Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[John G]

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

Hi Jeff,

I refer you to my posts 3953 and 3968. Based upon authority I would calculate that the mtDNA said to relate to Kosminski could, in fact, have belonged to any one of about 95000 Londoners, living in 1888, out of a population of 5,476,447: http://www.jack-the-ripper.org/metro...olice-1888.htm

This represents 1.736% of the population of London at the time, i.e. the estimated percentage of Londoner's that would have shared Kosminski's mtDNA: see posts 3753, 3968.

However, we do not know that the genetic material was deposited in 1888 or by a Londoner so the actual odds are probably far greater than 1 in 95000.

Of course, these odds could be shortened if we had other evidence linking Kosminski to Eddowes- such as reliable testimony from an eye witness who saw them together shortly before the murder!

It would also help if we could establish that the genetic material was deposited on the shawl sometime in the 19th C and in London!

However, as things stand it seems that the DNA evidence relating to Sickert, provided by Patricia Cornwall, gives us a more reliable match!

And, unlike Dr Jari, I am, of course, willing to submit my conclusions to this Board for peer group review!

Best wishes,

John

[Observer]

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

I'd agree Roy. Leave well alone should be Mr Edwards mantra from this day on.

[Observer]

And, unlike Dr Jari, I am, of course, willing to submit my conclusions to this Board for peer group review!

Watch out, here be Geneticists.

[pinkmoon]

Hi Jeff,

I refer you to my posts 3953 and 3968. Based upon authority I would calculate that the mtDNA said to relate to Kosminski could, in fact, have belonged to any one of about 95000 Londoners, living in 1888, out of a population of 5,476,447: http://www.jack-the-ripper.org/metro...olice-1888.htm

This represents 1.736% of the population of London at the time, i.e. the estimated percentage of Londoner's that would have shared Kosminski's mtDNA: see posts 3753, 3968.

However, we do not know that the genetic material was deposited in 1888 or by a Londoner so the actual odds are probably far greater than 1 in 95000.

Of course, these odds could be shortened if we had other evidence linking Kosminski to Eddowes- such as reliable testimony from an eye witness who saw them together shortly before the murder!

It would also help if we could establish that the genetic material was deposited on the shawl sometime in the 19th C and in London!

However, as things stand it seems that the DNA evidence relating to Sickert, provided by Patricia Cornwall, gives us a more reliable match!

And, unlike Dr Jari, I am, of course, willing to submit my conclusions to this Board for peer group review!

Best wishes,

John

Hello John,none of this is true because the shawl couldn't have been at any of the murder sites.

[John G]

Hello John,none of this is true because the shawl couldn't have been at any of the murder sites.

Hi Pinkmoon.

Yes, I think i was trying to highlight the absurdity of it all. Thus, even if we knew the shawl was at the murder site, for which there isn't the slightest evidence, and even if we knew that the DNA on the shawl was deposited at the murder site, which we don't, the odds of it being Kosminski's DNA would still be astronomically large!

[John G]

Watch out, here be Geneticists.

Fortunately you don't need to be a geneticist to work this out. Once you've got the figures, which I have supplied in the earlier posts, you just need a basic calculator! Basically just under 2% of the population shares Kosminski's mtDNA- okay 1.736% to be pedantic- so just take the 1888 population of London and take 1.736% of that figure.

[Chris]

I refer you to my posts 3953 and 3968. Based upon authority I would calculate that the mtDNA said to relate to Kosminski could, in fact, have belonged to any one of about 95000 Londoners, living in 1888, out of a population of 5,476,447: http://www.jack-the-ripper.org/metro...olice-1888.htm

This represents 1.736% of the population of London at the time, i.e. the estimated percentage of Londoner's that would have shared Kosminski's mtDNA: see posts 3753, 3968.

I think we still need to know what exactly has been matched, and what that statement in the book about the T1a1 haplotype was based on. Without that information I don't think it's safe to assume that the probability of whatever match has been found is as low as 1.736%.

[John G]

I think we still need to know what exactly has been matched, and what that statement in the book about the T1a1 haplotype was based on. Without that information I don't think it's safe to assume that the probability of whatever match has been found is as low as 1.736%.

Hi Chris,

Yes I agree we need to confirm that Kosminski was T1a1 haplotype. However, if we provisionally accept the case then curently around 2.17% of the entire population of England and Wales are T1 and T1a subclade is about 80% of the T1 total, i.e 1.736%:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3376494/#!po=64.2857

The relevant information is on Page 7 and Table s3. Of course, demographics may have altered since 1888 but if you look at p7 you will see that T1 represents around 2% of the genetic variability of Western Europe and 3% in Eastern Europe, so i don't think it fundamentally changes things.

In other words it's a pretty common haplotype. Thus, if we take a figure of. say, 2% of the genetic variability, then this means 2% of the population of London in 1888 would have shared Kosminski's haplotype. i.e about 100000 people.

In other words, on this basis the chances of the genetic fragments belonging to Kosminski are a staggering 100,000 to 1 against! Not very likely at all! And that assumes that the DNA was deposited in London and in 1888 for which we have no evidence!

Regards,

John

[Robert]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdDtwc9HA7s

[Observer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdDtwc9HA7s

You got shares in Youtube?

[Observer]

I think we still need to know what exactly has been matched, and what that statement in the book about the T1a1 haplotype was based on. Without that information I don't think it's safe to assume that the probability of whatever match has been found is as low as 1.736%.

Hold on, you are basing your findings upon incomplete information?

[Observer]

Fortunately you don't need to be a geneticist to work this out. Once you've got the figures, which I have supplied in the earlier posts, you just need a basic calculator! Basically just under 2% of the population shares Kosminski's mtDNA- okay 1.736% to be pedantic- so just take the 1888 population of London and take 1.736% of that figure.

Not all of the 1.736% would fit Kosminski's age group I take it.

[Chris]

Hold on, you are basing your findings upon incomplete information?

I'm pointing out that we're not told what exactly the T1a1 haplogroup/type mentioned in the book is based upon.

Do you disagree?

[Observer]

I'm pointing out that we're not told what exactly the T1a1 haplogroup/type mentioned in the book is based upon.

Then what's the point of the exercise? Shouldn't you wait until you have this information before drawing any conclusions.

[John G]

Not all of the 1.736% would fit Kosminski's age group I take it.

No, but it's pretty much irrelevant anyway. The mtDNA found on the shawl, and said to relate to Kosminski, is shared by around 2% of the entire population-or 1.736% to be really pedantic! Therefore the DNA found could belong to any one of those individuals, whether they are old, young, infirm, male, female etc. So, to speculate, if the DNA was deposited in 1888, by a Londoner, then it could belong to any one of about 100,000 people, including Kosminski. But then it could just as easily belong to a 90 year old, disabled man from Islington! Who Knows!