A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Chris]

There has been an interesting discussion on jtrforums about the "Eddowes" DNA match. Further revelations are promised about Dr Louhelainen's response to the one person at the Salisbury meeting who asked him about the 314.1C error in the DNA analysis:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=22016

But I do feel that there's a danger of getting away from the central point, what with all the emphasis on who said what to whom, what they might have meant by it, and what responsibility people might or might not have if other people quoted their mistaken work in a book without their knowledge - most of it highly hypothetical.

I think the thing we mustn't lose sight of as Ripperologists is the information we need to know before we can begin to discuss whether there's anything significant about the match with the DNA of Catherine Eddowes's descendant:

(1) If the 314.1C error is corrected, can the other people who handled the shawl still be eliminated as a possible source of the DNA that was matched?

According to the book, this was done on the basis that the control samples from the other people who handled the shawl didn't have 314.1C: "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) ..." [quoted from Dr Louhelainen's summary of the analysis]

But now we know 314.1C is not rare, but a misnomer for 315.1C, which is found in more than 99% of the population, it's almost certain that at least one of the control sequences would have had it. So can they still be eliminated?

(2) Without 314.1C/315.1C (mistakenly thought to be rare) what percentage of the population would agree with the "small segment" that the "Eddowes" match was based on?

It was one of seven segments from the hypervariable regions, and therefore probably contained only 100-200 base positions. The available data suggest that such a short sequence might well have been shared with quite a large percentage of the population.

[Batman]

As a biologist I have would like to point out that scientists punlish their findings in peer-review magazines, not in pop.culture books. If its in pop culture without peer-review then chances are you are reading pseudscience.

[Pcdunn]

The final words in the book 'Aaron Kosminski is Jack the Ripper' remain just HIS opinion. There is NO proof. He has not provided ANY proof. He's simply told us he has proof and he expects us to believe him.

He had a preconceived suspect and a preconceived agenda which instantly negates ANY of his 'proven' claims. A vested interest and proper scientific analysis are not good bed-fellows if you want to get at the truth.

They are, however, exactly what we can expect from a book using pseudoscientific analysis (or, rather, using an established science to produce "support" for a preconceived conclusion)... And that is NOT good science.

[Pcdunn]

I have finally read through all of this thread, and would like to thank everyone who patiently contributed explanations that helped this former English Lit major to understand the science of genetics and the controversy. I believe that the author and publisher rushed to press, and the speed contributed to a mistake in the scientific analysis. Does anyone know if there will be an attempt at a peer review?
Pat D.

[Robert]

Robert Anderson, who was at the recent conference, reported Jari as saying that his new technique required peer review. I don't know if anything else is in the pipeline.

[pinkmoon]

I have finally read through all of this thread, and would like to thank everyone who patiently contributed explanations that helped this former English Lit major to understand the science of genetics and the controversy. I believe that the author and publisher rushed to press, and the speed contributed to a mistake in the scientific analysis. Does anyone know if there will be an attempt at a peer review?
Pat D.

I find it totally wrong to have sold all those books on the back of dodgy d.n.a evidence at its best it's just incompetent to the level of laurel and hardy and the worst fraudulent I would like to see the police look at this and I don't mean pc Amos.

[Pcdunn]

I find it totally wrong to have sold all those books on the back of dodgy d.n.a evidence at its best it's just incompetent to the level of laurel and hardy and the worst fraudulent I would like to see the police look at this and I don't mean pc Amos.

Well, I agree with you. I am on another forum where we discuss a variety of things, and when the link to the story about the shawl and the "DNA" was posted, one person wrote that it was just amazing what science could do. A few others stated that it wouldn't be definite until it was published in a peer-reviewed journal. They were right, of course, but the first person's comment is understandable, thanks to popular television shows about crime-solving. We expect science to do more than it is capable of-- and we expect people to use it correctly. (Which is our first mistake, I suppose...)

[richardh]

I find it totally wrong to have sold all those books on the back of dodgy d.n.a evidence at its best it's just incompetent to the level of laurel and hardy and the worst fraudulent I would like to see the police look at this and I don't mean pc Amos.

I think the most fraudulent part of this saga is when the author claims on his website to have sold 1 MILLION copies which is an outright LIE and only made to convince others that they should buy it. Now that's what should be investigated.

[elleryqueen74]

I find it totally wrong to have sold all those books on the back of dodgy d.n.a evidence at its best it's just incompetent to the level of laurel and hardy and the worst fraudulent I would like to see the police look at this and I don't mean pc Amos.

It is not like this author would of been the first to write a book based on dodgy information now would it?

There is always someone willing to write a book or whatever on any little bit of drivel they can rustle up to try to obtain notoriety and/or money.

[pinkmoon]

It is not like this author would of been the first to write a book based on dodgy information now would it?

There is always someone willing to write a book or whatever on any little bit of drivel they can rustle up to try to obtain notoriety and/or money.

To get it so wrong with the d.n.a side of the "research" means they are totally and utterly incompetent to the same level as laurel and hardy or they just made it up to help sell the book .was this a purely money a making scheme well if we look at the fact that the author opened a jack the ripper shop at about the same time as the book appeared and closed it when it came apparent about the "mistakes" concerning the d.n.a I will let you make your own minds up.

[gnote]

To get it so wrong with the d.n.a side of the "research" means they are totally and utterly incompetent to the same level as laurel and hardy or they just made it up to help sell the book .was this a purely money a making scheme well if we look at the fact that the author opened a jack the ripper shop at about the same time as the book appeared and closed it when it came apparent about the "mistakes" concerning the d.n.a I will let you make your own minds up.

What's really sad about is Kosminski is still a viable suspect. Now i'd almost hate to see the case solved if it were in fact proved to be him.

Imagine if the case was closed in the future with brand new evidence and (proper) testing. A good number of people would say "they already knew the identity of the Ripper" or that Edwards "paved the way". Ugh.

[pinkmoon]

Evening gnote,kosminsk wasn't really a good suspect he only came into the frame because he pulled a knife two years after the last murder as he was a loon and lived in the area during the murders he came to be looked at by the police any thing no matter how remote would look good to the police when they had no real clue to the killers identity.

[gnote]

I guess "good" is a relative term but i'd even consider him a "great" suspect if comparing him to some of the other laughable ones that have been presented.

Obviously it would be nice to know what (if anything) the police had on Kosminski. It may well have been extremely weak and/or filled with some wishful thinking but i have a hard time they believing his name was more or less pulled out of thin air.

[pinkmoon]

The police were meant to have taken the name of 27 people who were in dutfields yard when they arrived on the scene of the Liz stride murder that document if it still exists would make interesting reading.

[gnote]

The police were meant to have taken the name of 27 people who were in dutfields yard when they arrived on the scene of the Liz stride murder that document if it still exists would make interesting reading.

Weren't most of them inside the social club when the actual murder took place though?