Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Colin Roberts]

Mtd is secondary DNA which means that in 1888 400.000 people would have the same MtD profile ...

... you have been asked several times to state your source for the figure of 400,000 you keep bandying around.

... if you made the comparison using the same sequence as Dr Louhelainen, the chance probability of a match to Catherine Eddowes would be only 1 in 290,000.

The fact that he found such a match to the shawl requires explanation. I say again, I don't know what the explanation is. But if we can't offer any plausible explanation, then no one is going to believe us. And quite rightly.

---


The Metropolitan Police District, and the City of London Police District, 1888 (Red Outline); 'Metropolitan London', 1888 (Navy Outline) (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

In Accordance with the Census of England & Wales, 1891:

'Greater London', i.e. the Metropolitan Police District and the City of London Police District (Red Outline)
- Area: 443,421.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 692.85 Square Miles
- Population: 5,633,806
- Population Density: 8,131 Persons per Square Mile

- {The Metropolitan Police District}
--- Area: 442,750.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 691.80 Square Miles
--- Population: 5,596,101
--- Population Density: 8,089 Persons per Square Mile

- {The City of London Police District}
--- Area: 671.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 1.05 Square Miles
--- Population: 37,705
--- Population Density: 35,910 Persons per Square Mile

---

'Metropolitan London'*, i.e. The Administrative County of London (Inclusive of the City of London) (Navy Outline)
- Area: 74,771.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 117.88 Square Miles
- Population: 4,232,118
- Population Density: 35,902 Persons per Square Mile

* As Defined, in 1888, by the Boundaries of Jurisdiction, of the Metropolitan Board of Works

Again:

Greater London, 1891: 5,633,806

Metropolitan London, 1891: 4,232,118

So, in accordance with the chance estimation that Chris has cited, …

..., the chance probability of a match to Catherine Eddowes would be only 1 in 290,000.

… we should assume that something on the order of 18 - 20 persons living within the 700-square-mile region that is bounded by red color-shading, in 1888, were possible sources of the supposedly apparent blood stains.

Call it 19!

The figure of 400,000 that keeps popping up isn't worth the latex glove that I trust Mr. Marriott wore during the extraction process.

This is quite possibly a massive development, and it isn't going to simply wither away.

If my doctor told me that I had lung cancer, I would indeed demand second and third opinions. But I wouldn't stomp my feet whilst childishly demanding an explanation in light of the fact that I didn't smoke.

[PaulB]

Hello Colin,
Thanks for that. That's roughly the figure Edwards arrived at - he said about a dozen.

[christoper]

---


The Metropolitan Police District, and the City of London Police District, 1888 (Red Outline); 'Metropolitan London', 1888 (Navy Outline) (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

In Accordance with the Census of England & Wales, 1891:

'Greater London', i.e. the Metropolitan Police District and the City of London Police District (Red Outline)
- Area: 443,421.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 692.85 Square Miles
- Population: 5,633,806
- Population Density: 8,131 Persons per Square Mile

- {The Metropolitan Police District}
--- Area: 442,750.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 691.80 Square Miles
--- Population: 5,596,101
--- Population Density: 8,089 Persons per Square Mile

- {The City of London Police District}
--- Area: 671.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 1.05 Square Miles
--- Population: 37,705
--- Population Density: 35,910 Persons per Square Mile

---

'Metropolitan London'*, i.e. The Administrative County of London (Inclusive of the City of London) (Navy Outline)
- Area: 74,771.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 117.88 Square Miles
- Population: 4,232,118
- Population Density: 35,902 Persons per Square Mile

* As Defined, in 1888, by the Boundaries of Jurisdiction, of the Metropolitan Board of Works

Again:

Greater London, 1891: 5,633,806

Metropolitan London, 1891: 4,232,118

So, in accordance with the chance estimation that Chris has cited, …

… we should assume that something on the order of 18 - 20 persons living within the 700-square-mile region that is bounded by red color-shading, in 1888, were possible sources of the supposedly apparent blood stains.

Call it 19!

