Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[GUT]

1. There have been so many crap suspects presented over the years that what should be a field of serious research has been turned into a freak show, with the added effect of all suspects being reflex-wise dissed, sometimes with inadequate before-hand consideration.

G'day Fisherman

Wise words there.

[Jeff Leahy]

Since I've left this thread, thhere has been so much written, so forgive me if my question is basic but,

Is the DNA, for both parties conclusive?

Simple question, really would like a simple answer for this simple man.

Cheers
Monty

THe simple answer is NO.

My understanding is that statisyically the Eddow's match is far better than the Kosminski match.

I'm far from being an expert as you know but I have been following this thread and thats what I take from it..

I think Colin Roberts gave some more accurate statistal analysis somewhere

Trust its as sunny in brumie as it is in sunstone.

Jeff

[PaulB]

Hello Paul. Thanks.

Given that Chris and I have decided to drop this, perhaps this admonition is redundant?

But thanks.

Cheers.
LC

I said it should, but it presented an opportunity to remind ourselves of Admins commandment.

[Chris]

My understanding is that statisyically the Eddow's match is far better than the Kosminski match.

There is a problem with the Eddowes match, and until that's clarified it's not clear that it's statistically significant at all:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8370

[Observer]

Since I've left this thread, thhere has been so much written, so forgive me if my question is basic but,

Is the DNA, for both parties conclusive?

Simple question, really would like a simple answer for this simple man.

Cheers
Monty

Hi Monty. I have been following this thread, and I'd like to answer your question. On the whole, nothing conclusive. However there are certain areas where a conclusion was nearly reached, I think, but don't quote me.

Whatever you do, don't visit the, "A problem with the "Eddowes shawl" DNA match" thread. That is, not until you've done an intensive three day Genetics crash course, with the emphasis on DNA. I have been considering doing the necessary "qualification", but really can't be arsed. I'll leave the real scientific stuff to the experts like Jari the Finn, although whether they can be arsed to carry out the work is anyone's guess. Another thing, if you decide to become a DNA expert in three days so to speak, and visit said thread, be prepared for copious amounts of back slapping. I'm sure that some of those involved, have hit each other so hard that they've dislocated their biopolymer strands.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Oh, and the person known as Pinkspume, has his gramophone needle stuck.

[Observer]

Sorry ,slip of the pen, that's Pinkmoon.

[Jeff Leahy]

There is a problem with the Eddowes match, and until that's clarified it's not clear that it's statistically significant at all:
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8370

Not to disagree in anyway as I don't claim to be a DNA expert

But I thought neither had been positively matched.

And that because Eddows blood line was a direct descendent from Catherine Eddows to a direct Gt Gt Gt granddaughter a more precise match would be possible as apposed to the Kosminski match which one presumes comes from the Family line directly from Matilda?

Many thanks Jeff

[mickreed]

And that because Eddows blood line was a direct descendent from Catherine Eddows to a direct Gt Gt Gt granddaughter a more precise match would be possible as apposed to the Kosminski match which one presumes comes from the Family line directly from Matilda?

Many thanks Jeff

Hi Jeff

A mtDNA match is not usually very precise, there would often be squillions of people with similar/identical mtDNA. The claim is that there is a rare 'mutation' in the Karen Miller/Shawl DNA match that makes it much more precise.

It now seems possible that the 'rare mutation' may be illusory.

Having said that, it's not at all clear yet.

[mickreed]

And Jeff

All of the ruckus about the DNA is derived from Edwards's presentation of Jari's findings. When we hear direct from Jari, things may be different.

Frankly, based on Edwards's presentation of other information, I wouldn't trust a word he says. Not because I think he's fraudulent, but simply because he is so over-enthusiastic and so excited at what he thinks he's got, that he grasps at anything and turns it to his favour.

He seems to be one of those rare people who, if you say 'black' to him, he will hear 'white'.

[Chris]

Not to disagree in anyway as I don't claim to be a DNA expert

But I thought neither had been positively matched.

