Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[lynn cates]

discuss

Hello Wolfie. Thanks. Interesting question.

Try mulling over different scenarios. I'd be happy to discuss. Don't forget ALL of the salient features.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

respondeo quod

Hello John. Thanks.

"I realize I'm probably stepping into dangerous water here. . ."

Not at all. Never any harm in thinking and asking questions.

". . . but I was alluding, not very accurately, to the hypothesis proposed by Paul Begg and others that Kosminski was Anderson's and Swanson's suspect and that he was positively identified, allegedly, by either Schwartz or Lawende as a man seen in the company of either Stride or Eddowes, or someone who looked like or dressed like Eddowes, shortly before they were murdered. I suppose put like that it really doesn't amount to very much!"

Well, Sir MLM's take was that "Kosminski" (no Aaron given) looked like someone a City PC had seen. Stewart Evans--I believe--thinks this may be the "parcel man" spotted by PC Smith near Dutfield's. A simple slip of the pen transforms him from a MET PC to a COL. Interesting, though, that Sir MLM "absolves" "Kosminski."

"I guess I was trying to draw attention to the collective amount of circumstantial evidence, rumour and innuendo linking Kosminski to the murders which I suppose amounts to... not very much really!"

Well, besides the MM alluded to above, there is a nameless "low-class Polish Jew" discussed by Sir Robert. There is also an ill fitting allusion in the "marginalia" to a "Kosminski." In trying to connect these dots, some have seen strong evidence. I have not.

"Thanks for the details concerning Eddowes residence in relation to Kosminski- I think I got my info about them living 200 yard apart from a dodgy website I'll try and avoid in future!"

Well, anyone can commit a faux pas. Do you have Stewart's book? It has practically all one needs.

Cheers.
LC

[mickreed]

Hi,

Yes, i think I got a bit carried away on that post. The information about Kosminski's haplogroup I obtained from this website http://dna-explained.com/2014/09/08/jack-the-ripper/. Unless, I've completely misunderstood the author claims that only 7,200 out of an estimated 6 million Londoners living at the time would have shared this particular haplogroup- I suppose more unusual than rare.

Cheers,

John

Hello John

We discussed that article a week or so ago - or rather aspects of it. That site is usually pretty good but there are always problems with these kinds of predictive approaches.

You're right - 7200 is unusual rather than rare, and it's the case that only about 50% of those would be male, so down to 3600, and quite a few of them would be kids, or very old, so maybe down to - I dunno - 2000??

I use the FTDNA database, that she refers to, a lot. It's extremely good. But is it typical of the world's population overall? I doubt it. It costs money to join. London was a major migrant centre and a seaport. Who knows who would have been there at any given time

This site has a map showing the distribution of T1 (T1a1 is a subset) here:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_T_mtDNA.shtml

The key thing that's said in your article, is that in the databases, 'not one' Jew has T1a1. Anne Turner, one of the leading genetic genealogists in the world says the same thing. The site I just linked to says no Jews have T1. In fact that's not right, but it is very uncommon amongst Jews.

There's also the great furphy amongst family historians, that just because a piece of paper says you're related proves that you are.

The problem is much greater with the male line. No one can be sure that the recorded father is really the father. I call it the milkman effect. Who knows what bloke stopped when hubby was out?

It's usually easier to be a bit confident that the mother is the mother, because it tends to show. But does that work for long-dead people? It was common in the nineteenth century for what you might call, 'informal adoption'. A couple might 'adopt' the child of a neighbour, a relative, or whatever, and record it as their own.

So, there are always problems.

[mickreed]

Hi

So while I am by no mean's questioning Dr Jari's competency (more Edward's way with words) it would be interesting to see if the mutation is present in any other family member.

Tracy

Hi Tracy

Jari's competent I'm sure. But we don't really know what he's saying yet.

[The Good Michael]

The Richard III mtDNA test used two descendants so that they could triangulate the comparisons. I realize the DNA in that case was much older and significantly degraded, but I wonder why they didn't triangulate in this case or even use 4 or 5 descendants. Maybe I can understand why they didn't.

Mike

[Theagenes]

Yes Chris, but it's not that simple. Most of us have 315.1C at that position in the HVR2 region. 314.1C is indeed quite rare globally. I haven't yet been able to confirm the 1 in 290,000 figure, but it may be right.

However, if someone has it and their rellies are all around, it might be quite common in the local area. According to Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation:

Exact Matches: An exact match indicates another participant has the same mtDNA values that you entered. An exact match may mean that you share a common maternal ancestor in genealogical time (the last 500 years).

So Karen Miller's apparent exact match with the shawl DNA mean that the mutation may have occurred any time since the 15th century - and indeed possibly earlier, since these are only ever estimates, and indeed it could have occurred much later.

