Post by jackydee on Aug 29, 2020 10:06:53 GMT
But let's go back for a minute to the 2019 DNA paper again, the original topic of this thread.
Forensic Investigation of a Shawl Linked to the “Jack the Ripper” Murders
Jari Louhelainen, Ph.D.; and David Miller, Ph.D.
J Forensic Sci, 2019 doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.14038
ABSTRACT: A set of historic murders, known as the “Jack the Ripper murders,” started in London in August 1888. The killer’s identity has remained a mystery to date. Here, we describe the investigation of, to our knowledge, the only remaining physical evidence linked to these murders, recovered from one of the victims at the scene of the crime. We applied novel, minimally destructive techniques for sample recovery from forensically relevant stains on the evidence and separated single cells linked to the suspect, followed by phenotypic analysis. The mtDNA profiles of both the victim and the suspect matched the corresponding reference samples, fortifying the link of the evidence to the crime scene. Genomic DNA from single cells recovered from the evidence was amplified, and the phenotypic information acquired matched the only witness statement regarded as reliable. To our knowledge, this is the most advanced study to date regarding this case.
Jari Louhelainen, Ph.D.; and David Miller, Ph.D.
J Forensic Sci, 2019 doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.14038
ABSTRACT: A set of historic murders, known as the “Jack the Ripper murders,” started in London in August 1888. The killer’s identity has remained a mystery to date. Here, we describe the investigation of, to our knowledge, the only remaining physical evidence linked to these murders, recovered from one of the victims at the scene of the crime. We applied novel, minimally destructive techniques for sample recovery from forensically relevant stains on the evidence and separated single cells linked to the suspect, followed by phenotypic analysis. The mtDNA profiles of both the victim and the suspect matched the corresponding reference samples, fortifying the link of the evidence to the crime scene. Genomic DNA from single cells recovered from the evidence was amplified, and the phenotypic information acquired matched the only witness statement regarded as reliable. To our knowledge, this is the most advanced study to date regarding this case.
So the researchers identified a (possible) blood stain on the fabric that could possibly be from Eddowes and a (possible) semen stain that could possibly come from the Ripper.
Maybe, maybe, maybe. Possibly, possibly, possibly. Bear with me please.
From each stain the researchers extracted mtDNA, the type of genetic material that is passed down exclusively through the maternal line. Then they compared both to mtDNA obtained from present-day people. This is what they found.
- The presumed Eddowes sample was consistent to that of her living relative, a woman of the same maternal line.
- The presumed Ripper sample was consistent to that of a living relative to Aaron Kosminski, a woman of the same maternal line as Kosminski's mother.
Think about that for a minute. Pretty amazing if true. Physical evidence for Kosminsky as the killer. Now consider the weaker criticisms aimed at the study. What if the shawl never belonged to Eddowes? What if she't wasn't wearing the shawl when attacked? What if those stains weren't left by the presumed donors? What if the stains weren't even caused by biological material? What if the shawl is contaminated by all sorts of DNA left from unknown handlers? The same answer applies to all: Then the results would never have come back positive!
Or very unlikely that they would. But they did indeed come back positive.That's why the study is interesting.
Stronger criticism: This DNA evidence would never be admitted into a court of law. Well, okay. A lot of scientific evidence on all kinds of topics will never hold up to that standard. But consider what the assertion is really getting at -- doubting the integrity of the results. For example, establishing a proper chain of evidence custody is all about preventing deceit. If the critics think the results of Louhelainen & Miller are too good to be true, that's exactly what they should say. At least they should raise the specter of a hoax in a more direct fashion. Instead they prattle on about possible sources of random error which actually works in favor of the results, not against them.
The thing is there is a very detailed itemized list of Eddowes' clothing and personal belongings when she was brought in for autopsy; everything from what she was wearing to things like matches, pawn tickets and sewing items(she seemed to be a walking hoarder). What was not mentioned was a shawl. Now, the reason a shawl is not mentioned could be because it was 'stolen' by a policeman, but imo the opportunity for a policeman to steal it would have been very tight.
To me everything just seems very fishy about this. The story goes the policeman brought the shawl home for his wife. I would think a shawl smeared with blood and maybe faeces would be a very unlikely gift even for a relatively poor bobby to bring home to his wife. We are also led to believe the shawl remained unwashed. Just knowing those two things alone immediately gets my suspicions up.
