Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Forensic Sciences : The Eddowes Shawl

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Forensic Sciences : The Eddowes Shawl











    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact [email protected]

  • #2
    In this piece, at the very bottom, the eye color and hair color are mentioned as both being brown.

    I can't recall where its stated that Kozminski had both.

    Is it in the records ? Colney Hatch or police?
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact [email protected]

    Comment


    • #3
      He takes a bit of a shot at Patricia.

      No harm in that.

      P

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
        In this piece, at the very bottom, the eye color and hair color are mentioned as both being brown.

        I can't recall where its stated that Kozminski had both.

        Is it in the records ? Colney Hatch or police?

        If I am reading it right they still have only mitochondrial dna which in this case if far from conclusive given the amount of other persons in London at the time that may also have had the same Mt DNA which is known as secondary DNA


        I also recall Cornwell finding the same type of DNA on one of the letters her experts examined


        www.trevormarriott.co.uk


        .

        Comment


        • #5
          The letter of provenance does not prove that the shawl belonged to Eddowes in the first place so it is not provenance. Shame, I would have loved it to be connected.

          Paddy....................

          Comment


          • #6
            I've been through the text once and will have a closer look, but there's a couple of things I thought to be interesting. It takes for granted that even it seemingly was in Simpson's possession, the shawl was from the crime scene and even taken from Eddowes body!! The forensic research does not mention the possibility of having the mtDNA coming also from someone else. The mentioned frequency does not mean it belonged exclusively to Kozminski.


            1. It says on page 8:
            The initial aim of this project was not actually to solve the Jack the Ripper murders but to evaluate how far the science can be stretched to analyze over-100-year-old biological samples that are available only in minute amounts.


            So what I understand from this was that the purpose of the forensic investigation was essentially a technical one, aimed at improving the existing methods and not a definite conclusion as to who JTR was.


            2. On page 9, they concluded that:
            During the analysis of the shawl, the theory that the shawl was not in fact property of the victim but belonged to the murderer was strengthened by the fact that the blue indigo dye in the floral parts of the silk shawl was water soluble. Thus, this expensive silk shawl could not have been used as an everyday outer garment by the victim who reportedly had a very low income and was constantly struggling to afford accommodation.


            If it wasn't an everyday outer garment, the kind Eddowes would have worn, to whom did it belong? Where did Simpson get? Am I wrong in understanding that it couldn't have belonged to Catherine Eddowes?

            Comment


            • #7
              Extremely interesting.

              Kudos to them for publishing it in proper form.

              There are, of course, questions etc. and there is no real proof that the shawl ever had anything to do with Eddowes.

              1. they state records show Eddowes’ belongings were destroyed. While I’m sure they were, I don’t recall reading about any such records before?

              2. A portion of the shawl is said to have been destroyed by another lab in a previous attempt at research. Does anyone know anything about this?

              3. It’s said the shawl was taken from the crime scene and resided in the so-called black museum, but in the letter of provenance the descendant states his forefather took it and passed it on to his descendants. How would the shawl go from the defunct museum to the sergeant and is there any record of what comprised the museum’s collection? (I believe there isn’t but perhaps someone knows something about it)

              4. The idea that the shawl was not Eddowes’ because the dye is water-soluble is far fetched. A 1000 years from now archeologists will say jeans were not everyday wear because the denim dye fades with wash! The quality should instead be matched with other garments from the 1880s to get an idea of price; they seem to believe it was valuable and beyond Eddowes’ means but I don’t see anything sustaining that.

              5. I’m pleased they state they have analyzed the semen stains and conclude they come from a man (yes it’s because they’re careful not to fully conclude that it is semen, just that it has some similar characteristics to semen)

              As said, very interesting - the DNA as I understand it is not very conclusive, being mitochondrial, and they state the real aim was to improve DNA methods for old cases. I also love their withering take-down of Cornwell.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                Extremely interesting.

                Kudos to them for publishing it in proper form.

                There are, of course, questions etc. and there is no real proof that the shawl ever had anything to do with Eddowes.

                1. they state records show Eddowes’ belongings were destroyed. While I’m sure they were, I don’t recall reading about any such records before?

                2. A portion of the shawl is said to have been destroyed by another lab in a previous attempt at research. Does anyone know anything about this?

                3. It’s said the shawl was taken from the crime scene and resided in the so-called black museum, but in the letter of provenance the descendant states his forefather took it and passed it on to his descendants. How would the shawl go from the defunct museum to the sergeant and is there any record of what comprised the museum’s collection? (I believe there isn’t but perhaps someone knows something about it)

                4. The idea that the shawl was not Eddowes’ because the dye is water-soluble is far fetched. A 1000 years from now archeologists will say jeans were not everyday wear because the denim dye fades with wash! The quality should instead be matched with other garments from the 1880s to get an idea of price; they seem to believe it was valuable and beyond Eddowes’ means but I don’t see anything sustaining that.

                5. I’m pleased they state they have analyzed the semen stains and conclude they come from a man (yes it’s because they’re careful not to fully conclude that it is semen, just that it has some similar characteristics to semen)

                As said, very interesting - the DNA as I understand it is not very conclusive, being mitochondrial, and they state the real aim was to improve DNA methods for old cases. I also love their withering take-down of Cornwell.

                The new results only confirm what was in the original report and that was proved to be flawed so nothing new but it seems newspapers have a short memory, and I note there are no interviews with ripperlogists who might want to give their take on it.


