Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Chris]

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.

Unfortunately I don't think we do know that. The match is based on a single short segment of mtDNA, so I don't think the haplotype has been directly determined from the shawl. But the book says that a very rare mutation is present in the matching segment, so the likelihood of a chance match is only 1 in 290,000 (based on the worldwide prevalence of that mutation, anyway).

The description of the "Kozminski" match is less clear. But the T1a1 haplotype seems to have been determined by comparing sequence(s) from the shawl with a database - not directly from the shawl. There was only one match, and that was T1a1.

[Moriarty2000]

Well Kosminksi was well know to "self abuse." Perhaps people were used to seeing him do that, lol

Perhaps not covered in blood and guts though.

[Theagenes]

Unfortunately I don't th nk we do know that. The match is based on a single short segment of mtDNA, so I don't think the haplotype has been directly determined from the shawl. But the book says that a very rare mutation is present in the matching segment, so the likelihood of a chance match is only 1 in 290,000 (based on the worldwide prevalence of that mutation, anyway).

But haplogroups and subclades within them are categorized based on those mutations like that so they must share a rare haplotype or subclade even if the book doesn't name it. Arrgh! this is why we need Louhelainen to publish a proper paper!

The description of the "Kozminski" match is less clear. But the T1a1 haplotype seems to have been determined by comparing sequence(s) from the shawl with a database - not directly from the shawl. There was only one match, and that was T1a1.

And the question is, is that a match with mtDNA T1a1 or Y-DNA T1a1? Since it seems that in case of the semen they may have both (based on the Louhelainen interview)

[Colin Roberts]

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.

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

- Total Population: 29,002,525

… which equates to an expectation of approximately 100 total matches.

In the whole of England & Wales, Mr. Marriott!

[ajcol]

Mei Trow & that Thomas/Robert mortuary pauper guy!

I don't however recall any DNA or modern forensics being involved and his theory largely debunked but someone I often quote as Mei Trow is a knowledgeable chap on the subject.

You're quite correct, Jeff - no DNA or modern forensics involved, but some 'location profiling' if memory serves - you know, the perpetrator lives/works in the centre of a circle defined by his/her crime locations etc.
It was an interesting programme, I thought and his presentation manner very down-to-earth.

HarryD & Wickerman - I stand corrected, and bow to your respective superior knowledge ....... have I gone and done the unthinkable by inadvertently starting an argument in here????

[Theagenes]

Since I imagine few people will read my massive stream of consciousness post above I want to repeat an important point that made at the end and that I don't want to get lost.

According to Louhelainen they recovered genomic or nDNA from the semen stain which means they should have Y chromosome DNA information. For genealogical purposes Y-DNA works much like mtDNA except that it is passed down from the father rather than the mother.

From all accounts the AK relative that "matched" the DNA of the semen was a descendant of Matilda, which means it had to be an mtDNA match, because being female she couldn't pass on Y-DNA. So they presumably have both Y-DNA and mtDNA from the semen.

This means that if a patrilineal descendant of Woolf or Isaac (who could pass on the Y-DNA) could be found and tested that could be a near definitive match possible (or eliminate AK conclusively). And it would only cost a couple hundred bucks.

Wolfie, do any any of the Kosminski relatives you know fit that bill?

[Chris]

But haplogroups and subclades within them are categorized based on those mutations like that so they must share a rare haplotype or subclade even if the book doesn't name it.

I assumed haplotypes normally depended on more than just one SNP. But I'm no expert on this. It's described in the book as a Global Private Mutation, designated 314.1C, if that's any help.

And the question is, is that a match with mtDNA T1a1 or Y-DNA T1a1? Since it seems that in case of the semen they may have both (based on the Louhelainen interview)

The book certainly says it's mitochondrial. But the lead-in before that result is described makes it sound more as though it's going to be "genomic".

[Theagenes]

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

- Total Population: 29,002,525

… which equates to an expectation of approximately 100 total matches.

In the whole of England & Wales, Mr. Marriott!

There you go. And again many of these potential "blood donors" who share this mutation would be matrilineal relatives of Eddowes: her siblings, mother, maternal aunts and uncles, maternal grandmother, cousins from maternal aunts, etc.

[Theagenes]

I assumed haplotypes normally depended on more than just one SNP. But I'm no expert on this. It's described in the book as a Global Private Mutation, designated 314.1C, if that's any help.

Nope beyond my level of expertise as well. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can chime in. For our basic purposes it may not matter if the percentage chance given is accurate. I wish I knew how much faith we could put in that number.

