Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Theagenes]

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.

Yes, but later he also says they recovered genomic (i.e. nuclear) DNA as well, so they have both from the semen. And the match with the AK relative was a mtDNA match (as it would have to be since the relative is a descendant of Matilda who is female).

And sounds like almost nothing was done with the nDNA except to identfiy hair and eye color. You could hear the frustration in Louhelainen's voice as so much more could be done.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

As I said inconclusive it has not been positively matched to Aaron Kosminski its a tenuos link only

I would be more intrigued to see the results of the original forensic test conducted on the material and those results.

I wouldnt waste my time with the shawl

[Gene Lewis]

And sounds like almost nothing was done with the nDNA except to identfiy hair and eye color.

"Identify" sounds like jumping the gun, he exactly said:

AR: And what were those hair colour and eye colours?"
JL: I think from the top of my head brown and brown."

Am I right ?

[curious4]

Provenance

And all of this is irrelevant if it cannot be proved conclusively that the shawl was ever at the murder site or indeed anywhere near Kate or her killer.

Best wishes
C4

[Gene Lewis]

You are absolutely right. The shawl appears nowhere on historic inventories or press stories. And if it was crafted Circa 1902-1904, Ite Missa est…

[Prosector]

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!



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)

Edwards states in the book that they identified the haplotype as T1a1 and that this is common amongst Ashkenazi Jews from Russia and Poland. This is the exact opposite of what the actual case is. See 'Sephardic signature in haplotype T mitochondrial DNA. Felice Bedford. European Journal of Human Genetics (2012) 20, 441-448.' This is a survey of all the known databases and includes Ashkenazi Jews as well.

The T haplotype is uncommon amongst Jews as a whole, accounting for 14% of Sephardic Jews in one study and lower in others. It is much rarer amongst Ashkenazis with a prevalence of 0 - 0.88% for the T1 haplotype (let alone T1a1). It is also rare in Poland generally.

This doesn't prove or disprove anything except that the author clearly does not check his facts very well before committing them to paper.

Prosector

[Theagenes]

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

Fair enough, but again this is coming from Edwards, not directly from Louhelainen, and of course the identification of the epithelial cell as being one associated with semen was presumably made by his spermatological expert David Miller. This guy apparently:

http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/profile/500/178/david_miller

So again I guess we'll have to wait until this is published properly to weigh in on it. And I assume Dr. Miller will be one of the co-authors.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, but later he also says they recovered genomic (i.e. nuclear) DNA as well, so they have both from the semen. And the match with the AK relative was a mtDNA match (as it would have to be since the relative is a descendant of Matilda who is female).

And sounds like almost nothing was done with the nDNA except to identfiy hair and eye color. You could hear the frustration in Louhelainen's voice as so much more could be done.

From what it seems the shawl was forensically examined previous and nothing was found. Now if that test was done correctly and professionally I find that hard to believe having regard to the new revelations that nothing was found

The below article sets out how a forensic expert searches for semen stains. If an expert is worth his weigh would examine the shawl for all possible stains.

Visual and Alternate Light Tests:

If the area to be examined and analyzed for semen is larger than an individual swab, forensic scientists resort to visual identification first. Clothing, undergarments, and bedding can be quickly surveyed for potential semen stains using the naked eye. Dried semen stains are often off-white to faint yellow in color. Semen can also be visualized using blue light, ultraviolet light (also known as Wood’s Lamp), or a modern light source such as Crime Scope that is properly configured with optimum wavelength filters. Under those specialized lights, semen will fluorescence due to the presence of molecules such as Flavin and Choline-conjugated proteins. The color of this fluorescence will vary from blue to yellow, depending on the light equipment used. There are many molecules (natural and artificial) that will fluoresce in a similar way as semen, and therefore, this detection technique is highly presumptive. Furthermore, not all semen stains will fluoresce under such specialized lights. Exposure of the sample to factors such as heat, humidity, oxidizing agents, and microorganisms such as bacteria and mold can affect this fluorescent activity. Semen fluorescence can also be masked by certain types of fabrics and fabric treatments. Hilton J. Kobux, D.Phil., Edmund Silenieks, and Jordana Scharnberg, B.Sc., Improving the Effectiveness of Fluorescence for the Detection of Semen Stains on Fabrics, 47 Journal of Forensic Sciences 4 (2002);

[Theagenes]

Edwards states in the book that they identified the haplotype as T1a1 and that this is common amongst Ashkenazi Jews from Russia and Poland. This is the exact opposite of what the actual case is. See 'Sephardic signature in haplotype T mitochondrial DNA. Felice Bedford. European Journal of Human Genetics (2012) 20, 441-448.' This is a survey of all the known databases and includes Ashkenazi Jews as well.

The T haplotype is uncommon amongst Jews as a whole, accounting for 14% of Sephardic Jews in one study and lower in others. It is much rarer amongst Ashkenazis with a prevalence of 0 - 0.88% for the T1 haplotype (let alone T1a1). It is also rare in Poland generally.

This doesn't prove or disprove anything except that the author clearly does not check his facts very well before committing them to paper.

Prosector

That last part seems pretty evident unfortunately.

