nope. this came up before. its BS. Eddowes wasn’t even wearing a shawl the night she was murdered and the police officer who apparently found it was nowhere near the crime scene.

I recall reading this news years ago when it first broke (2016 or perhaps 2015 IIRC) and spoke with the biochemist involved. Nice to see his work has finally been peer-reviewed.

The biochemist I spoke with said he genetically compared the blood on the shawl to blood from a living Eddowes descendant, which matched, and then compared semen (he said under microscope he even saw urethral cells) to a Kosminski descendant, which also matched.

Given that Kosminski was a prime suspect, in fact really the only viable contemporary suspect, and latter named as the killer by two police officers who worked the case, and who also fits the entire criminal sequence not to mention geographic profiling AND psychological profiling, that he would NOT be the killer is an affront of absurdity to any rational person.

I can never understand why people insist on trying to keep this "case" alive just so they can enjoy a preposterous mystery involving mythical surgeons (Mary Kelly was hardly the victim of a trained surgeon, insane or not…..) and silly theories about the royal family.

People say Eddowes wasn’t wearing a shawl, but they have no idea if that was true because they were not there. They use the extant and grossly incomplete records to make this claim but then use the same faulty records to "prove" the Duke of WIndham was the killer, or some other nonsense.

As for the cop…..no one knows for sure where he was the entire night but it would be a damned thing for him to have a shawl that contained DNA linked to both Eddowes AND Kosminksi. It would be a hell of a fraud for him or anyone else to have possessed a 19th century shawl containing "fake" blood and "fake" semen, both of which are genetically linked to the victim and the prime suspect. A HELL of a thing.

As for "contamination"…..do people often carry significant amounts of semen and blood around on their hands?

People who speak of the methodology used in retrieving the samples speak in ignorance. The biochemist DID NOT USE touch DNA or similar. He used a novel method implying a suctioning pipette on the blood and semen areas.

The only way to have "contaminated" the shawl would have been to place actual blood and actual semen, both miraculously linked to Eddowes and Kosminkski, onto the shawl.

The the shawl was linked to Eastern Europe and the killer might have been paying for services with items taken from his home (he was seen with a newspaper-wrapped package at one point) is never considered even though it is highly relevant.

In the end, it was always Kosminski.

People who irrationally INSIST Kosminksi was not and could have been "Jack" the Ripper, in spite of all the evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, usually have ulterior motives.

A book to sell, a fantasy to maintain, a blog to push, or an innocent person to railroad.

That’s how I see it. It’s how I’ve always seen it.

I really do not want to click the link as I dont wish to give it hits. As I understand it the previous DNA results were not as conclusive as claimed. Also, we have a very, very detailed report on what Eddowes was wearing that night. Here are just a few items from a comprehensive list of her belongings/posessions: black straw bonnet with green trim; black cloth jacket with fur edging; chintz skirt;brown bodice; grey petticoat;old ragged blue shirt; calico chemise; mens undervest; a pair of mens boots; no drawers or stays. A dozens or more of her posessions are also mentioned. What is not mentioned is a shawl.

The case against Kosminski is still very much unproven and I say this as someone who thinks he is an excellent suspect.

If the shawl was taken from the murder site, as has been claimed, it’s very doubtful it would have been included in the undertaker’s list of personal effects.

Unless the police undressed Eddowes at the murder scene, a complete record of her clothing could not have been made then.

Therefore, no official record of the shawl regardless.

In fact, it was NEVER claimed that the shawl belonged to Eddowes.

Why do people keep making this erroneous, silly claim?

Research has instead made it clear that the shawl likely originated in eastern Europe and was far too fine and expensive an item for someone like Eddowes to have EVER owned.

It’s a laughable idea that someone like Eddowes would have been strolling the night with such an accessory.

She would have pawned it the very first instant.

Whoever keeps claiming that Eddowes OWNED the shawl is simply in error.

Beating up straw men is not helpful.

