Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Colin Roberts]

One of the most sensible posts on here. As the shawl was not at the murder scene it hardly matters what was or is on it now. Any DNA is irrelevant to the case.

Amanda ( S )

So if - and let me emphasise that, if - the shawl did have victim and suspect DNA on it, but it couldn't be shown to have been at the murder scene, you would advocate discarding it, binning it as worthless, dismissing the DNA as irrelevant?

Never mind the shawl actually having "victim and suspect DNA on it", Paul. If, as the book is claiming, Catherine Eddowes was one of approximately twenty Londoners living in 1888¹, that could have deposited the strand of mtDNA that was extracted from a presumably apparent blood stain on the 'shawl'; then there is a distinct possibility that the garment was in Mitre Square on the morning of 30 September, 1888, regardless of its exclusion from the historical record.

¹ ...

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!

I realize that the accuracy of the "1 in 290,000" claim is now being called into question, but it has NOT been - by any stretch of any rational person's imagination - conclusively discredited.

I guess this makes me a "gullible science worshiper"!

A "gullible science worshiper" that previously had no interest in Aaron Kosminski, I might add.

[Observer]

As I've explained on the other thread, taking at face value what Dr Louhelainen is quoted in the book as saying, yes.

There is a statement there that 314.1C is an extremely rare mutation, which occurs in only about 1 in 290,000 cases worldwide according to the EMPOP database. But the standard description of this mutation is not 314.1C, but 315.1C, and according to the EMPOP database it is not rare - it is found in more than 99% of the population.

So there is an error of some kind in what Dr Louhelainen is quoted as saying. Where exactly the error lies, and what the corrected form of the statement would be, is impossible to know without more information.

"Quoted as saying" being the operative words here. I have been saying all along, until a proper scientific paper is presented it's pointless discussing this subject. You may well have found a contradiction. Grace Brothers are eternally thankful no doubt that a member of their staff has performed such heroic investigation. Who knows, you might even get a key to the executive khasi. At the end of the day the experts will have the final say, or not, and at the moment, I'd rather think not. Dr Jari's reputation, it seems, has already been brought into question.

[tji]

Hi Observer

Stay in the real world.

??

In this instance, a professional hasn't come along and said something different. That's my whole point. Until that happens I'll stick to what Dr Jari has found. Of course you're entitled to ask questions, just as I'm entitled to inform you to leave it to the professionals.

So you will just ignore the information put in front of you because it isn't by a 'professional'.......Why Observer I believe you are a intellect snob.

Tracy

[Chris]

At the end of the day the experts will have the final say, or not, and at the moment, I'd rather think not.

Well, as I've pointed out, this particular question is not by any stretch of the imagination the province of the "expert" - any more than you would have to find someone with a Ph.D. in history to tell you the date of the Battle of Hastings.

All the relevant information is in the public domain, and it is really not hard to understand. As I've said, I'm sure you could understand it very easily if you tried. If not, I'll be happy to try to explain anything that causes difficulties.

But to be blunt, if you can't even be bothered to try to understand it, your opinion about what your hypothetical "experts" may or may not think at some point in the future is worth very little.

[Observer]

Hi Observer

So you will just ignore the information put in front of you because it isn't by a 'professional'.......Why Observer I believe you are a intellect snob.

Tracy

When it's you who's offering the information, yes. Are you sure that what you, and others, are questioning with regard to Dr Jari's findings came from the mouth of Dr Jari Louhelainen?

[Observer]

Well, as I've pointed out, this particular question is not by any stretch of the imagination the province of the "expert" - any more than you would have to find someone with a Ph.D. in history to tell you the date of the Battle of Hastings.

All the relevant information is in the public domain, and it is really not hard to understand. As I've said, I'm sure you could understand it very easily if you tried. If not, I'll be happy to try to explain anything that causes difficulties.

But to be blunt, if you can't even be bothered to try to understand it, your opinion about what your hypothetical "experts" may or may not think at some point in the future is worth very little.