It appears that while mtDNA T1a1 is rare for Ashkenazi Jews, Y-DNA haplogroup T1a1 is apparently common among Ashkenazi (at least according to some of the DNA forums I've looking at; still trying to find a real source to confirm that). Since they seem to have recovered both mtDNA and potentially Y-DNA from the epithelial cell, it seems likely that Louhelainen was talking about the latter and Edwards didn't understand the distinction.

[Theagenes]

From what it seems the shawl was forensically examined previous and nothing was found. Now if that test was done correctly and professionally I find that hard to believe having regard to the new revelations that nothing was found

The below article sets out how a forensic expert searches for semen stains. If an expert is worth his weigh would examine the shawl for all possible stains.

Visual and Alternate Light Tests:

If the area to be examined and analyzed for semen is larger than an individual swab, forensic scientists resort to visual identification first. Clothing, undergarments, and bedding can be quickly surveyed for potential semen stains using the naked eye. Dried semen stains are often off-white to faint yellow in color. Semen can also be visualized using blue light, ultraviolet light (also known as Wood’s Lamp), or a modern light source such as Crime Scope that is properly configured with optimum wavelength filters. Under those specialized lights, semen will fluorescence due to the presence of molecules such as Flavin and Choline-conjugated proteins. The color of this fluorescence will vary from blue to yellow, depending on the light equipment used. There are many molecules (natural and artificial) that will fluoresce in a similar way as semen, and therefore, this detection technique is highly presumptive. Furthermore, not all semen stains will fluoresce under such specialized lights. Exposure of the sample to factors such as heat, humidity, oxidizing agents, and microorganisms such as bacteria and mold can affect this fluorescent activity. Semen fluorescence can also be masked by certain types of fabrics and fabric treatments. Hilton J. Kobux, D.Phil., Edmund Silenieks, and Jordana Scharnberg, B.Sc., Improving the Effectiveness of Fluorescence for the Detection of Semen Stains on Fabrics, 47 Journal of Forensic Sciences 4 (2002);

Yes this is how the puported semen stain was located -- with a UV light. This what was done! Arrgh!

For god's sake man, either read the book or listen to the Louhelainen interview please. There are plenty of real issues and problems with this that we can be discussing without you bringing up irrelevant ones, because you haven't even bothered to do any more than read the crappy Daily Mail piece.

[PaulB]

From what it seems the shawl was forensically examined previous and nothing was found. Now if that test was done correctly and professionally I find that hard to believe having regard to the new revelations that nothing was found

The below article sets out how a forensic expert searches for semen stains. If an expert is worth his weigh would examine the shawl for all possible stains.

Visual and Alternate Light Tests:

If the area to be examined and analyzed for semen is larger than an individual swab, forensic scientists resort to visual identification first. Clothing, undergarments, and bedding can be quickly surveyed for potential semen stains using the naked eye. Dried semen stains are often off-white to faint yellow in color. Semen can also be visualized using blue light, ultraviolet light (also known as Wood’s Lamp), or a modern light source such as Crime Scope that is properly configured with optimum wavelength filters. Under those specialized lights, semen will fluorescence due to the presence of molecules such as Flavin and Choline-conjugated proteins. The color of this fluorescence will vary from blue to yellow, depending on the light equipment used. There are many molecules (natural and artificial) that will fluoresce in a similar way as semen, and therefore, this detection technique is highly presumptive. Furthermore, not all semen stains will fluoresce under such specialized lights. Exposure of the sample to factors such as heat, humidity, oxidizing agents, and microorganisms such as bacteria and mold can affect this fluorescent activity. Semen fluorescence can also be masked by certain types of fabrics and fabric treatments. Hilton J. Kobux, D.Phil., Edmund Silenieks, and Jordana Scharnberg, B.Sc., Improving the Effectiveness of Fluorescence for the Detection of Semen Stains on Fabrics, 47 Journal of Forensic Sciences 4 (2002);

The shawl was examined under various light sources. Try reading the book.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes this is how the puported semen stain was located -- with a UV light. This what was done! Arrgh!

For god's sake man, either read the book or listen to the Louhelainen interview please. There are plenty of real issues and problems with this that we can be discussing without you bringing up irrelevant ones, because you haven't even bothered to do any more than read the crappy Daily Mail piece.

I was referring to the previous forensic test if this test was done then how come the semen wasn't located then?

maybe you should slow down !

[PaulB]

And all of this is irrelevant if it cannot be proved conclusively that the shawl was ever at the murder site or indeed anywhere near Kate or her killer.

Best wishes
C4

But if the DNA evidence is solid (or as solid as it can be under the dircumstances) then it was somewhere near Eddowes and her killer. And if the blood staining is blood spatter then it was probably somewhere near Eddowes when she was murdered. You can't dismiss that simply because you are unable to place the shawl at the murder scene!

[PaulB]

I was referring to the previous forensic test if this test was done then how come the semen wasn't located then?

maybe you should slow down !

The deficiencies of the previous test are described in the book. Try reading it.

[Trevor Marriott]

The deficiencies of the previous test are described in the book. Try reading it.

Described by Edwards ? Hmmmmmmm

Well answer the question or is it the case that the answer turns out to be another aspect which puts a damper on the new revelations.

Because if the first examination was done correctly then the semen now found wasn't there at that time.