The figure of 400,000 that keeps popping up isn't worth the latex glove that I trust Mr. Marriott wore during the extraction process.

This is quite possibly a massive development, and it isn't going to simply wither away.

If my doctor told me that I had lung cancer, I would indeed demand second and third opinions. But I wouldn't stomp my feet whilst childishly demanding an explanation in light of the fact that I didn't smoke.

and that is for the blood match. On AK's side, it sounds as though an even more definitive match could be obtained--given funds to analyze.

[Colin Roberts]

That's roughly the figure Edwards arrived at - he said about a dozen.

Hey Paul,

For Metropolitan London (Blue Boundary), the figure would be 15.

I used the whole of the Metropolitan Police District (Red Boundary) because I read a reference to the possibility that Simpson resided as far afield as Cheshunt, in the northern most reaches of N Division's jurisdiction.

[RavenDarkendale]

Mere assertion. Forgive me if I disagree.



Where on earth did you get that from? I'm not accepting anything, and I'm not proposing Kosminski. I'm only insisting that we allow Mr Edwards the same leeway with unresolved questions that we allow the more established researchers.

I agree. Let the man have his say. It isn't the most ridiculous theory, that would be the Lewis Carroll Anagram Theory. So let the man present his case, right or wrong. BTW I think he's lost in left field, but I'm willing to listen to his claims, it might make interesting reading. I have some books on JtR that a pure pap as to the facts but captivating in their writing. Who knows about this guy?

[RavenDarkendale]

YES, that's what I tried to say this morning;
"Hence author claim that Eddowes dress, as described in this article, is actually in fact the shawl/table runner now in his possession"

So what ? Is the shawl indeed Kate's dress, and came with her in Mitre Square, or was brought there by killer, for further purpose ? I lost my way…

What I meant is : how the author may pretend all at once that the so-called shawl was indeed Kate's dress (or skirt) and so actually been present on the inventory, and THE shawl brought by the killer to announce further crime ? Or did I misunderstood the claims ?

If someone cannot tell a dress from a shawl credibility stretches too far to say they have proof

[RavenDarkendale]

Anyone else, besides Phil, care to weigh in on why this is not a possibility?

RH

Think. You are a cop. The shawl is evidence in a brutal murder and stained with blood, feces, and semen. This is something you want to bring home to your wife, and violate you duty to report all facts concerning the case? I don't think so...

[spyglass]

Hi all,
I now see that Mr Edwards is now a tour guide, Im guessing the tour will end at his shop.
....and I notice his shop doesnt sell bags of JTR grapes....surely he's missed a trick there!

Regards.

[Monty]

---


The Metropolitan Police District, and the City of London Police District, 1888 (Red Outline); 'Metropolitan London', 1888 (Navy Outline) (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

In Accordance with the Census of England & Wales, 1891:

'Greater London', i.e. the Metropolitan Police Districts and the City of London Police District (Red Outline)
- Area: 443,421.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 692.85 Square Miles
- Population: 5,633,806
- Population Density: 8,131 Persons per Square Mile

- {The Metropolitan Police District}
--- Area: 442,750.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 691.80 Square Miles
--- Population: 5,596,101
--- Population Density: 8,089 Persons per Square Mile

- {The City of London Police District}
--- Area: 671.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 1.05 Square Miles
--- Population: 37,705
--- Population Density: 35,910 Persons per Square Mile

---

'Metropolitan London'*, i.e. The Administrative County of London (Inclusive of the City of London) (Navy Outline)
- Area: 74,771.00 Statute Acres, i.e. Approximately 117.88 Square Miles
- Population: 4,232,118
- Population Density: 35,902 Persons per Square Mile

* As Defined, in 1888, by the Boundaries of Jurisdiction, of the Metropolitan Board of Works

Again:

Greater London, 1891: 5,633,806

Metropolitan London, 1891: 4,232,118

So, in accordance with the chance estimation that Chris has cited, …

… we should assume that something on the order of 18 - 20 persons living within the 700-square-mile region that is bounded by red color-shading, in 1888, were possible sources of the supposedly apparent blood stains.

