Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Observer]

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!

Scott Nelson has sole rights to sarcasm in this forum John. Were you not aware of this?

[John G]

Scott Nelson has sole rights to sarcasm in this forum John. Were you not aware of this?

Yes, I think I must have forgot! I think this thread is starting to fry my brain!

[Caligo Umbrator]

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 1888ą, 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.

ą ...
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.

Hi, Colin.
Nice find. That's a really useful map.
Shows the divisions rather more clearly than anything I'd located.
Is it from 1888? I not doubting you - I just couldn't see a date on the map.
Some of the info I have suggests that N division bordered directly with the City but I'm not seeing that on this map.

Is this your Flickr account? It had some interesting maps and stats on it.
Thanks, Caligo.

[mickreed]

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

We must be using different calculators John. Based on figures I've seen, I made the odds a mere 99,000 to 1 against.

[Monty]

Hi, Colin.
Nice find. That's a really useful map.
Shows the divisions rather more clearly than anything I'd located.
Is it from 1888? I not doubting you - I just couldn't see a date on the map.
Some of the info I have suggests that N division bordered directly with the City but I'm not seeing that on this map.

Is this your Flickr account? It had some interesting maps and stats on it.
Thanks, Caligo.

N division did not border with the City, it bordered with G division, who, in turn, bordered with the City.

I believe the map is 1925, but stands for 1888

Monty

[lynn cates]

Jason

Hello John.

"I think this thread is starting to fry my brain!"

Don't let it. Just read Jason's post. Skip the other 4000+--including mine.

Cheers.
LC

[Fantasio]

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."

That's true, but either dr. JariLou made a huge mistake, or Edwards misinterpreted what was told him, despite what looks like a quotation. I'm more inclined to think Edwards capable of misunderstandings rather than a famous DNA expert capable of such mistakes, so I still think at least possible - maybe not likely, but certainly possible - the first scenario.

[mickreed]

That's true, but either dr. JariLou made a huge mistake, or Edwards misinterpreted what was told him, despite what looks like a quotation. I'm more inclined to think Edwards capable of misunderstandings rather than a famous DNA expert capable of such mistakes, so I still think at least possible - maybe not likely, but certainly possible - the first scenario.

I find many of the claims re the DNA hard to figure. This is doubtless because it's not being presented by the scientist, but by Edwards, even given the 'quotes' that he includes in his books.

It's not just the 'Eddowes' DNA issue. From Edwards's claims, this seems like the more solid, but as Chris et al have said, there are question marks that need to be looked at.

Now this next bit has been discussed previously, possibly on jtrforums - I don't recall - but it's worth reiterating.

The Kosminski side is really fraught. It hinges on the haplogroup T1a1 which, we are told, is typical of Russian/Polish Jews. When this info first came out the following observation was made:

This description seems to combine two types of sequencing. Now, that’s not a bad thing, it’s simply confusing. Based on the haplogroup of T1a1, we know that they sequenced mitochondrial DNA and that they did in fact manage to sequence it to the full sequence level. How do we know this? Because each mitochondrial haplogroup is designated by certain specific mutations. In this case, the final 1 of T1a1 is indicated by location 9899 in the coding region of the mitochondria – so in order to designate this individual as a member of haplogroup T1a1, they had to sequence the coding region. Again, we presume (the cousin of assume – with the same consequences) that they were able to successfully sequence the entire mitochondria.

Now for the fly in the ointment, I have not found this haplogroup in Russian Jewish people. In fact, the clients who I have done DNA Reports for who fall into this haplogroup are not Jewish – none of them, nor do they have Jewish matches. Neither does Dr. Behar identify this as a Jewish haplogroup in his founding mother’s paper. Nor is this identified elsewhere as a Jewish haplogroup. Of course, this Daily Mail article has no sources, so we can’t independently verify what was said, but it looks like this assertion of T1a1 typical of Jewish people may be in error.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/09/08/jack-the-ripper/

One of the world's leading genetic genealogists, Ann Turner said this:

I question the statement about the T1a1 haplogroup being common in people of Russian Jewish ancestry. I don’t spot any geographic trend in my database of complete mtDNA sequences from GenBank. T1a1 is found in many European countries, but perhaps there is a specific subclade that was not mentioned in the news item.

http://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog/2014/09/07/8584/

So, again, we are left with a problem. Is it Louhelainen who is at fault, or is it Edwards getting it wrong?