So I will say it again, although I feel that no one ever read Russel Edwards’ book nor did they speak with the biochemist regarding his methodology:

Eddowes did not own the shawl, likely did not bring it to the scene, and it was likely spirited away before an official inventory of her effects were made.

The killer likely brought it as payment for services.

The fact that the shawl was such a well-to-do piece of apparel not to be found on the likes of social pariahs, eg. Catherine Eddowes, lends credence to the claim it was taken by a cop.

I can certainly see men in that dark age, paid little, taking home the nice things they find.

It would be rather strange if they hadn’t.

Who can speak of the facts if they do not know them?

Every time I hear someone say the shawl belonged to poverty-stricken prostitute Eddowes, or that touching the shawl introduced "contamination", I want to scream.

PLEASE READ FIRST!

Has anyone actually read the study?

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epd … 1Jrqgho%3D

I thought it was actually rather compelling.

This is the study Jari Louhelainen sometime around 2007. It’s only just been published. I don’t hate it. The provenance sure, I get it. But I don’t see any strong or specific critique, other than some guy didn’t like his pie chart.

Why do people keep making this erroneous, silly claim?

Research has instead made it clear that the shawl likely originated in eastern Europe and was far too fine and expensive an item for someone like Eddowes to have EVER owned.

It’s a laughable idea that someone like Eddowes would have been strolling the night with such an accessory.

She would have pawned it the very first instant.

Whoever keeps claiming that Eddowes OWNED the shawl is simply in error.

I haven’t checked in on this case since the mid-1990s and have no stake in any particular suspects. So this is a good-faith inquiry responding to your passionate dismissal of the shawl as relevant evidence.

If the DNA found on this shawl has probability matches to the DNA of both Eddowes and a prime suspect, does that make you question your certainty? Other than accusing the author of this report of intentional fabrication, what other circumstances could account for the likely presence of both the victim’s blood AND the suspect’s semen on a 130-year-old shawl from an era before the discovery of DNA?

Why do people keep making this erroneous, silly claim?

Research has instead made it clear that the shawl likely originated in eastern Europe and was far too fine and expensive an item for someone like Eddowes to have EVER owned.

It’s a laughable idea that someone like Eddowes would have been strolling the night with such an accessory.

She would have pawned it the very first instant.

Whoever keeps claiming that Eddowes OWNED the shawl is simply in error.

I haven’t checked in on this case since the mid-1990s and have no stake in any particular suspects. So this is a good-faith inquiry responding to your passionate dismissal of the shawl as relevant evidence.

If the DNA found on this shawl has probability matches to the DNA of both Eddowes and a prime suspect, does that make you question your certainty? Other than accusing the author of this report of intentional fabrication, what other circumstances could account for the likely presence of both the victim’s blood AND the suspect’s semen on a 130-year-old shawl from an era before the discovery of DNA?

I’m pretty confident the victims blood and suspects semen have not been found on the shawl. What will have been proven is the possibility of Eddowes’ blood and Kosminski’s semen on the shawl.

As I understand it these results are based on mitochondrial dna, this is supposedly the less accurate form of DNA testing. Trust me when I say the case is still unsolved – until further evidence is provided. Sure, this author and boffin may be the first real deal among the 1000 or so people to have so far erroneously ‘solved’ the case of Jack the Ripper but the chances are this claim is just another moneyspinner for someone.

I’m pretty confident the victims blood and suspects semen have not been found on the shawl. What will have been proven is the possibility of Eddowes’ blood and Kosminski’s semen on the shawl.

Is there a probability expert in here who can chime in on the chances that the mitochondrial DNA found would 70% match both a known victim and a known suspect? Is this an easily dismissable coincidence?

If it was easily dismiss-able the experts quoted would have had more to say. One criticized the way the data was displayed, the other gave a rote response about mitochondrial DNA that seemed superficially dismissive and perfunctory. They have to mount a bit of opposition, but if they had any real problems with the research I think they would have gone into more detail.

To find both DNA profiles on a garment with an at least plausible chain of custody is probably remarkable.