Call it 19!

The figure of 400,000 that keeps popping up isn't worth the latex glove that I trust Mr. Marriott wore during the extraction process.

This is quite possibly a massive development, and it isn't going to simply wither away.

If my doctor told me that I had lung cancer, I would indeed demand second and third opinions. But I wouldn't stomp my feet whilst childishly demanding an explanation in light of the fact that I didn't smoke.

Thanks for this Colin,

It helps with the figures, and comprehension.

Monty

[Chris]

No doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I understand it mitochondrial DNA is normally typed according to the hypervariable regions, which are two segments whose combined length is about 1000 base pairs, compared with about 16,000 for the whole molecule.

The frequency of each type is different, but the prevalence of the commoner ones is on the order of 1% of the population, which would be similar to the figure Trevor Marriott has been repeating.

However, there are techniques for improving the discrimination (i.e. making the frequency of each type smaller) by looking at other parts of the molecule outside the hypervariable regions:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/213502.pdf

In other words, even common types of mitochondrial DNA can be much more specific than that 400,000 figure would imply, if sufficiently advanced techniques are applied.

But I don't think any of that is directly relevant here, because - certainly for the Eddowes match, which is described in more detail - Louhelainen wasn't able to sequence even the whole hypervariable regions, but only short segments of them. The match with Karen Miller is based on one of those short segments. But if the information in the book is accurate, they got lucky, because that segment contained a very rare mutation, which gave that figure of 1 in 290,000 for a chance match.

I can't see any information in the book about the commonness of the sequence that produced the "Kozminski" match.

[Theagenes]

Originally Posted by Theagenes View Post
Yes, clearly, we don't grasp the "DNA thing." Maybe you could explain it to us since you're a real Ripperologist and you seem pretty sure about what it can and can't tell us.



You keep using this term "secondary DNA." Can you please explain what you mean by that? Also, you used the term "MTD" earlier, by which I assume you mean mtDNA. Can you please explain what this is and why it is different from other types of DNA? And can you please identify your source for your contention that the DNA recovered from the shawl could match 400,000 other people? And are you sure that those who match would not have "family ties"? Not even a common female ancestor?



So there is no chance to recover any other types of DNA from the shawl other than this "secondary" DNA you keep referring to? And you're sure that no other types of DNA have already been recovered? And that the DNA that has been recovered isn't enough to get a full profile even with modern amplification techniques and next generation sequencing?

Sorry to ask so many questions, but I know you're an expert and I just want to make sure I'm clear on this "DNA thing" so I can give up on this crazy "science" stuff because it's really hard.

Mtd is secondary DNA which means that in 1888 400.000 people would have the same MtD profile
Nuclear is primary DNA in today's world one in a billion would have an identical match excluding identical twins

Of course not forgetting all the people who have handled it and added their DNA to it over the years thus increasing the percentages way above the 400.000 likely to have the same profile,
.000

So you really don't know the answers to most of these very basic questions, do you? All you can do is repeat the handful of erroneous talking points others in this thread have been repeating. And yet you accuse others here of not understanding this "DNA thing" as you call it. I'm not a DNA expert either, but I do have a little understanding of the basics, so let me help you out a little bit with these questions.

mtDNA is mitochondrial DNA and as the name suggests it's found the mitochondria of certain cells. It is inherited from the mother only and it will generally be identical from generation to generation until there is a mutation. These mutations are used to divide lineages into groups called haplogroups and sublineages called subclades. New subclades are being identified all the time and some are rarer than others.

The source of the 400,000 number that many people keep throwing around appears to be from Patrica Cornwell's book and I suppose that's understandable as that's probably the only exposure many people here have had to DNA fingerprinting -- it was one of my earliest exposures to it too. But that number is a loose estimate that is based specifically on the mtDNA haplotype she got from Sickert's relative and the letters. That number (which was a loose extrapolation to begin with) would not be applicable to other haplotypes as some are more common to others. Also when that was done 15 years ago far fewer haplogroups and subclades had been defined, so if her tests were repeated today those results could be much more accurate, making an even closer match or even eliminating him.