If, as Observer suggests, there's no point in discussing this without Louhelainen's peer-reviewed input, then if it never comes, Edwards will never be asked to justify his claims.

[Lechmere]

I received this today…

Please see below the superb line-up for the Whitechapel Society conference 8th/9th November 2014 in Salisbury. There are still some places remaining. For more information and/or to book your place, either go to our website www.whitechapelsociety.com...

The advertised speakers include…

RUSSELL EDWARDS: "In conversation with".
Russell, owner of "Catherine Eddowes' shawl" and author of "Naming Jack the Ripper" will answer questions submitted by our delegates.

DR JARI LOUHELAINEN: "Naming Jack the Ripper".
Jari, senior lecturer in microbiology at Liverpool John Moores, will tell us how he extracted DNA from the shawl said to belong to Catherine Eddowes.

So it seems that answers may be forthcoming shortly to those who attend this event.

[Jeff Leahy]

No idea Jeff, I'm not in Bimingham.

Monty

Thats OK, i'm only close to Maidstone

Jxx

[mickreed]

DR JARI LOUHELAINEN: "Naming Jack the Ripper".
Jari, senior lecturer in microbiology at Liverpool John Moores, will tell us how he extracted DNA from the shawl said to belong to Catherine Eddowes.

Wish I could be there Lechmere. Looks good.

If all JL tells us is 'how he extracted DNA from the shawl' then we won't be much the wiser. I would hope he'll go into the science of the analysis and all that derives from it.

[RockySullivan]

I received this today…

Please see below the superb line-up for the Whitechapel Society conference 8th/9th November 2014 in Salisbury. There are still some places remaining. For more information and/or to book your place, either go to our website www.whitechapelsociety.com...

The advertised speakers include…

RUSSELL EDWARDS: "In conversation with".
Russell, owner of "Catherine Eddowes' shawl" and author of "Naming Jack the Ripper" will answer questions submitted by our delegates.

DR JARI LOUHELAINEN: "Naming Jack the Ripper".
Jari, senior lecturer in microbiology at Liverpool John Moores, will tell us how he extracted DNA from the shawl said to belong to Catherine Eddowes.

So it seems that answers may be forthcoming shortly to those who attend this event.

Answers may be coming....after you've shelled out the 130 pounds....to listen to a phony and a scientist who was willing sell out his integrity for his 15 minutes of shame. I've missed a few pages of this thread but it looks more and more what we have been saying all alone.....the statistics and probabilities of the DNA and the way Edwards and his Sci-Fientist presented them are MISLEADING!!!

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Origin of the Epithelial Cells

The NMR analysis determined that the dye was natural and made from woad (Asatis tinctoria). While is native to central Asia and eastern Europe, it was apparently a pretty common dye and presumably would have been readily available in any major garment manufacturing area.

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).

Mick, one of those other fluids can be urine. And here is one traditional process for dyeing fabrics blue with indigo (either from Asatis tinctoria or with indigo from other plants)

Natural Fermentation Method with Madder (Scroll down to bottom of the page for modern graphic example )

and

The Art and Craft of Natural Dyeing (Funny little story in it about "piddle parties".)

As as one of the possible processes used to dye fabric was a urine vat, and no sperm cells were found in the area of the "semen stain", was there a control sample that tested an area away from the "semen stain" for those same epithelial cells? Could those epithelial cells have come from the dyeing process?

cheers, gryff

[wolfie1]

I received this today…

Please see below the superb line-up for the Whitechapel Society conference 8th/9th November 2014 in Salisbury. There are still some places remaining. For more information and/or to book your place, either go to our website www.whitechapelsociety.com...

The advertised speakers include…

RUSSELL EDWARDS: "In conversation with".
Russell, owner of "Catherine Eddowes' shawl" and author of "Naming Jack the Ripper" will answer questions submitted by our delegates.

DR JARI LOUHELAINEN: "Naming Jack the Ripper".
Jari, senior lecturer in microbiology at Liverpool John Moores, will tell us how he extracted DNA from the shawl said to belong to Catherine Eddowes.

So it seems that answers may be forthcoming shortly to those who attend this event.

I do hope that Mr Edwards has flak jacket at the ready.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

I do hope that Mr Edwards has flak jacket at the ready.

RUSSELL EDWARDS: "In conversation with".
Russell, owner of "Catherine Eddowes' shawl" and author of "Naming Jack the Ripper" will answer questions submitted by our delegates.

It may have something to do with the text I underlined. Questions from the floor or submitted in advance by the delegates?

cheers, gryff