I think I'll wait and see if a professional paper appears. What are the chances? I'll not have a clue with regard to the jargon employed of course, but at least I'll be able to differentiate between what Dr Jari actually found, as opposed to what you and others believe he found.

[Chris]

I think I'll wait and see if a professional paper appears. What are the chances? I'll not have a clue with regard to the jargon employed of course, but at least I'll be able to differentiate between what Dr Jari actually found, as opposed to what you and others believe he found.

I've tried to be as helpful as possible, in the face of pretty rude comments from you, but have to say this is getting a bit tedious now.

On the other thread I have posted precisely what Dr Louhelainen (why do people keep calling him Dr Jari?) is quoted as writing in Russell Edwards's book. There is a long verbatim extract from a summary of the research that Louhelainen provided to Edwards. If you don't believe he wrote it, you'd better take it up with the author, not with me.

But if you haven't read the book - which it appears you haven't - he may not take your enquiry very seriously!

[pinkmoon]

None of this is true because the shawl couldn't have been at any of the murder sites.

[tji]

Hi Tracy

I'll suggest that to Young Mr Grace.

Regards

Mr Rumbold

I imagine we will get a job well done response back

[Observer]

I've tried to be as helpful as possible, in the face of pretty rude comments from you, but have to say this is getting a bit tedious now.

On the other thread I have posted precisely what Dr Louhelainen (why do people keep calling him Dr Jari?) is quoted as writing in Russell Edwards's book. There is a long verbatim extract from a summary of the research that Louhelainen provided to Edwards. If you don't believe he wrote it, you'd better take it up with the author, not with me.

But if you haven't read the book - which it appears you haven't - he may not take your enquiry very seriously!

Ah, we agree at last. Yes, it is getting a bit tedious.

Why do people keep calling him Dr Jari? I'd have thought that was pretty obvious.

You say that even I would be able to understand the apparent gaff perpetrated by Dr Louhelainen in Mr Edwards book. Does it not strike you as somewhat strange that a scientist of Dr Louhelainen's standing should make such a simple mistake?

[Observer]

None of this is true because the shawl couldn't have been at any of the murder sites.

Eh? Say again.

[tji]

When it's you who's offering the information, yes.

Just me....? should my feeling's be hurt here?

Are you sure that what you, and others, are questioning with regard to Dr Jari's findings came from the mouth of Dr Jari Louhelainen?

If he is putting his name to the finding's then he surely has to accept the questions. I would assume he would have had a look of the final draft before print and as Chris pointed out he is quoted verbatim in the book.

At the end of the day Professional's are not infallible, if he has made a mistake then should we just ignore it because we don't have the 'Doctorate'?

Tracy

[Roy Corduroy]

I think I'll wait and see if a professional paper appears.

That's not going to happen.

Russell Edwards' book is selling like hotcakes and you think he's gonna have a peer review done, or allow any further testing on his property, the shawl?

Where have people dreamed up this idea of review. (not just you Observ)

A White Paper

Get real folks, the horse has left the barn.

Roy

[Observer]

Just me....? should my feeling's be hurt here?



If he is putting his name to the finding's then he surely has to accept the questions. I would assume he would have had a look of the final draft before print and as Chris pointed out he is quoted verbatim in the book.

At the end of the day Professional's are not infallible, if he has made a mistake then should we just ignore it because we don't have the 'Doctorate'?

Tracy

Would Dr Louhelainen have made such a simple basic mistake? A mistake so obvious to the layman that it beggars belief that an experienced geneticist should miss the mistake in question? And this, as you imply, rightly or wrongly, after reading the final draft. Is this state of affairs remotely likely?

[Chris]

Does it not strike you as somewhat strange that a scientist of Dr Louhelainen's standing should make such a simple mistake?

Yes, it does. But unless anyone can suggest an alternative explanation - and no one has - it would appear that a mistake has been made.

But do you not feel even the smallest temptation to try to understand the (very straightforward) issues, so that you can reach your own conclusions? As I keep telling you, there's nothing there that's difficult to understand.