In the case of the mtDNA extracted from the blood on the shawl, we know that it is the same haplotype as Eddowes and that's all we know. Nowhere have I seen the actual haplotype identified so we have no way of knowing how common it is today in the area or more importantly how common it was in London in 1880s. If it's a rare subclade then it could be limited to the matrilineages in Eddows immediate family and its parallel lines -- possibly as few as several dozen individuals. If it's more common it could be many thousands. According to some who have the book Edwards claims it's rare (but that's second hand and meaninglessly vague). The fact is until we know for sure what haplotype it is we just can't say how many individuals could have left that blood on the shawl. What we can say is that Eddowes, the person whose blood it has been claimed to be since the shawl appeared 25 years ago before DNA fingerprinting was available, is one of those individuals. That is, at the very least, enough of a coincidence that it deserves closer scrutiny and not immediate dismissal.

[As a side note, I get the impression that the Cornwell's experience has soured many people here on DNA evidence and that's certainly understandable, but the state of the science 15 years ago and today is just miles apart. And in any case the problem with Cornwell's claims wasn't the science or the DNA results, but the leaps she made from those results to her conclusions -- same as with Edwards today. What the DNA evidence from Cornwell's tests did show is that there is a fairly decent chance that Sickert may have been a weirdo who wrote at least one the hoax letters.]

Getting back to the shawl, if you had bothered to listen to the BBC interview with Dr. Louhelainen that has been linked in this thread repeatedly you would know that the purported semen stains produced genomic or nuclear DNA not just mtDNA (and the testing was done by another scientist who specializes in this area). This is DNA found in the nucleus of the cell and it is unique to the individual (or identical twin) as it contains genetic information from both mother and father recombined in a new pattern. This is what was used to determine the hair and eye color of the semen "donor." Having nDNA means that it is possible to amplify the material they have in order to reconstruct a fuller picture of the whole genome of this individual. Dr. Louhelainen mentioned that he wanted to run SNPs -- these are variations in the individual genes that can serve as markers for comparison.

The bottom line is that there is much more potential to get a positive match with the semen DNA than the blood, and if indeed it was AK that left the semen on the shawl, then yes, exhuming his body to get a sample for comparison would potential lead to a near certain match (or elimination if it wasn't him). So presumably that's why Edwards was trying to get AK exhumed but not Eddowes.

On the "match" between the semen DNA and the relative of AK things are a little murky based on what's been reported and maybe some of you that have the book can clarify this. It's been reported that the semen DNA had a T1A1 haplotype, but it's unclear if that is a mtDNA haplotype or Y-DNA haplotype. Y chromosome DNA comes from nDNA -- it's the father's contribution -- and it is used like mtDNA to trace lineages also grouped into haplotypes. It is inherited from only from the father. The Y-DNA haplotype T1A1 is apparently not uncommon among Ashkenazi Jews, but the mDNA haplotype T1A1 is rarely found in Askenazi Jews (though is common among Russians generally). The comments made by Louhelainen in the press that the semen donor had a haplogroup common to Ashkenazi Jews suggests that he was referring to the Y-DNA haplogroup T1A1. Since we know that he was able to recover nDNA from the semen, from which the Y-DNA comes, then this makes sense.

However, the match with AK's relative must have been a mtDNA match if the relative is a descendant of Matilda, because while Aaron and Matilda and the other siblings all had the same Y-DNA inherited from their father, only Aaron and his brothers could have passed it on. So they must have both nDNA and mtDNA from the semen and the match with AK's relative was a mtDNA haplotype match (and it would be not be T1A1). I get the impression that Edwards may have misunderstood what Louhelainen was telling him and may have conflated the two different haplotypes (Y and mt) in the book and that has led to some confusion.

