A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[RockySullivan]

Ah, yes, the Michaelmas Daisies. Maybe they deserve their own thread too ...

But to forestall a wider discussion, I should say I meant specifically the identification of the sequence variation as 314.1C, and the estimate of its frequency as 1 in 290,000.

Ha ha just teasing chris

What I wonder is if the "error in nomenclature" is a well known mistake among geneticist and if it could be used as a false match in order to buy time.

[PaulB]

I agree there's no shame in making a mistake. But if it's a very elementary mistake, and it's explained to you clearly, and if for good measure experts in your field confirm it's a mistake - then if after all that you don't correct it, there's something very badly wrong.

Yes, there is.

[pinkmoon]

For some one to make such a basic mistake with the maths is just unbelievable.

[Archaic]

Perhaps this whole incident can be a valuable lesson to authors and publishers not to rush scientific research and writing in order to meet some "deadline" for a new book.

It seems wiser to move that deadline back a bit if necessary to produce a higher quality, more accurate, more enduring work.

Best regards,
Archaic

[pinkmoon]

Perhaps this whole incident can be a valuable lesson to authors and publishers not to rush scientific research and writing in order to meet some "deadline" for a new book.

It seems wiser to move that deadline back a bit if necessary to produce a higher quality, more accurate, more enduring work.

Best regards,
Archaic

We are all human and we all make mistakes but for a scientist to get the basic maths totally wrong especially when we have modern things called calculators Its just beyond believe but it dosnt really matter because the book sold well so it's job done from Dr Jan and Mr Edwards point of view.Then again it didn't really matter about the maths because the shawl couldn't have been anywhere near any of the victims or Kosminski in the first place the end result was always going to be wrong if the starting point was wrong in the first place.

[Chris]

Perhaps this whole incident can be a valuable lesson to authors and publishers not to rush scientific research and writing in order to meet some "deadline" for a new book.

It seems wiser to move that deadline back a bit if necessary to produce a higher quality, more accurate, more enduring work.

The trouble is that the "Eddowes" match is the part of the work that wasn't rushed ...

[Archaic]

The trouble is that the "Eddowes" match is the part of the work that wasn't rushed ...

Oi vey.



Archaic

[Colin Roberts]

We are all human and we all make mistakes but for a scientist to get the basic maths totally wrong especially when we have modern things called calculators Its just beyond believe but it dosnt really matter because the book sold well so it's job done from Dr Jan and Mr Edwards point of view.Then again it didn't really matter about the maths because the shawl couldn't have been anywhere near any of the victims or Kosminski in the first place the end result was always going to be wrong if the starting point was wrong in the first place.

And to think that 'Ripperology' isn't regarded as an academic discipline!

[Fisherman]

And to think that 'Ripperology' isn't regarded as an academic discipline!

Absolutely mindboggling!

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

Here's the latest from Dr Louhelainen's Twitter account:
So far seven weeks of interviews, invited talks and photo shoots for magazines etc. Just back from airport now zzz... pic.twitter.com/OR6fRDZDjW

Has anyone seen or heard any interviews with him lately, apart from the ones in the Finnish newspapers?

[RockySullivan]

Here's the latest from Dr Louhelainen's Twitter account:
So far seven weeks of interviews, invited talks and photo shoots for magazines etc. Just back from airport now zzz... pic.twitter.com/OR6fRDZDjW

Has anyone seen or heard any interviews with him lately, apart from the ones in the Finnish newspapers?

Well since Russell Edwards is not only the greatest crime solver of all time, but also a shopkeeper, a fiction writer and a reporter for the daily mail...I wouldn't be surprised if Edwards was the one interviewing jari & himself and also photographing them on all the shoots!

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Here's the latest from Dr Louhelainen's Twitter account:
So far seven weeks of interviews, invited talks and photo shoots for magazines etc. Just back from airport now zzz... pic.twitter.com/OR6fRDZDjW

Has anyone seen or heard any interviews with him lately, apart from the ones in the Finnish newspapers?

Well you know Chris that I have asked a question twice on this thread about the BBC and CNN interviews. I have not found anything. So ...?

