to the episode will be posted in the thread below.
It'll also be available in iTunes, Google Podcasts, TuneIn Radio and wherever free podcasts can be found.


JM

[GUT]

Wow, should be interesting.

[jmenges]

Available to stream or download now from the following link:

http://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=223

Also in iTunes, Google Podcasts, Podcast Addict, TuneIn Radio and wherever in-depth discussions about genetic sequencing and 'Jack the Ripper' can be found.

Special thank you to Prof. Turi King for being on the show and lending us her insight.



JM

[rjpalmer]

Hi Jonathan. Thanks for the show and thanks to your panelists.

I haven’t listened to all of it yet, but I couldn’t help noticing that the provenance story given at the beginning of the segment is substantially and rather significantly different from what Russell Edwards gave in the appendix to his book. Maybe it is of no consequence, or maybe two stories can somehow be reconciled?

What we heard is that the two squares of the ‘shawl’ owned by the Dowlers were sold to an antiques dealer, who, in turn, later sold them to Andy and Sue Parlor. At a later date, the Parlors, interested in finding the main shawl, eventually succeeded in tracking down David Melville Hayes, the original owner.

This sounds straight-forward, and for all I know it is correct.

But, like I said, Russell Edwards gives a different version on page 213 of his book, making it sound as if David Melville Hayes was the antique dealer in question, and that his meeting with the Parlors was completely accidental. (See attached). Was the source of your version from the Parlors themselves? Any ideas about the discrepancy? It seems odd that the Dowlers would have the squares, and that later Hayes somehow ended up with them again, and sold them a second time, to the Parlors. But that’s what Edwards seems to be implying. Or does he have it wrong? Or, in fact, are there two sets of framed squares? Thanks again. Now back to the show.

[jmenges]

Hi Roger,

According to Richard Whittington-Egan in his Definitive Casebook the Dowler's sold the framed pieces to an antiques dealer in Norfolk named Malcolm and Stewart Evans then visited Malcolm, where he took photographs (which might be the source of the photo I posted, I can't remember).
It was Malcolm, the antique dealer from Norfolk, who sold the item to the Parlours.
(Now picking up in the Edwards book)
The Parlours began hunting for who owned the rest of the shawl and by sheer coincidence ran into David Melville Hayes at an antique fair.

JM

[rjpalmer]

Ah, that explains it. So the two stories are reconciled. Thanks, Jonathan. I have to admit that it makes it sound less suspicious than the way Edwards told it.

[JeffHamm]

Thanks for this. Really good discussions and very informative.

- Jeff

[jmenges]

Thanks, Jeff!

JM

[Hunter]

Excellent, Jon. Don't have any questions or comments at the moment as it seems all the bases were covered.

[tanta07]

I loved that we got to hear a roundtable discussion with an actual DNA expert about the shawl. After listening to it, however, I feel like it was a gigantic missed opportunity.

Professor King (and some of the panelists) hadn't read the Naming Jack the Ripper book, and made some very elementary missteps because of it. For instance, Professor King questioned how Kosminski could be identified using mtDNA since he was a man. Rob House was kind enough to step in and point out she was incorrect, and it was Kosminski's sister's DNA line that was analyzed. Rather than admit she made a mistake, Professor King instead huffed that this should have been in the paper.

Brian Young also theorized that the ancestors whose DNA was analyzed had been "handling the shawl," which of course was totally incorrect, and could have easily been swatted away if he had just read the dang book. (Professor King didn't miss the opportunity to mention this is something that should have been in the paper).

I also have to question Professor King's motives, since this was about 30% chance for her to refute the paper, and about 70% change for her to promote herself and her own work. Quick drinking game for everyone: take a shot every time Professor King mentions the Richard the III study she did. Spoiler alert: you won't be the conscious to make it to the end of the podcast.

The biggest fail of this roundtable was the lack of dissenting voices. This was all an echo chamber of shawl skeptics agreeing with one another. Since the Shroud of Turin came up in the discussion, this would be like a panel of Cardinals in Rome discussing whether they felt the shroud was authentic or not. It might end up being interesting, but you're not going to hear any challenging ideas. Rob House did his best to throw a couple of nuggets in there, but he obviously wasn't going to argue with a DNA specialist over it.

As a sidenote, where the hell is Professor King from? Her accent kept vacillating between Irish and Southern California. Was she born in Dublin and raised in Orange County?

All in all, I'm thrilled at the idea of actual DNA experts weighing in and letting us know what actual professionals in the field feel about this paper and this methodology. I just feel like this missed the mark.

P.S. - Brian Young - you need to quit smoking, my man.

[jmenges]

Hi tanta07,

Thanks for taking the time to listen to the show. I see this is your first post. Welcome to Casebook.

Professor King (and some of the panelists) hadn't read the Naming Jack the Ripper book, and made some very elementary missteps because of it. For instance, Professor King questioned how Kosminski could be identified using mtDNA since he was a man. Rob House was kind enough to step in and point out she was incorrect, and it was Kosminski's sister's DNA line that was analyzed. Rather than admit she made a mistake, Professor King instead huffed that this should have been in the paper.

Professor King didn't make a mistake, the paper did. The paper repeatedly refers to the "suspect candidate's mtDNA". The paper doesn't say how they obtained it. No one would know where it came from without reading Russell Edwards' book. It shouldn't be necessary for one to first read 'Naming Jack the Ripper' in order to fill in the gaps in the paper published by the Journal of Forensic Science.

Brian Young also theorized that the ancestors whose DNA was analyzed had been "handling the shawl," which of course was totally incorrect, and could have easily been swatted away if he had just read the dang book. (Professor King didn't miss the opportunity to mention this is something that should have been in the paper).

Professor King stated that if either the Eddowes or Kosminski descendant had ever been in the same room with the shawl just by breathing it could have been contaminated. I know of one instance when a Kosminski descendant did handle the shawl.

I also have to question Professor King's motives, since this was about 30% chance for her to refute the paper, and about 70% change for her to promote herself and her own work. Quick drinking game for everyone: take a shot every time Professor King mentions the Richard the III study she did. Spoiler alert: you won't be the conscious to make it to the end of the podcast.

While explaining what she believed the paper should have done, its completely normal for her to use an example from her professional experience.

The biggest fail of this roundtable was the lack of dissenting voices. This was all an echo chamber of shawl skeptics agreeing with one another.

Find me a shawl believer and I'd be more than happy to invite them onto the show. In fact, I have invited them on the show. Jari said, regrettably, he couldn't appear because his employer wouldn't allow him to.

As a sidenote, where the hell is Professor King from? Her accent kept vacillating between Irish and Southern California. Was she born in Dublin and raised in Orange County?

Professor King is Canadian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turi_King


JM

[tanta07]

I know of one instance when a Kosminski descendant did handle the shawl.

That's a fascinating revelation! Which Kosminski descendant handled the shawl? The same one who provided DNA for this study? And when was it handled?

[Aelric]

Jari Louhelainen's name is pronounced Yah-ri Low-heh-lie-nen.