I think the luke warm response is lingering resentment over the 2007 book and original refusal to publish the research in a peer review journal. Wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of journalists tossed this on in the waste paper basket assuming it was old (2007) news. But the actual paper is worth reading. You can quibble and poke holes, but it looks like the garment was in fact stained with semen and blood, and two corroborating DNA profiles were extracted, I’d say that’s enough for a persuasive inductive argument at the very least.

This is old news, Jari Louhelainen made a serious error with the DNA. His results were grossly incorrect.

yes, Rippercast did a couple of great episodes on this. It’s totally bogus.

This is old news, Jari Louhelainen made a serious error with the DNA. His results were grossly incorrect.

Can you elaborate on this?

This is old news, Jari Louhelainen made a serious error with the DNA. His results were grossly incorrect.

Can you elaborate on this?

“The scientist who conducted a DNA analysis of the shawl found near the body of one of Jack The Ripper’s victims allegedly made a basic error, which means the identity of one of history’s most notorious killers is in doubt again.
At the beginning of September, armchair detective Russell Edwards declared that 23-year-old Polish immigrant, barber Aaron Kosminski, one of the suspects, was "definitely, categorically and absolutely" Jack The Ripper! His statement came after genetic analysis of the shawl discovered near Catherine Eddowes, a victim of the notorious murderer, after alleged traces of semen were found there. The scientist, Jari Louhelainen, who carried out the test, is reported to have made an "error of nomenclature” when using the DNA database to calculate the genetic match. The alleged error was first spotted by crime enthusiasts in Australia posting on casebook.org. Then, the concerns were echoed by four experts in the field of DNA analysis, including renowned Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, inventor of genetic fingerprinting. The experts pointed out the error signifies no DNA link can exist between Kosminski and Eddowes, so any theory that Kosminski is The Ripper would be based on conjecture and supposition. Police at the end of 19th century, however, did have him as a suspect in the case. All this comes in the wake of the publishing of the book ‘Naming Jack the Ripper’ by Russell Edwards, a businessman who purchased the shawl at an auction in 2007. "I’ve got the only piece of forensic evidence in the whole history of the case. I’ve spent 14 years working, and we have finally 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," The Guardian quoted Edwards as saying last month. Edwards hired Dr Louhelainen, a molecular biologist at Liverpool John Moores University, to conduct the test, and the researcher managed to extract seven incomplete fragments of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). He then attempted to match their sequences with mtDNA from a living descendant of Eddowes. The scientist indicated that the DNA contained the alteration “known as global private mutation (314.1C), not very common in worldwide population,” and then Louhelainen concluded the DNA was Karen Miller’s, one of Catherine Eddowes’s female descendants. However, there has allegedly been an “error of nomenclature,” specialists say, as the mutation in question should be noted as "315.1C" and not "314.1C." "315.1C" is not a rare mutation, and is shared by 99 per cent of ethnic Europeans. Publishers of the book, Sidgwick & Jackson, responded to the allegations, and said that “the author stands by his conclusions” and they are “investigating the reported error in scientific nomenclature.” “However, this does not change the DNA profiling match and the probability of the match calculated from the rest of the data. The conclusion reached in the book, that Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper, relies on much more than this one figure," they added.”

The experts pointed out the error signifies no DNA link can exist between Kosminski and Eddowes

I don’t see how this can indicate that "no DNA link can exist," even if this test is in error. It would only indicate that this specific link is invalid. Also, this error only pertains to whether or not Eddowes’ DNA was on the shawl, right? It says nothing about Kosminski and whether or not his DNA is on the shawl. Was the same error made with regard to his DNA?

The scientist indicated that the DNA contained the alteration “known as global private mutation (314.1C), not very common in worldwide population,” and then Louhelainen concluded the DNA was Karen Miller’s, one of Catherine Eddowes’s female descendants. However, there has allegedly been an “error of nomenclature,” specialists say, as the mutation in question should be noted as "315.1C" and not "314.1C." "315.1C" is not a rare mutation, and is shared by 99 per cent of ethnic Europeans.

I don’t know anything technical about DNA. How can something that is in 99% of Europeans be classified as a "mutation?"