Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Torso Killings: Torso Murders - by Fisherman 2 hours ago.
Torso Killings: Torso Murders - by Trevor Marriott 2 hours ago.
Torso Killings: Torso Murders - by Fisherman 4 hours ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Hotel Hanbury? - by drstrange169 4 hours ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Hotel Hanbury? - by Pcdunn 5 hours ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Hotel Hanbury? - by drstrange169 6 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Torso Killings: Torso Murders - (39 posts)
Witnesses: Circumstances - (20 posts)
A6 Murders: Valerie Storie's 3 part story as published in 'Today' magazine, June 1962 - (5 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: The Christie Case - (3 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Hotel Hanbury? - (3 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favoured Suspects - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Victims > Catherine Eddowes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-25-2014, 03:10 PM
Chris Chris is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,840
Default A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

In "Naming Jack the Ripper", Russell Edwards quotes Dr Jari Louhelainen's comments about the match between a segment of mitochondrial DNA obtained from the area of a possible blood stain on the "shawl" and the corresponding segment from a female-line descendant of Catherine Eddowes:
"One of these amplified mtDNA segments had a sequence variation which have a match between one of the shawl samples and Karen Millers 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. This figure has been calculated using the database at Institute of Legal Medicine, GMI, based on the latest available information."

Just over a week ago, Tracy I'anson posted an excerpt from a paper describing software designed to identify missing persons, which discusses the conventions for describing variations in the mitochondrial DNA sequence:
"An insert, such as the common extra C after base position 315 is listed as 315.1 C. For matching purposes, the program tolerates errors in nomenclature for equivalent variants such as the extra C in the poly-cytosine region being reported as 314.1 C."
http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...postcount=2968

The paper she quoted can be found here:
http://www.genecodesforensics.com/ne...0revised. pdf

The authors refer to 314.1C as an "error in nomenclature". This is because 314.1C indicates that the measured sequence differs from the standard reference sequence for mitochondrial DNA by the insertion of one additional C (cytosine) after position 314 in the sequence. But the reference sequence actually has a string of five Cs in a row around here, in positions 311 to 315. The additional C could be inserted at any point in this string, and the resulting sequence - which is all that can be measured - would be exactly the same. The convention in forensic genetics is to describe the insertion as having occurred after the last possible position - that is, in this case, after position 315. So the conventional description for this mutation is 315.1C, not 314.1C.

The problem is that 315.1C is not a rare mutation, as the authors quoted by Tracy indicate. In fact the presence of an extra C in this position is much more common than its absence, because this is a case in which the reference sequence itself contains an uncommon mutation. The database referred to in the book can be found at http://empop.org/ and it indicates that 315.1C is present in 99.2% of the sequences which have information for this position.

It appears that something has gone badly wrong with the analysis here, and obviously the quoted figure of 1 in 290,000 can't be accepted without further explanation.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-25-2014, 11:30 PM
Debra A Debra A is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorkshire England
Posts: 2,514
Default

Thanks for the summary, Chris.
Excellent find, Tracy.
This needs explanation before anything else, for sure.
__________________
,,`,, Debs ,,`,,
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-25-2014, 11:42 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 5,962
Default

Thanks for that Chris.

I admit I'm still absorbing it, but it looks like another nail in the coffin for Mr Edwards' hypothesis if I am understanding it right.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-26-2014, 12:45 AM
Chris Chris is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,840
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debra A View Post
Thanks for the summary, Chris.
Excellent find, Tracy.
This needs explanation before anything else, for sure.
Thanks, Debs. Perhaps it would help if I posted the four-line summary of that.

(1) This is the reference sequence for mitochondrial DNA starting at position 310:
TCCCCCG

(2) This is what 314.1C means (claimed frequency 1 in 290,000):
TCCCCCCG

(3) This is what 315.1C means (frequency in database 99.2%):
TCCCCCCG

The problem is that (2) and (3) are identical.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-26-2014, 12:51 AM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 5,962
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
Thanks, Debs. Perhaps it would help if I posted the four-line summary of that.

(1) This is the reference sequence for mitochondrial DNA starting at position 310:
TCCCCCG

(2) This is what 314.1C means (claimed frequency 1 in 290,000):
TCCCCCCG

(3) This is what 315.1C means (frequency in database 99.2%):
TCCCCCCG

The problem is that (2) and (3) are identical.
Thanks Chris that's what I thought it all meant, so more to question the conclusion over.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-26-2014, 12:58 AM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Romford
Posts: 1,024
Default

And Jari is unaware of this?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-26-2014, 01:08 AM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 5,962
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBarnett View Post
And Jari is unaware of this?
I doubt it, but hasn't already expressed reservations that Mr Edwards took it further than he was prepared to go.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-26-2014, 01:12 AM
Mr Lucky Mr Lucky is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 606
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
Thanks, Debs. Perhaps it would help if I posted the four-line summary of that.

(1) This is the reference sequence for mitochondrial DNA starting at position 310:
TCCCCCG

(2) This is what 314.1C means (claimed frequency 1 in 290,000):
TCCCCCCG

(3) This is what 315.1C means (frequency in database 99.2%):
TCCCCCCG

The problem is that (2) and (3) are identical.
Hi Chris,

I think it may just be that the software that Tracy found can not accurately distinguish between the two, this doesn't mean that they are the exact same thing, 314.1c is in 'Poly-cytosine region' where as 315.1c is 'after the base position' - they sound like different mutations to me

I would suggest
310 TCCCCCG
314.1c TCCCCCCG
315.1c TCCCCCG-C

just my opinion
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-26-2014, 01:12 AM
Chris Chris is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,840
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBarnett View Post
And Jari is unaware of this?
I understand he has been made aware of it.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-26-2014, 01:17 AM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Romford
Posts: 1,024
Default

G'day Gut ,

It was while ago now that I listened to Jari's radio interview. But from memory while he seemed reluctant to endorse RE's 100%, case closed conclusions, he did seem to be saying that there was a 'match' with Eddowes descendent. If what he neglected to tell us is the vast majority of the population would also be a match, that surely borders on dishonesty.

MrB
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.