And that because Eddows blood line was a direct descendent from Catherine Eddows to a direct Gt Gt Gt granddaughter a more precise match would be possible as apposed to the Kosminski match which one presumes comes from the Family line directly from Matilda?

Well, the number of generations in the chain is a bit larger for the "Kozminski" match than for the "Eddowes" one, but because this form of DNA mutates very rarely that shouldn't make any practical difference between the two.

What I thought you meant about statistics was the claim in the book that the matching part of the "Eddowes" DNA contained a very rare mutation that occurs in only 1 in 290,000 of the worldwide population. Taking the information in the book at face value, the mutation described is actually very common. So there has been a mistake of some kind. Until it's explained we won't know whether the match to "Eddowes" is at all significant, or whether it would also apply to a large percentage of the population.

[Chris]

All of the ruckus about the DNA is derived from Edwards's presentation of Jari's findings. When we hear direct from Jari, things may be different.

Though the part of the book where the supposedly rare mutation is named (twice) is a long extract from a summary of his findings written by Jari Louhelainen himself. Of course, it may have been mitsrasncrbied, but it seems more likely that "Copy and Paste" will have been used ...

[mickreed]

Though the part of the book where the supposedly rare mutation is named (twice) is a long extract from a summary of his findings written by Jari Louhelainen himself. Of course, it may have been mitsrasncrbied, but it seems more likely that "Copy and Paste" will have been used ...

That's true, Chris, but it's what it means that's important (leaving aside the issues you, Debs, and Tracy have been looking at). For Edwards - in the very next paragraph - it means something more than Jari said, and I quote:

So there it is, in Jari’s dispassionate prose: ‘Hence the analysis strongly suggests that the shawl could contain the DNA of the Jack the Ripper victim Catherine Eddowes.’

And now Edwards:

Science appears to have proven that the shawl was what it was said to be. It must have been at the scene of the crime back on 30 September 1888 and shows traces of Catherine Eddowes’ blood, proven to match that of her direct female descendant.

[mickreed]

And Jeff

All of the ruckus about the DNA is derived from Edwards's presentation of Jari's findings. When we hear direct from Jari, things may be different.

Frankly, based on Edwards's presentation of other information, I wouldn't trust a word he says. Not because I think he's fraudulent, but simply because he is so over-enthusiastic and so excited at what he thinks he's got, that he grasps at anything and turns it to his favour.

He seems to be one of those rare people who, if you say 'black' to him, he will hear 'white'.

Here's another example of what seems to me to be over-enthusiasm on the part of Edwards:

Edwards in the book says he sent photos of the shawl to Christies and Sothebys. According to Edwards, the former said it was probably either from Spitalfields or Macclesfield, but it could be continental. Sothebys reckoned it was later-nineteenth-century and possibly French.

Edwards thought they were unreliable because they had only seen photos of the shawl.

He much preferred a Swiss expert - who incidentally also only saw a photo - who said, according to Edwards:

'I am fairly sure this shawl is early 1800s. However, it is not really familiar to me, and not English. .... The quality of silk, as far as I can see, is typical of silk circa 1810 to 1830, but more I can’t say’

Edwards then asks if it could be Polish or Russian, she says:

‘I honestly can’t say, but it is possible. ... this is a bit of a mystery to me – yes, it could be either’.

From this masterpiece of imprecision, Edwards says to Jari:

‘I’ve just had a breakthrough. ... I asked if it could be Russian or Polish. She confirmed it could well be. ... He brought it over from Poland with him, and now we have a trail to him.

[tji]

Hi Observer

Another thing, if you decide to become a DNA expert in three days so to speak, and visit said thread, be prepared for copious amounts of back slapping. I'm sure that some of those involved, have hit each other so hard that they've dislocated their biopolymer strands.

At least people are out there trying to understand the information given to us. We are not just sitting back cos we 'really can't be arsed' and sniping at other's.

Tracy