Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Observer]

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! Who Knows!

I see. Although, semen from a 90 year old disabled man, I don't know. I take it the female of the species are ruled out?

[Chris]

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

I've drawn no conclusions about the "Kozminski" match, apart from concluding that we have insufficient information to draw any conclusions.

I've previously summarised for you the conclusions I've drawn about what's said in the book about the "Eddowes" match.

[John G]

I see. Although, semen from a 90 year old disabled man, I don't know. I take it the female of the species are ruled out?

I take your point about the hypothetical 90 year old! The DNA found could essentially belong to any human being within the relevant group.

[Observer]

I've drawn no conclusions about the "Kozminski" match, apart from concluding that we have insufficient information to draw any conclusions.

I've previously summarised for you the conclusions I've drawn about what's said in the book about the "Eddowes" match.

I'm at cross purposes here. Regarding Eddowes, you are stating that the mutation specified by Dr Jari is not as rare as he's making out?

[mickreed]

I see. Although, semen from a 90 year old disabled man, I don't know. I take it the female of the species are ruled out?

You and Chris are both right, Observer. This is tedious.

Louhelainen may never publish. If he does, it will probably be a while. So everyone else has to sit and wait?

And re your quote above, we don't even know if it's semen. The bloke who did the test was far from convinced. He's quoted as saying:

The fact that I didn’t find any sperm does not automatically exclude their presence, but considering that squamous cells are a minor component of a typical semen sample (they get into the semen by mechanical sloughing from the urethral epithelium during ejaculation), I would have expected to see them if they had been there. On the other hand, squamous cells like these are also found in other bodily fluids including saliva, sweat etc (basically any fluid that washes over or bathes an epithelial surface).

[Observer]

I take your point about the hypothetical 90 year old! The DNA found could essentially belong to any human being within the relevant group.

Am I correct in assuming that the Kosminski sample was obtained from semen?

[mickreed]

Am I correct in assuming that the Kosminski sample was obtained from semen?

See my previous post.

We don't know.

[Chris]

I'm at cross purposes here. Regarding Eddowes, you are stating that the mutation specified by Dr Jari is not as rare as he's making out?

Please see the explanation I've already posted:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=312004&postcount=4154

[tji]

Hi Observer

This is what is being said and why no-one is making definitive assertions. We need more information before being able to say for certain, however on the information we have been given there is reason for questioning it.

That is the one of the point's raised on the other thread.

Tracy

[Observer]

You and Chris are both right, Observer. This is tedious.

Louhelainen may never publish. If he does, it will probably be a while. So everyone else has to sit and wait?

And re your quote above, we don't even know if it's semen. The bloke who did the test was far from convinced. He's quoted as saying:

The fact that I didn’t find any sperm does not automatically exclude their presence, but considering that squamous cells are a minor component of a typical semen sample (they get into the semen by mechanical sloughing from the urethral epithelium during ejaculation), I would have expected to see them if they had been there. On the other hand, squamous cells like these are also found in other bodily fluids including saliva, sweat etc (basically any fluid that washes over or bathes an epithelial surface).

Indeed Mick. It's a pointless argument until we have Dr Louhelainen's report in full.

As for semen being present on the "shawl"(despite my enquiries regarding whether a 90 year old disabled man would be capable of depositing said material) personally, I'd very much doubt this is the case.

[John G]

Surely we're not saying that either Dr Jari or Russell Edwards could have made a mistake with the data? They both seemed such reliable, friendly people to me: the sort of individuals who would demonstrate fanatical attention to detail! I, too, look forward to reading Dr Jari's report in the near future, after he's subjected it to peer review, of course!

[Fantasio]

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

I can suggest an alternative explanation. It's possible that the 314.1C mutation was indeed found in the (maybe Eddowes') mtDNA, with 99% of the population sharing it, but we were also told there is a second, most rare and "familiar" mutation in this mtDNA, and maybe this is the one with the 1:290000 odds.
In any way, without any clarification from dr. JariLou himself, we will never be able to clarify the matter. It's obvious by now that the book is not reliable - but the book is all we have got, so...

[Chris]

I can suggest an alternative explanation. It's possible that the 314.1C mutation was indeed found in the (maybe Eddowes') mtDNA, with 99% of the population sharing it, but we were also told there is a second, most rare and "familiar" mutation in this mtDNA, and maybe this is the one with the 1:290000 odds.

No - what Dr Louhelainen is quoted in the book as saying is that it is 314.1C which is the mutation with a frequency of 1 in 290,000:
"This DNA alteration is known as global private mutation (314.1C) and it is not very common in worldwide population, as it has frequency estimate of 0.000003506, i.e. approximately 1/ 290,000."

I've already posted all this information on the other thread:

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

[Observer]

Please see the explanation I've already posted:
http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...postcount=4154

Again, all I can say is this. I find it remarkable that an experienced geneticist could be so far wide of the mark.

[mickreed]

Indeed Mick. It's a pointless argument until we have Dr Louhelainen's report in full.

As for semen being present on the "shawl"(despite my enquiries regarding whether a 90 year old disabled man would be capable of depositing said material) personally, I'd very much doubt this is the case.

Hi Observer,

I don't know if you've read the book. I'd guess not, and I wouldn't blame you. But …

When a non-fiction book on anything is published (the half-decent might even have the odd footnote. This one doesn't have any), it's usual for the author to rely on previous work done by others. But the book stands on its own. Is it internally consistent? Does it interpret its sources correctly.

This particular book exults in misinterpretation, in wishful thinking, in making claims that do not follow from the few sources it does quote. Hence despite David Martin said he couldn't find any sperm, and that the epithelia could from from almost anywhere, Edwards insists that sperm is the most likely source of the epithelia found. Why? Because the stain fluoresced. Yet earlier in the book, he says that a previous owner had used bleach to try and remove some stains - and guess what? It seems that bleach fluoresces.

So if, as I think you are saying, you think it unlikely that the stains are semen, then I'd probably agree with you.

In any event, it's reasonable to try and get to the bottom of this. The alternative is to let the author have a clear run.