General Chat

Hmm... This snippet is also interesting...

Jack the Ripper 'identified in new book'
8 September 2014
The identity of Jack the Ripper has been revealed in a new book by author Russell Edwards.

Edwards is claiming the evidence as conclusive, but has chosen to publish his claims in a book and the frequently anti-science Daily Mail, rather than a scientific publication.
DNA evidence has solved many crimes, and exposed so many wrongful convictions it has changed the debate on capital punishment.

Nevertheless, it is not perfect; forensic consultant Dr Carol Mayne says the letters should stand for Do Not Assume because “It is not as infallible as people think”, even from far fresher samples and where the match is to the suspect, not a remote decedent.

just a little note about whether the DNA came from the murderer or someone else ... the question is where did the shawl come from

if it was not the victim's then the DNA would likely not have come from some other male contact of the victim

... unless she had contact with another man before she died, the killer brought the shawl when he killed her, and the other man's DNA got on the shawl at the scene from the victim's body ... which would mean Kosminski was the man who was with the victim first and then someone else brought the shawl and Kosminski's DNA got on it, and the other person killed her

note that there was apparently not all kinds of random DNA, either blood or semen or spit, on the shawl ... and whether someone sneezed on it 50 years later does not have anything to do with the actual DNA that was found on it

and what are the chances of some random 'contamination' resulting in tests that found perfect matches with the descendants of the two people in question? better than the chance of a million monkeys typing the complete works of Shakespeare? :-)

(remember that the shawl was not in the possession of either family, it is claimed to have been in the possession of the police constable's family)

the evidence is that the shawl was made in the early 1800s and was of Eastern European origin ... just like Kosminski

it is more plausible that the shawl belonged to Kosminski than that it belonged to Eddowes

if it belonged to Kosminski then there is no reason to think it would have had random men's DNA on it

and in fact it seemed to have only one male sample on it

so Eddowes' occupation is probably not relevant to the source of the DNA on the shawl

if Kosminski had had sex with Eddowes and left his DNA on the shawl or it got onto the shawl from her body, and someone else had later killed her, that would be an explanation for the evidence that doesn't make him the killer

but that scenario seems unlikely, given the probable origin of the shawl

the most likely explanation ... if, and there are many ifs, the shawl was from the scene of the crime ... is that the shawl did not belong to Eddowes and the other DNA on the shawl besides' Eddowes' DNA is the killer's

many 'if's and 'probable's, yes, but no other plausible answers at this time

and I too just don't understand why anyone is automatically suspicious of science :-)

Please don't let Hugh Trevor- Roper know!

Thank you, Hayley :-)

Thank you Sylvia you explained perfectly. :-D


There is no saying the DNA came from the murderer lets not forget her profession.

Hitlers diaries and Piltdown man spring to mind here :-D

That's possibly true...lolol maybe that's why PC Lightfoot didn't nick 'em ;-)

I reckon it was one of Sue's lot ......One of them is a contender methinks .....right time, right place......and other stuff ;-)

If you are desperate to find something you will!

Unconvinced until the findings are judged by a panel of peers, which could take a decade!

Sue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Sickert

it was this poor guy last time and before that 10 other guys :-( :-(

A load of codswallop

There was a programme a few years ago, about a totally different subject, but they were looking at the asylum records and one of the dates Kominsky was inside was when 1 of the murders took place......

DNA is only any good if its uncontaminated

and how may people have handled the shawl????
how many of coughed and splitters over it???
maybe even tried it on

how has it been stored all these years????

I myself think its a hoax just like the Turin shroud

sorry folks that's it in a nut shell in my mind
great hoax though ;-) ;-)

there are two DNA samples

one matches a descendant of the victim

one matches a descendant of Kosinski's sister and thus Kosinski

certainly there could be infinite other explanations for their presence together on a shawl allegedly taken from the scene of the murder

contamination by the police is one possibility, certainly when it comes to the victim's DNA ... but how they would have contaminated it with the semen from Kosinski if he was not at the scene ... I'm hard pressed to think of a _plausible_ other explanation :-)

after all this isn't like today, they had no idea that anything on the shawl could be tested this way, so they had no incentive to 'plant' any evidence

and of course this would connect him only with one murder

I am not an unsceptical person, and I am not saying this is proof positive

I just think that scepticism has to be grounded in something.

Mitochondrial DNA certainly IS good science but it still doesn't prove anything other than the owner of the sample found and the present-day descendant shared a common female relative. The shawl could be covered in his DNA but it still only places him as the most likely suspect. What annoys me most is the certainty portrayed by the article, but then what does one expect from the Mail :-D

If the techniques are rigorous, it is an interesting hypothesis, nothing more.

obviously not too many people with scientific knowledge on this thread :-)




Mitochondrial DNA is good science

and the extraction of any kind of DNA from old material is getting easier and easier



These techniques are being used more and more in clearing up "cold cases"



The scientist who did the tests has a good reputation as a scientist ......................

however, the technique that he has developed of extracting material from the shawl has not yet been replicated by others, so far as I know ................


replication meaning that another scientist has been able to repeat the technique



and the tests on the shawl have not yet been repeated, and that would be the ultimate ............


..... for another scientist to repeat the extraction of the mitochondrial DNA, the testing, and the connection with the female descendants.




but it is all based on good science ...............




one thing that did make me think twice about all the other books and articles was when this author said he went to Kew to look at all the available documents etc ............. to discover that apparently none of the previous "proposers of the killer" had ever been there!




I think this is by far the most serious suggestion ........................... backed with the best scientific evidence so far ................


and after all Kosminski was one of the 3 most serious suspects in the police eyes at the time. They seemingly went so far as to follow him constantly until he was checked into the workhouse asylum.



BUT, equally, it could be wrong.



I do refuse to be as dismissive as many of you apparently are

each to our own opinion hun :-D

Joy I think that is a little nasty to say about the victim ... women who were prostitutes at that time in that place were not happy hookers, they were desperately, desperately poor and abused

this man's victims were by absolutely no means the only women like them killed by men, their lives were full of violence


if we read the article the shawl did not belong to the victim, the theory is that it was brought to the scene by the killer

Kominski's DNA was not just 'at the scene' it was on the same shawl as the victim's blood, according to the tests

yes there are possible questions about the legitimacy of the testing etc. but there is no point in muddying the waters with suspicions that don't relate to the facts

it really is hard to explain the findings otherwise


mitochondrial DNA is the unique DNA that a mother passes to her children

the mother's son does not pass it any farther, it ends with him

the mother's daughter passes it to her daughter, who passes it to her daughter, etc.

so Kominski's sister had the same mitochondrial DNA as Kominski, that is pure science, and her female line descendant who was tested has the same mitochondrial DNA still, again pure science

and the victim Catherine Eddowes' great-great-great-granddaughter has the same mitochondrial DNA as Catherine Eddowes

so if the two DNAs on the shawl matched Kominski's sister's descendant for one and Eddowes' descendant for the other, then the two DNAs belonged to a direct ancestor in the female line of each of those descendants, or a brother of that direct ancestor

that is, this says, the two DNAs belong to Kominski, the brother of the direct ancestor of the anonymous woman who tested, and to Eddowes, the direct ancestor of Karen Miller who tested

it really is science and not voodoo! :-D

but it does need to be reviewed by scientists to make sure everything is legit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5m1lvtq8jY

yes Sharron it would be like

can you murder her a bit slower while the plates develop

You couldn't do that in those days.

They hadn't invented video. The camera had a big blanket over it and whoever thy were trying to catch had to stand still for ten minutes while they filmed them.

And the CCTV operator had to crank the camera round by hand.