Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[lynn cates]

No es possible.

Hello Stewart.

"Mitochondrial DNA is accurate to only 400,000 of the population so how can any single 'match' be achieved?"

It can't.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

essence

Hello CD.

"If you are seeking a desired result, as is the case here, and you achieve that result, doesn't that indicate that contamination had no significant effect? On the other hand, contamination seems to be a scapegoat. If you don't get the desired result, it could be because of contamination."

But THIS (and similar) seems to be the whole essence of contemporary ripperology.

Cheers.
LC

[Moriarty]

"It can't".

It can if referenced to those odds.

If you think this does not count as significant then I find that odd.

[Fisherman]

About the most we can hope for from this is plenty of fodder to provide several years' worth of arguing here on the boards....

I have the distinct feeling that most of us - nearly all - will agree about the value of this DNA match, and so I don´t foresee much arguing about it. Sorry.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

"The bells, the bells, they deafen me."

Hello Stewart. Well, my alarm is ringing loudly.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

tampering

Hello Eddie.

"can it be proven that it wasn't taken before the report of items listed were created?"

Would the police allow that kind of evidence tampering?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Personally I'd love to see it solved and if he wasn't trying so hard with rubbish like St Micheal's day [getting the date of MJK's death wrong] I would be more receptive.

Hello GUT,

The crying shame that this sensational plug for the book by the Mail, and the Beeb for example, wont stop the innocent ones believing it hook line and sinker. The Diary all over again.

And people wonder why I am a cynic and question everything? It is exactly because of the above.

And whoever is behind it should be ashamed of contributing to it in any way.



Phil

[Fisherman]

Not to mention the fact that the sketch doesn't really resemble the character described by Joseph Lawende at all (and who most likely may have been Eddowes murderer - that is of course a matter of debate but I have always felt the sailor guy to be the most credible decription of the Ripper).
The guy in the sketch look more like Klosowski or the typical newspaper cartoon image of a Jew.

He looks to me rather like the front side of her man that Long never saw in Hanbury Street.

Then again, I am anything but sure that she saw a back side either....

Hello, Glenn, by the way! Where´ve you been these last few years?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hello Eddie.

"can it be proven that it wasn't taken before the report of items listed were created?"

Would the police allow that kind of evidence tampering?

Cheers.
LC

"I say, that´s a real nice piece of silk you´ve got there!"

"It is, isn´t it?"

"Yep. Shame about the blood and gore on it, though."

"Well, it comes with the territory, you know."

"I guess. Say, how about I liberate you from it? My missus is a seamstress, and I bet she´d be very happy to turn it into a midget-size kimono!"

"Well, we really shouldn´t ... but what the hell, go on, take it. But quick before the sarge sees us!"

"Cheers, guys; much obliged!"

"It´s our pleasure, Amos. We owe it to you since you got us Chapman´s muffler!"

Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

He looks to me rather like the front side of her man that Long never saw in Hanbury Street.

Then again, I am anything but sure that she saw a back side either....

Hello, Glenn, by the way! Where´ve you been these last few years?

The best,
Fisherman

Hello to you, my dear Scandinavian.
I've been busy with other things. Just couldn't help getting temporarily engaged because of these new "revelations", of course

All the best.

[lynn cates]

right

Hello Jon.

"The issue therefore is not to ask what is "possible", but what is "likely"."

Right again.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

no info

Hello Moriarty. Thanks.

But THAT tells us almost nothing.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

yes

Hello Christer. Thanks.

Precisely.

Cheers.
LC

[Prosector]

Hello Stewart.

"Mitochondrial DNA is accurate to only 400,000 of the population so how can any single 'match' be achieved?"

It can't.

Cheers.
LC

Dear Lyn, Stewart et al.

I have not yet had an opportunity to read the book by Russell Edwards but as someone who deals in DNA on a daily basis perhaps I can make a few cautious observations.
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is passed down in the female line. Although it is possible to analyse the mtDNA of a male it will have been acquired from his mother. Therefore for any comparison of the putative mtDNA from the Eddowes shawl with present day relatives to be valid they must be related in an unbroken female line to common ancestors of either Kosminski or Eddowes as the case may be. I don’t know if that is the case with either Karen Miller or the anonymous relative of Aron Kosminski but if there is any descent through the male line it would immediately and irrevocably invalidate the comparisons.
The only way to prove with 95% confidence (the normally accepted level of statistical proof) that the samples on the shawl came from either Kosminski or Eddowes would be by a direct comparison with samples known to be from either of them. As far as I know such samples are not available. Even then, as in the Cornwell comparisons, there is only a between 0.1 and 10% chance that matching samples came from the same individual. Given a gap of at least 4 generations to common ancestors of either Eddowes or Kosminski, the chances of being able to say with certainty that the mtDNA is definitely that of either of them is even smaller. The population of London in 1888 was about 5 million and therefore a ‘perfect’ mtDNA match with someone alive at the time would mean that it could have come from anywhere between 5,000 and 500,000 other Londoners.
Then there is the question of the epithelial cells. Edwards asserts that they came from Kosminski’s urethra. The urethra is lined with squamous epithelium but so is the skin, the nose and the mouth. Anyone touching or even breathing on the shawl could, and most probably would, have left such cells behind.
Finally the kidney cell. I have a good deal of experience of histology. I certainly could not identify a single cell as having come from a kidney. I would need a cluster of tens or hundreds of such cells to be able to identify their origin as being the kidney.
I will suspend my final judgement until I have read the whole book but I thought it might be of some interest to make a few preliminary observations.
Prosector

[Phil Carter]

Dear Lyn, Stewart et al.

I have not yet had an opportunity to read the book by Russell Edwards but as someone who deals in DNA on a daily basis perhaps I can make a few cautious observations.
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is passed down in the female line. Although it is possible to analyse the mtDNA of a male it will have been acquired from his mother. Therefore for any comparison of the putative mtDNA from the Eddowes shawl with present day relatives to be valid they must be related in an unbroken female line to common ancestors of either Kosminski or Eddowes as the case may be. I don’t know if that is the case with either Karen Miller or the anonymous relative of Aron Kosminski but if there is any descent through the male line it would immediately and irrevocably invalidate the comparisons.
The only way to prove with 95% confidence (the normally accepted level of statistical proof) that the samples on the shawl came from either Kosminski or Eddowes would be by a direct comparison with samples known to be from either of them. As far as I know such samples are not available. Even then, as in the Cornwell comparisons, there is only a between 0.1 and 10% chance that matching samples came from the same individual. Given a gap of at least 4 generations to common ancestors of either Eddowes or Kosminski, the chances of being able to say with certainty that the mtDNA is definitely that of either of them is even smaller. The population of London in 1888 was about 5 million and therefore a ‘perfect’ mtDNA match with someone alive at the time would mean that it could have come from anywhere between 5,000 and 500,000 other Londoners.
Then there is the question of the epithelial cells. Edwards asserts that they came from Kosminski’s urethra. The urethra is lined with squamous epithelium but so is the skin, the nose and the mouth. Anyone touching or even breathing on the shawl could, and most probably would, have left such cells behind.
Finally the kidney cell. I have a good deal of experience of histology. I certainly could not identify a single cell as having come from a kidney. I would need a cluster of tens or hundreds of such cells to be able to identify their origin as being the kidney.
I will suspend my final judgement until I have read the whole book but I thought it might be of some interest to make a few preliminary observations.
Prosector

Hello Prosector,

Many many many thanks for this.


mtDNA for dummies. Everyone should be able to get the message now, even with these preliminary observations.


kind regards

Phil