The book certainly says it's mitochondrial. But the lead-in before that result is described makes it sound more as though it's going to be "genomic".

That's why I get the feeling that Edwards may have misunderstood what Louhelainen told him as was conflating the two. Again it seems Edwards reporting of Louhelainen's results may be more misleading than helpful. I hope that Louhelainen will do more to clarify his results.

[Trevor Marriott]

Obviously you are unaware that a more complete DNA profile for AK was obtained. Haven't read the book, listened to the scientist, or paid attention to the multiple people in this thread who have tried to explain that to you.

The multiple people you refer to are the ones who do not understand the difference between the two DNA profiles and how to asses and evaluate them

[Theagenes]

The multiple people you refer to are the ones who do not understand the difference between the two DNA profiles and how to asses and evaluate them

Let me put this in bold so maybe it will get through to you:

According to Dr. Louhelainen, nuclear DNA was recovered from the semen stain!

Not just mtDNA. NUCLEAR DNA.

Seriously, are you just trolling at this point?

[Trevor Marriott]

Let me put this in bold so maybe it will get through to you:

According to Dr. Louhelainen, nuclear DNA was recovered from the semen stain!

Not just mtDNA. NUCLEAR DNA.

Seriously, are you just trolling at this point?

No I am no trolling

and whose primary DNA has been extracted from that ?

[Theagenes]

No I am no trolling

and whose primary DNA has been extracted from that ?

The person whose semen is on the shawl that also has blood that may likely be from one of the victims. If by "primary" you mean nuclear DNA.

From this, amplification can be used to reconstruct a fuller profile; SNPs or variations in the sequence can be be identified which can be compared to those in the DNA of the Kosminski relative and give a much more accurate match than just the mtDNA comparison.

Also, it may be possible to get Y-DNA from from the nDNA which would allow a comparison with the Y-DNA of Kosminski's patrilineal relatives. If you can get a Y-DNA match in addition to the already existing mtDNA match, it's effectively cased-closed as it means the one who jizzed on the shawl was Aaron, Woolf, or Isaac (or maybe a cousin)

But if the semen DNA could be matched with one of the other suspects that would put them at the top of the list instead. If I were a Ripperologist with all my eggs in one suspect's basket and I were very confident that I was right, then I would be overjoyed that we may be very close to having a full DNA profile of the killer. And I would be looking for a way get my suspect's DNA or that of a relative. Do you know where Feigenbaum is buried? Does he have any relatives? Maybe you should be working on that. THis is your chance to potentially prove that your theory is correct.

[Gene Lewis]

Let me add a word in that endless debate, returning to the source, the BBC interview ((from Radio 4 programme Inside Science on 11 Sept 2014
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/inscience). Dr Jari Louhelainen said:
-Dr Louhelainen: "I had the mitochondrial match from the
sperm cells"
-Q : "the identification of her as a descendant from the sample from the
shawl - of Kozminski - was done using mitochondrial DNA."
-Dr Louhelainen: - "Yes, that's it."
[…] We were using mitochondrial DNA, so that's the
resolving power we have. The contamination has been taken care of very carefully.

[Prosector]

Pro, in his BBC interview Dr Jari stated that he thought there was a possibility of finding sperm heads intact, as they were quite robust, but his spermatological colleague found no sperm heads, but epithelial cells that are often attached to sperm heads. Or words to that effect. No direct evidence was given that they were sperm stains - it was spoken of as though there were no doubt on the matter.

I have no idea whether or not that holds water. I'm just reporting what he said.

I have finished the book now and the only evidence that the alleged semen stains were that is that they fluoresced with a greenish glow under UV light. So do lots of things. No spermatozoa were found and, as I have pointed out before, epithelial cells include skin, and cells from the airways, the mouth and nose, the bladder (and that's squamous epithelial cells -if you include all the other epithelial cells in the body you have to also include the gut, the blood vessels etc.). I can see no evidence whatever for masturbation or semen being in any way associated with this piece of cloth. Equally, there's no evidence that it wasn't. There's just no evidence.

As for the identification of a single cell as having come from a kidney, that is in my view impossible. You would need tissue consisting of several cells, possibly several hundred depending on which part of the kidney they were from, to positively identify them as kidney cells.

I also doubt whether any identifiable cells from 126 years ago could have survived on or in a piece of cloth. If there were cells they are much more likely to have been from more recent contamination.

Prosector