So based on the limited information that's out there it sounds like what we can say now (absent outright fraud -- contamination by Eddows descendants seems to have been debunked based on Adam Wood's information) is that the blood on the shawl is of the mtDNA haplotype as Catherine Eddowes. Even though potentially hundreds or even thousands of people in London in the 1880s may have shared that haplotype it is still significant given that Eddowes is the one whose blood it has been purported to be. Once we know what haplotype it is we can tighten up that number.

Also, the semen on the shawl apparently is the same mtDNA haplotype as Aaron Kosminski. As with the blood, hundreds or thousands might have shared this haplotype (it was probably not T1A1). With more information we might be able to narrow this down. But again this is a known suspect with a haplotype match with the semen stain so it's significant. When you combine this with the Eddowes haplotype match it becomes even more statistically significant. The Y-DNA haplotype of the semen appears to be one that is typical for Ashkenazi Jews; while this is hugely significant on it's own, it certainly fits what we know of AK.

Now after typing all this and formulating my thoughts while typing I realized that one test that could be done right away -- if they have Y-DNA from the semen -- is to locate a patrilineal descendant of Woolf or Isaac and run a Y-DNA test. It would only cost a couple of hundred bucks. That would tell you whether or not AK has the same Y-DNA haplotype as the semen donor. If the semen has both the same mtDNA and the same Y-DNA as Kosminski then statistically speaking that would be a pretty damn solid match without even having to exhume the body. But it would have to be an unbroken line of male descendants from one of Aaron's brothers.

[Gene Lewis]

previous test -NEGATIVE - by Dr Jari Louhelainen

Too much posts to be sure but have someone already mention this documentary where Dr Jari Louhelainen tries to find DNA on a previous test. "Unconclusive results", apparently because of too many people handling it down the years...

ANdhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04d5nyKBQxw

[tji]

Hi

So I guess this new technique is a bit like blood typing used in crimes in the 80's. It was more about being able to exclude suspects then identifying them?

Tracy

[Colin Roberts]

Thanks for this Colin

My pleasure, Neil.

The frequency of each type is different, but the prevalence of the commoner ones is on the order of 1% of the population, which would be similar to the figure Trevor Marriott has been repeating.

...

In other words, even common types of mitochondrial DNA can be much more specific than that 400,000 figure would imply, if sufficiently advanced techniques are applied.

What Mr. Marriott is clearly doing is confusing the concept of a 1-in-400,000 chance of a single match, with that of 400,000 total matches.

But, why should that surprise us?

[Theagenes]

No doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I understand it mitochondrial DNA is normally typed according to the hypervariable regions, which are two segments whose combined length is about 1000 base pairs, compared with about 16,000 for the whole molecule.

The frequency of each type is different, but the prevalence of the commoner ones is on the order of 1% of the population, which would be similar to the figure Trevor Marriott has been repeating.

However, there are techniques for improving the discrimination (i.e. making the frequency of each type smaller) by looking at other parts of the molecule outside the hypervariable regions:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/213502.pdf

In other words, even common types of mitochondrial DNA can be much more specific than that 400,000 figure would imply, if sufficiently advanced techniques are applied.

But I don't think any of that is directly relevant here, because - certainly for the Eddowes match, which is described in more detail - Louhelainen wasn't able to sequence even the whole hypervariable regions, but only short segments of them. The match with Karen Miller is based on one of those short segments. But if the information in the book is accurate, they got lucky, because that segment contained a very rare mutation, which gave that figure of 1 in 290,000 for a chance match.

I can't see any information in the book about the commonness of the sequence that produced the "Kozminski" match.

Chris, thanks for this. I still don't have the book in hand. The 1 in 290,000 chance is the first time I've seen an actual number on who would share this haplotype with Eddowes. Does he give the actual subclade? Also, before people misconstrue this number it doesn't mean that 290,000 could have have left the blood -- it's the chance of it being someone other than Eddowes. Extrapolating this and assuming a population of 40 million people in England at the time that would make it about only 140 possible candidates in England that could have left that blood on the shawl, one of whom is Eddowes (and many of the others would be her relatives). Assuming that this is accurate (and I want to see it coming from Louhelainen, not Edwards) then that is pretty significant.