A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Chris]

The same article seems to blame the publishers for dumbing it down. The translation is so poor that it's not all clear, though.

Interesting. He seems to be trying to blame the publishers for the fact that full details of the evidence weren't provided in the book.

Yet when he has been asked privately for more evidence he has refused, pleading concerns about privacy.

[mickreed]

Interesting. He seems to be trying to blame the publishers for the fact that full details of the evidence weren't provided in the book.

Yet when he has been asked privately for more evidence he has refused, pleading concerns about privacy.

Yes, Chris. I'm starting to have doubts about motivations.

[RockySullivan]

JL may be talking to the Finnish Press.

Part of a report on the Independent story, courtesy Google Translate:

Now Louhelainen is, however, already tired of the media blitz and the whole Jack the Ripper
….
Louhelainen said on Tuesday to Helsingin Sanomat.

"In fact, I'm trying to get back to a normal life, but it seems that 126 years ago the murders are more interested than ebola and submarines, which I really do not understand."

http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/a1413855388284

already tired? But jari will have to spend hours with Johnny Depp so the actor can get down his mannerisms. Maybe Johnny depp can do a one man show where he plays jari, RE, eddowes & Koz. After all it was Johnny depp that attracted RE to the ripper case in the first place

[Monty]

JL may be talking to the Finnish Press.

Part of a report on the Independent story, courtesy Google Translate:

Now Louhelainen is, however, already tired of the media blitz and the whole Jack the Ripper
….
Louhelainen said on Tuesday to Helsingin Sanomat.

"In fact, I'm trying to get back to a normal life, but it seems that 126 years ago the murders are more interested than ebola and submarines, which I really do not understand."

http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/a1413855388284

So why is he and Russ running around Media city giving interviews, and heading to Sailsbury to be fawned over by some Ripperologists?

Hypocrite.

Monty

[mickreed]

So why is he and Russ running around Media city giving interviews, and heading to Sailsbury to be fawned over by some Ripperologists?

Hypocrite.

Monty

He 'doth protest too much, methinks'

Will anyone be fawning now?

[robhouse]

So now Jari seems to be saying that his publisher pressured RE to simplify the scientific parts of the book, and that the DNA match rests on more than just the one supposed 314.1 C mutation? Am I reading this right?

RH

[Monty]

Depends on if the right questions are permitted, or if he breezes in, delivers his talk, and breezes swiftly out again.

The matter is now weeks old, and still there is silence. Surely if the latest news is incorrect, he would jump at the chance to removed the doubt.

Monty

[mickreed]

So now Jari seems to be saying that his publisher pressured RE to simplify the scientific parts of the book, and that the DNA match rests on more than just the one supposed 314.1 C mutation? Am I reading this right?

RH

Yes Rob, I think that's what he's saying, but we need a real human translation of the Finnish to be sure.

If we are reading it right, then he's saying that he has additional information that hasn’t gone anywhere near the book even in a dumbed down form, and had it not been for the useless publisher he would have done it all right.

To which I can only think of a good old English response. Bollocks!

If that's so JL, why don't you put it out now?

[mickreed]

So now Jari seems to be saying that his publisher pressured RE to simplify the scientific parts of the book, and that the DNA match rests on more than just the one supposed 314.1 C mutation? Am I reading this right?

RH

Moreover Rob, You'd imagine that, in a dumbing-down situation, you'd bring your best shots to bear. Namely 314.1C.

I mean, would you put your weakest bits out and hang on to the real goodies. Nah!

I'm really starting to have my doubts about this bloke. I was really keen on giving him the benefit of the doubt before.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Yes Rob, I think that's what he's saying, but we need a real human translation of the Finnish to be sure.

If we are reading it right, then he's saying that he has additional information that hasn’t gone anywhere near the book even in a dumbed down form, and had it not been for the useless publisher he would have done it all right.

Actually, Mick, he seems to me to be doing two things in these interviews:

1. Ignoring the specific issues that have been raised (the 1/290,000 incidence and 314.1c/315.1c)

2. Blaming the publisher for not allowing more data to be published.

JL's way of dealing with 1. above seems to be that he is looking into it. From the two interviews:

"We are investigating this alleged error in the scientific terminology and used in a computer program."

and

We will look into the allegations, however, these possible errors.