Let's split the difference and say it occurred around 1700. Then any person who descended from that woman in the direct maternal line would share that mutation. Kate would have had it, her sister(s), her daughter's her sisters daughters, her great-grandmother's daughters and so on.

Since mtDNA does not follow surnames, there could be Smiths, Reeds, Jones, etc all with the same mutation

Someone, I forget his name, did a genealogy on the Ripper victims. If Kate Eddowes was from a long line of Londoners, then there could be loads of people there, with that mutation.

Also, it's not just female relatives that would have it. Some males would have it too, they just couldn't pass it on. So her brothers and sons would have it, etc. But these numbers are consistent with what we were discussing earlier. A couple of dozen people in London -- Kate and some of her extended family. Assuming of course the rarity stated is accurate.

I finally got an ebook copy and have started reading it. I'm in the field this week but I'll try to comment when I can.

[mickreed]

The Richard III mtDNA test used two descendants so that they could triangulate the comparisons. I realize the DNA in that case was much older and significantly degraded, but I wonder why they didn't triangulate in this case or even use 4 or 5 descendants. Maybe I can understand why they didn't.

Mike

Yes Mike,

And the DNA in the R3 case was only really necessary to confirm what all the other evidence suggested:- the burial site, the spinal deformity, the wounds to the bones, the facial reconstruction, all pointed to it being R3 anyway.

Here we have nothing except the DNA. The old adage, belt and braces, seems to have been ignored.

I wonder what the deal is. Will Jari release the data in full, so that checks can be made against other descendants? Or can Edwards block that?

[mickreed]

Also, it's not just female relatives that would have it. Some males would have it too, they just couldn't pass it on. So her brothers and sons would have it, etc. But these numbers are consistent with what we were discussing earlier. A couple of dozen people in London -- Kate and some of her extended family. Assuming of course the rarity stated is accurate.

I finally got an ebook copy and have started reading it. I'm in the field this week but I'll try to comment when I can.

Yes Theagenes, the blokes would have it too. So if Karen Miller has a brother, he should show the same reading as her.

Now that might be interesting.

[Henry Flower]

Yes Theagenes, the blokes would have it too. So if Karen Miller has a brother, he should show the same reading as her.

Now that might be interesting.

Interesting indeed - especially as I initially misread 'brother' as 'brothel'.

[mickreed]

Rare mutations

I'm really at the edge of my abilities here. Maybe someone could check this article to see if it has any relevance (much of it is about a particular piece of software, and won't be relevant):

http://www.genecodesforensics.com/news/Promega%202004%20M-FISys%20for%20Missing%20Persons%20paper%20revised.pdf

It looks at the use of DNA for identifying remains in major disasters. It is admittedly quite old and some of the statements may no longer hold

Apart from a mention of the allegedly rare mutation 314.1 C on page 9, I found a couple of interesting bits:

It is well established that mtDNA profiles of the hypervariable HV1 and HV2 regions lack the discriminating power of STR profiles at the 13 loci used in the United States, but in highly compromised remains, mtDNA may be more readily extracted in usable form. We offer no contribution to the debate on the efficacy of using mtDNA as an initial screen, but tools have been developed in M-FISys to support this approach, comparing STR profiles based on candidates derived from mtDNA matching.

Since mtDNA sequences of the HV1 and HV2 regions are inherently less discriminating than complete STR profiles, we would expect some of the mito matches to be merely coincidental.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

I wonder what the deal is. Will Jari release the data in full, so that checks can be made against other descendants? Or can Edwards block that?

A very good question mickread.

It might be that Dr Louhelainen publishes a paper on his new extraction methodology which could include other, better documented examples, and the Eddowes/Kominski data represents just a one test that perhaps is not the main thrust of the paper.

cheers, gryff

[lynn cates]

100%

Hello Mick.

"we would expect some of the mito matches to be merely coincidental."

Well, so much for this being Kate--100%.

Cheers.
LC

[tji]

Hi Mick

I actually saw this yesterday and I think page 9 paragraph is more to do with a a match on the program.

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”.


So it is more about a match regarding the added/detracted C in 314.1C in the program (I think!)

Tracy

[Amanda Sumner]

Hi Mick

I actually saw this yesterday and I think page 9 paragraph is more to do with a a match on the program.

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”.


So it is more about a match regarding the added/detracted C in 314.1C in the program (I think!)

Tracy

Hi, Tracy

You can now add genetics to your endless talents!
Pardon me, if I say it's all gobbly gook to me.

Glad somebody understands this stuff! :-)

Amanda

[Peter F Young]

Can anyone tell us the actual thickness of the shawl in millimetres?