Talking of interviews, I was going over the interview that Dr.JL gave to "The Naked Scientists" back in September:

Dr. JL Interview & Transcript

and ran across this:

So, it took some time, but in the end, we managed to extract a DNA sample of these stains. So, in any object or surface, DNA falls apart with age. So, in order to see the big picture, we need to put these bits back together like a jigsaw puzzle. That enables us to read the complete sequence.

It struck me when I read it that they only have bits and pieces so how do they know that:

1. They have all the bits and pieces?

2. All the bits and pieces belong to the same person? Could they have pieces from two "jigsaws"?

cheers, gryff

[Chris]

Talking of interviews, I was going over the interview that Dr.JL gave to "The Naked Scientists" back in September:

Dr. JL Interview & Transcript

and ran across this:

So, it took some time, but in the end, we managed to extract a DNA sample of these stains. So, in any object or surface, DNA falls apart with age. So, in order to see the big picture, we need to put these bits back together like a jigsaw puzzle. That enables us to read the complete sequence.

Coincidentally, I also listened to this again a couple of days ago. I was baffled by the claim that they had read the complete sequence (which relates to the "Eddowes" match), because the book quite specifically says that they tried to compare only seven "small segments" from within the hypervariable regions (which constitute only about 7% of the full mitochondrial genome).

Of those seven segments, for one the sequencing didn't work, two were found "to have apparent contamination from fresh DNA (matching with one of the reference samples)", one matched the descendant's DNA but not the controls, and the other three we're told nothing about.

[That all comes directly from Dr Louhelainen's report to Russell Edwards, as quoted in the book.]

So quite how Dr Louhelainen came to tell the Naked Scientists he had read the complete sequence I can't understand. On the face of it, it looks as though the match may have been based on something like 1% of the complete sequence.

It struck me when I read it that they only have bits and pieces so how do they know that:

1. They have all the bits and pieces?

2. All the bits and pieces belong to the same person? Could they have pieces from two "jigsaws"?

And based on what's said in the book, that question certainly needs to be addressed for the "Kozminski" database match which indicated the T1a1 haplogroup. As I read it (though the description in the book is not very clear), a segment was taken from one epithelial cell and found to match the relation's DNA and NOT to match the controls. And then some additional sequencing was done on a second cell. There is no mention of whether or not that matched the relation's DNA or the controls, or what evidence there was that the two cells came from the same person.

[Archaic]

re: Epithelial Cell

As I read it (though the description in the book is not very clear), a segment was taken from one epithelial cell and found to match the relation's DNA and NOT to match the controls.

A "segment" of a SINGLE epithelial cell was found to match the relation's DNA?

That's quite interesting, as the epithelial cells are commonly collected for DNA testing using the "Buccal swab" or "Mouth lining scraping" method.

A simple cotton swab in the mouth picks up epithelial cells.

This method is popular because it's quick, cheap, easy, minimally invasive, and the sample does not require special preservation techniques or storage conditions... which means it does not have to be stored in a laboratory.

'Why Mouth Lining Scrapings Are Used for DNA Analysis':

http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/100640.aspx

Can anyone provide a statement from JL or RE as to:
a. The type of samples taken from the relatives.
b. Where and how those samples were stored.

(I think I remember reading it, but do not have the statement to hand and would like to reread it.)

Thank you,
Archaic

[mickreed]

It struck me when I read it that they only have bits and pieces so how do they know that:

1. They have all the bits and pieces?

2. All the bits and pieces belong to the same person? Could they have pieces from two "jigsaws"?
)

Hello Gryff,

This reminds of of a post I did a while. Not sure whether it was in this thread or another.

The DNA on the shawl is 'ancient DNA' which is defined not by its age, but by its condition.

Valid ancient DNA work can only be carried out in specially-equipped labs. Needless to say JL's seems not to be one of them.

http://www.isogg.org/wiki/List_of_forensic_and_ancient_DNA_laboratories

I recall from my earlier post that one of the conditions was that only properly-accredited and trained people were allowed in the lab, which would rule out RE, who if we are to believe him and the photos available was all over the place.

I forget the other points, except that the lab had to be pressurised a bit.

Anyway, if the lab does not meet ancient DNA criteria, wouldn't that preclude any peer-reviewed article?