Whitechapel will never be the same

[Cubs]

If you could find any single item in the world with my DNA and yours, that would be mighty interesting, wouldn't it? Especially 126 years after the fact. (To the best of my knowledge, I've never met Cubs)

But as Psy points out, the analogy is more like taking a sample of my DNA now, comparing it to a sample from a century and a bit ago and then trying to guess which one of my 16 great-great-grandparents, or even 32 great-great-great grandparents, or their immediate siblings, it comes from. A lot of that guy's family lived in and around Whitechapel at the time.

That's assuming the shawl has absolutely anything to do with the Ripper murders, which is based on nothing but hearsay.

That's assuming the DNA was actually put on the shawl by the murderer, which is nothing but a wild guess.

That's assuming the sample hasn't been contaminated or degraded beyond the point where it can be accurately measured.

You see the problem?

Like I say, it's a theory, but the evidence is some way short of solid, or even admissible by modern standards.

[starkadder]

Oh, all right.

It was me. I did it. I confess. It's a fair cop.

It's the last time I order a DIY surgeon's kit from the catalogue.

They didn't even send me my Certificate of Completion.

[psyberwyche]

That's assuming the sample hasn't been contaminated or degraded beyond the point where it can be accurately measured.

I was just reading a quote this morning from a scientist, who was saying that the DNA matching technique isn't the problem - it's the newly invented technique called 'vacuuming', which was used to extract the sample. Apparently that hasn't been peer reviewed - it was invented by the microbiologist involved with this book, specifically to extract really old DNA from an item. If that technique hasn't been peer reviewed, and later turns out to be hokey, then they'll have effectively destroyed or contaminated [potentially] the best piece of evidence ever found!

[FramFramson]

In a theory that revolves around a single piece of scientific evidence, we aren't allowed to scrutinize that evidence?

Forgive me sir, but if you're interested I have a bridge for sale 

My line was more in reference to the type who've been on about "DNA enhancement? I've never heard of that! Must be a load of codswallop!" when five minutes with google confirms it's a valid technique.

The vacuuming critique is more sound, but botching that seems more likely to destroy evidence then provide false evidence. But getting old DNA isn't as big a problem as you might think. The oldest DNA ever extracted from a human is over 7000 years old. And as I understand, they're using nuclear matching for the actual mitochondrial DNA comparisons, which is an established process and very accurate (barring cross-contamination).

As for the item being at the murder site, I think kidney cells do confirm that. IF they're telling the truth and they really did find them.

If you assume a scenario without fraud (maybe these guys are just sloppy or bad investigators or the shawl has no real relation to the Ripper case). So they just found a shawl that's been argued over for decades as to whether or not it's connected to the Ripper murders. Then these guys test it and find blood and internal organs tissue traces on it. They test those and get a DNA record. Then they go over to a modern woman who claims descent from the same victim that the shawl is potentially related to and the DNA matches. Then they extract semen from the same shawl and get a different DNA record. Then they find some modern person who is purported to be descended from a suspect and the second DNA matches them. What possible sequence of evidence contamination or incompetence or sheer coincidence would possibly explain that chain of events where DNA planted on one object over a century ago matches two separate modern day claimants? I know little enough about DNA sampling, but I know that if they had completely the wrong person they're not going to get 100% matches on two total strangers a century after the fact. They'd get a partial or broken record or null result or just about anything but a perfect match. Or the alternate argument that the same victim first had a customer who was a man who pretty clearly had some flavour of serious mental illness, but was not the killer, but then somehow the same item that had his jizz on it also managed to make its way to the murder scene (as supposedly confirmed by organ tissue). That's a hell of a scenario!

Now, if these guys went to the descendents or some convenient modern dupes, told them they wanted to compare DNA, took samples and then retroactively claimed these were found on the shawl, put together a plausible-sounding account, then ring up the local tabloid rag, okay! That's vastly more straightforward. Or if they found some DNA matches, but then went too far and claimed kidney cells (in order to link it definitively to the murder site), okay! That's also straightforward. But those are things a forensic scientist ought to be able to verify, and I am happy to defer to the experts in this specific situation. Or, obviously if they refuse to allow independent verification or reveal the identity of their sources to ANYONE, even the police, then that too is blatantly suspect. But answers to those will come in the coming days. This isn't the kind of thing that won't unravel quickly if it is fraud.

[maxxon]

But as Psy points out, the analogy is more like taking a sample of my DNA now, comparing it to a sample from a century and a bit ago and then trying to guess which one of my 16 great-great-grandparents, or even 32 great-great-great grandparents, or their immediate siblings, it comes from. A lot of that guy's family lived in and around Whitechapel at the time.

I don't care if Aaron did it or not. They're not going to dig him up and put him on the stand.

I simply find it fabulous that it can be proven of an item over 100 years old that one of your great-great... grandparents and one of my mine have both handled it.

Yes it could have been his brother. Yes he could have been just a customer. Yes they might just have handled the same item without actually meeting.

To me that's not the point. The point is being able to connect the victim to anyone at all via physical proof after all these years.

In some other case, coupled with other evidence that ability may make a meaningful difference. Being able to move from "could have been anybody" to "one of these 10 people was present".

[Cubs]

But guys, you're both making the same leaps the author has.

What you have is a shawl with -

Blood DNA samples which show a link to the Great-Great-Great-Daughter of the victim. That's a lot of links in the chain right there and a hell of a lot of people that blood could have come from.