                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Bernard Beaule View Post
                  I've been through the text once and will have a closer look, but there's a couple of things I thought to be interesting. It takes for granted that even it seemingly was in Simpson's possession, the shawl was from the crime scene and even taken from Eddowes body!! The forensic research does not mention the possibility of having the mtDNA coming also from someone else. The mentioned frequency does not mean it belonged exclusively to Kozminski.


                  1. It says on page 8:
                  The initial aim of this project was not actually to solve the Jack the Ripper murders but to evaluate how far the science can be stretched to analyze over-100-year-old biological samples that are available only in minute amounts.


                  So what I understand from this was that the purpose of the forensic investigation was essentially a technical one, aimed at improving the existing methods and not a definite conclusion as to who JTR was.


                  2. On page 9, they concluded that:
                  During the analysis of the shawl, the theory that the shawl was not in fact property of the victim but belonged to the murderer was strengthened by the fact that the blue indigo dye in the floral parts of the silk shawl was water soluble. Thus, this expensive silk shawl could not have been used as an everyday outer garment by the victim who reportedly had a very low income and was constantly struggling to afford accommodation.


                  If it wasn't an everyday outer garment, the kind Eddowes would have worn, to whom did it belong? Where did Simpson get? Am I wrong in understanding that it couldn't have belonged to Catherine Eddowes?

                  The garment is to big to be a shawl, and is in my opinion nothing more than a table runner, which seems to be the consensus of many ordinary people who have seen a pic of it.


                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                    The garment is to big to be a shawl, and is in my opinion nothing more than a table runner, which seems to be the consensus of many ordinary people who have seen a pic of it.


                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    The dimensions are similar to continental shawls of the Regency and early Victorian era.


                    https://www.mimimatthews.com/2015/07...shion-history/

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                      The new results only confirm what was in the original report and that was proved to be flawed so nothing new but it seems newspapers have a short memory, and I note there are no interviews with ripperlogists who might want to give their take on it.


                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Actually Trevor it is far better than the original report, far better than i was expecting actually.


                      However it still suffers from the same faults, making individual is based on MtDNA

                      And maybe mote importantly the dubious history of the material.






                      Like Pat I wish it could be linked, but it can't and that makes the conclusions even harder to take at face value.
                      All the comments on this thread are very well reasoned.
                      I remain unconvinced, but it will be interesting to read the peer reviews when they appear.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Steve Blomer View Post
                        I remain unconvinced, but it will be interesting to read the peer reviews when they appear.
                        Which peer reviews?

                        P

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                          The new results only confirm what was in the original report and that was proved to be flawed so nothing new but it seems newspapers have a short memory, and I note there are no interviews with ripperlogists who might want to give their take on it.


                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          The original book descriptions of the science claimed that a rare global mutation in the Eddowes descendant's DNA matched samples on the shawl. According to the book, the statistical data on the number of people who would have had this 'rare' mutation would be limited to the Eddowes family themselves, making this a significant match.

                          This was what Tracy Ianson and Chris Philips and others highlighted as an error. It was was shown to be an error caused by inputting incorrect nomenclature for a common mutation marker into a DNA database that subsequently recognised it as a rare, family specific 'private mutation'.

                          There is still a match at this originally wrongly described location and that is the way MtDNA matches work, by matches mutations in samples at different locations in relation to the revised Cambridge reference sequence.

                          The science is still showing us that there is a match between the Eddowes descendant's MtDNA and stains which were concluded to be bloodstains and stains from internal organs on the shawl, but also that there are MtDNA matches on separate areas of the shawl supposed to semen stains (although no semen was recovered from them) that match the descendant of the suspect tested.

                          The statistical probability of that happening on an object known to be at a crime scene is what makes it significant but, as others have already said, the provenance of this item is not satisfactorily proven from the point of view of those who know the history of the item itself or are clued up on events of that night and which police personnel were actually involved.

                          Jari Louhelainen devised a successful method of extracting historical DNA from old fabric and this is what is useful to the scientific community. The technique has been developed for further use already. This is what peer reviewers are interested in.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
                            Which peer reviews?

                            P



                            If it's in a scientific journal, there will be peer reviews.




                            Steve

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                              The original book descriptions of the science claimed that a rare global mutation in the Eddowes descendant's DNA matched samples on the shawl. According to the book, the statistical data on the number of people who would have had this 'rare' mutation would be limited to the Eddowes family themselves, making this a significant match.

                              This was what Tracy Ianson and Chris Philips and others highlighted as an error. It was was shown to be an error caused by inputting incorrect nomenclature for a common mutation marker into a DNA database that subsequently recognised it as a rare, family specific 'private mutation'.

                              There is still a match at this originally wrongly described location and that is the way MtDNA matches work, by matches mutations in samples at different locations in relation to the revised Cambridge reference sequence.

                              The science is still showing us that there is a match between the Eddowes descendant's MtDNA and stains which were concluded to be bloodstains and stains from internal organs on the shawl, but also that there are MtDNA matches on separate areas of the shawl supposed to semen stains (although no semen was recovered from them) that match the descendant of the suspect tested.

                              The statistical probability of that happening on an object known to be at a crime scene is what makes it significant but, as others have already said, the provenance of this item is not satisfactorily proven from the point of view of those who know the history of the item itself or are clued up on events of that night and which police personnel were actually involved.







                              Jari Louhelainen devised a successful method of extracting historical DNA from old fabric and this is what is useful to the scientific community. The technique has been developed for further use already. This is what peer reviewers are interested in.





                              Very well put Debs,


                              We know the problems with the shawl, it's the science that needs to be reviewed and now it can be.


                              Those are different issues.


                              But both are important.


                              I seriously doubt there is definitive evidence to link it.
                              If only there were.




                              Steve

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X