How long will these investigations take?

The difference in tense in the two quotes above maybe the fault of the translator?

cheers, gryff

[Chris]

Fortunately, Russell Edwards printed a "summary of his findings" written by Dr Louhelainen about the "Eddowes" match. So we can see in his own words exactly what he considered that the match was based on.

One of these amplified mtDNA segments had a sequence variation which gave a match between one of the shawl samples and Karen Miller’s DNA only; i.e. the DNA sequence retrieved from the shawl did not match with control reference sequences. This DNA alteration is known as global private mutation (314.1C) and it is not very common in worldwide population , as it has frequency estimate of 0.000003506, i.e. approximately 1/ 290,000. ... Thus, this result indicates that the shawl contains human DNA identical to Karen Miller’s for this mitochondrial DNA segment.
According to the history of this shawl, a maximum of six persons have handled it in the past twelve months. ... Based on the DNA work above , we know that at least two [sic] of these persons do not have this specific mutation (314.1C). Hence the analysis above strongly suggests that the shawl could contain the DNA of the Jack the Ripper victim Catherine Eddowes.
[my emphasis]

The only feature of the DNA profile mentioned is the sequence variation described as 314.1C. No reference to any other sequence variations, or any probability calculated from them, or any haplotype. The term "sequence variation" refers to a single difference from the reference sequence, as an alternative to "mutation" or "polymorphism":

http://www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/docs/mut_nom.html

So Dr Louhelainen had better not claim his work has been misrepresented by the publishers, the author, the readers or the Independent.

[Chris]

How long will these investigations take?

How long indeed?

Even allowing for the fact that he ignored this problem when it was first pointed out to him a month ago, it was obviously put to him by Steve Connor of the Independent before publication - that is, at least three days ago.

Based on the quotation posted here by Tracy, it took me - as someone with no knowledge of the subject to speak of - a few hours to work out what was going on. He's been given not only that quotation, but very clear explanations of exactly what the problem is. If he still doesn't realise he has made a mistake, there is something terribly wrong.

[alkuluku]

More from Finland via Google Translate

- We stand by the conclusions presented in the book corner, Louhelainen says.

- We find, however, these allegations of possible errors. Nothing, however, change the fact that the DNA samples are compatible and their probability value is very high. The proof, for example, possession of the haplotyyppidata.

http://www.iltasanomat.fi/ulkomaat/art-1288753235986.html

The same article seems to blame the publishers for dumbing it down. The translation is so poor that it's not all clear, though.

Those are the main points of the article.

Louhelainen wanted more scientific data in the book, but the publisher thought it would've made the book too difficult to read.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

How long indeed?

Even allowing for the fact that he ignored this problem when it was first pointed out to him a month ago, it was obviously put to him by Steve Connor of the Independent before publication - that is, at least three days ago.

Based on the quotation posted here by Tracy, it took me - as someone with no knowledge of the subject to speak of - a few hours to work out what was going on. He's been given not only that quotation, but very clear explanations of exactly what the problem is. If he still doesn't realise he has made a mistake, there is something terribly wrong.

Chris, I find the whole situation puzzling. If he believes that the critics are incorrect, why does he not show why they are incorrect and essential knock down all these perceived uninformed individuals.

No, instead we get vague "we are investigating" and we have "more scientific data".

So why the procrastination? What is the motive for delaying a response to the critics? Hoping it might go away and be forgotten about? Some constraints on what he is allowed to say?

To me the "we are investigating" statement seems to acknowledge there may be a problem without actually saying so.

The whole business makes me uneasy. If you go back and listen to the interview RE and Dr. JL gave on the BBC Today show - Dr. JL starts talking about the possibility of mistakes but is cut off by RE pretty quickly with "but not in this case".

cheers, gryff

[Chris]

Someone kindly sent me this exchange from Facebook:

Geoff Cross
Jari, the Independent seem to have their knives out for you, what is happening?

Jari Louhelainen
There is a rumour that one person linked to Ripper industry is behind it. It is the only paper which has been negative from the start. Also, The Independent has sued the publisher regarding something else so they clearly have an agenda.

The "Ripper industry", I suppose, refers to people who make money from the public interest in Jack the Ripper, through the publication of books, the running of tours, the selling of souvenirs, the making of films and so on.