Cells which the tester says may be kidney cells.

Semen DNA samples which show a link to ancestors of the suspect. It may be him, it may be his family, it may be other members of those people's extended family going back however many generations, running into dozens or hundreds of possible contributors.

That's it. You have no way of ageing the item, nor when the samples were introduced to it, other than they're old. You have no way of knowing the link between that item, or the victim and suspect, or even if there was one, because you can't even pin it down to either of those people.

Whitechapel was a close-knit and relatively small community at the time and for decades afterwards. It is in no way surprising that people whose ancestors lived there anywhere around the time of the Ripper murders, knew each other and interacted. The further back you go in an ancestral chain, the more people are in it.

It's certainly intriguing and, if you first invent a scenario where the suspect has knocked one out on a prostitute's shawl (we've all done it) and then killed her, rubbing a kidney on it along the way, then yes, this fits those circumstances.

It could also belong to someone to helped lifted the remains into the police van.

But all you can say is that there is a shawl (of unknown origin) which has some blood and semen, belonging to people who are ancestors of people who are (probably) descendants of the victim and suspect. Plus there are some cells which may be kidney cells (this one, for me, is the most compelling and needs more scrutiny).

Right now, that is still way too little to base a claim of "I've solved it beyond all doubt!" on and that's before we tackle the old favourite of the killer having detailed anatomical knowledge, which the suspect apparently didn't. If I was peddling another book on this tired old subject I might be tempted to do the same.

[psyberwyche]

Right now, that is still way too little to base a claim of "I've solved it beyond all doubt!" on and that's before we tackle the old favourite of the killer having detailed anatomical knowledge, which the suspect apparently didn't. If I was peddling another book on this tired old subject I might be tempted to do the same.

That's the issue for me, in a nutshell. I absolutely agree with Maxxon and Fram that the evidence is really interesting, but I take issue with the author saying 'That's it, it's over.'

Interestingly, the DNA test is the same as the one Patricia Cornwell used when she 'definitively' named Walter Sickert as the killer. She was widely ridiculed shortly afterwards...

[Cubs]

Besides, if the Ripper really did kill her, gut her, then shake hot white coconuts from his veiny love tree all over her shawl, surely the police would have found him curled up asleep next to her ... or at least severely mellowed out with a cup of tea and a cookie. Post-climax jelly-legs are hardly conducive to a quick getaway.

[Elk101]

It's this bit that irks me;

"I’ve got the only piece of forensic evidence in the whole history of the case," said Mr Edwards. "We have definitively solved the mystery of who Jack the Ripper was.

"Only non-believers that want to perpetuate the myth will doubt. This is it now – we have unmasked him."

A whiff of the Emperor's New Clothes about it?

Hull historian Mike Covell offers comment in this excerpt from the Hull Daily Mail (not affiliated with the non-Hull based Daily. Mail as far as I know):

But Hull historian Mike Covell, who has published a number of books about the Ripper murders, said Mr Edwards' conclusions were unlikely to be correct.

The history of the blood-stained shawl is hazy to say the least and, although Kosminski was named by police as a possible suspect, experts on the case have long ruled him out as a serious contender to be the Ripper.

In fact, it seems he was considered a harmless mentally ill man who was locked up because he had a fondness for masturbation.

"There is no provenance to the shawl," said Mr Covell. "A police officer named Amos Simpson claims to have not only been at the murder scene but to have taken the shawl home. This is false. He was never at the scene.

"The inquest reports and official files show everything Eddowes had on her and with her the night she was murdered. There is no mention of the shawl."

Adding to the doubts is the fact that the shawl has been handled by many people over the years, including the descendants of Catherine Eddowes, increasing the risk of contamination.

Claims the DNA conclusively proves Kosminski's guilt are also wide of the mark, Mr Covell says.

"Mitochondrial DNA can be taken from every female family member and even from a ethnic group and not singled down to one sole person," he said. "The family of Kosminski made clothes in Whitechapel, they were registered as furriers.

"I worked with a television crew on the shawl in 2010. We tested several stains and whilst they were discovered to be blood and semen we could not get any matches or DNA sequences because the samples were too old and too degraded.

End of quote.

Maybe Kosminski just had different quality control methods for his family's clothing business?  (actually you never know).

[Cubs]

Thank God he didn't make yoghurt.

[Elk101]

Thank God he didn't make yoghurt.

 

He was apparently a barber though, so best not to ask for hair gell.

The full article is here if anyone is interested :

http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-Aaron-Kosminski-Er-says-expert-Mike/story-22893770-detail/story.html

[The_Beast]

But, but, but...

Patricia Cornwell stated 'case closed' in 2002!

Doug

[NurgleHH]

But, but, but...

Patricia Cornwell stated 'case closed' in 2002!

Doug

Who is Patricia Cornwell. Little sister of Bernhard Cornwell?

[Johnno]

Besides, if the Ripper really did kill her, gut her, then shake hot white coconuts from his veiny love tree all over her shawl, surely the police would have found him curled up asleep next to her ... or at least severely mellowed out with a cup of tea and a cookie. Post-climax jelly-legs are hardly conducive to a quick getaway.

Bahahahaha.....

But, but, but...

Patricia Cornwell stated 'case closed' in 2002!

Doug

My thoughts exactly....