Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[AdamNeilWood]

That's it, Eddie.

Mr Cobb acknowledges he was mistaken, but unfortunately his comment is out there for all to see.

Adam

[Poch]

Qlder, in terms of hair colour, it is written as a single paragraph, right at the end of the book, which isn't very well explained. He says that even the scientist Jari was keen to point out that this element of the conclusion was fairly experimental science, so not to be taken as gospel.

[eddie1]

Just found this looks like it could be where the quotes about shawl being touched in Wolverhampton are from

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/has-jack-the-rippers-identity-really-really-been-revealed--x1aJnQY44x

[MrBarnett]

Hi Phil,

Alarming indeed.

I think it may well be 'case closed' for shawlgate.

But I'm not one to hold a grudge, I will be in Spitalfields tomorrow, and I need a new yo-yo...

MrB

Blimey, things move so quickly on this thread .

It's 'case open' again and I'll have to buy two yo-yos to make up for my gullibility.

MrB

[Observer]

From what I have read so far it was the pattern (printed michaelmas Daisys) that was dated at the V&A. Dont quote me on that though, hopefully if I am wrong someone will correct me.
Not actually sure what fabric Catherine Eddowes skirt was but that was same pattern.

Pat.......................

Hi Paddy

That's why I was asking if it was possible to determine where it was made. Styles overlap. I wonder how long that design was in production? The 1886 quote is interesting. Eddowes dress was indeed printed with Michaelmas daisies, but also with golden lilies. Call me a cynic, but it's a bit of a coincidence that the "shawl" is also printed with Michaelmas daisies. It beggars the question. Did someone go out and purposely acquire a length of fabric printed with Michaelmas daisies in order to "marry" the two fabrics together? That is Eddowes dress, and the "shawl".

Regards

Observer

[Phil Carter]

Hello MrB,

As I said, I will wait on recieving a reply from my contact before I agree/disagree.


To be honest, it is going to be very hard to defend this mtDNA anyway.. because of all the different people who have had contact with it both before and after testing.

I am pretty sure the thing wasn't glove hadled by all and sundry from way back in the 1990's... and unless the blasted thing has been IN THE SAME HOUSE for 126 years, it has been physically moved (though unwashed!!!....) and I am sure as eggs are eggs it has been handled by very, very many people over the years.
Please note:-

If ONE Eddowes family member has touched it, breathed on it (when leaning over it) EVER.... then that is enough.

Re-testing the thing is a waste of time now. It is being handled without gloves.


best wishes


Phil

[pinkmoon]

Not by you, Stewart - you're an authority and this nonsense is beneath you! But we mere mortals actually enjoy the nonsense! It's a Ripper discussion forum, and we're - you know - discussing a Ripper-related story!

We all seem to suspect it's baloney, we're just having some fun! Also, many of us have learned things on this thread that we didn't know, stuff about mitochondrial DNA, and about masturbation - a true bonus.

Evening Henry,we are all having a moment of school boy humour over this and we would be lying if we didn't admit enjoying this and shock horror people who never agree on anything seem to be agreeing that this is nonsense however what annoys me is Mr Edwards is probley going to make an awfull lot of money out of this which is just not on I would like the police brought in at this stage to investigate these claims.

[Observer]

It's a similar situation to the diary. The hoaxer couldn't acquire a genuine pristine Victorian dairy, so used a photo album. Similarly, whoever (possibly) faked the "shawl" couldn't find a genuine Shawl, so purchased a table runner with Michaelmas daisy pattern instead.

[Poch]

Hi Paddy

That's why I was asking if it was possible to determine where it was made. Styles overlap. I wonder how long that design was in production? The 1886 quote is interesting. Eddowes dress was indeed printed with Michaelmas daisies, but also with golden lilies. Call me a cynic, but it's a bit of a coincidence that the "shawl" is also printed with Michaelmas daisies. It beggars the question. Did someone go out and purposely acquire a length of fabric printed with Michaelmas daisies in order to "marry" the two fabrics together? That is Eddowes dress, and the "shawl".

Regards

Observer

The book does go into his search for evidence on where and when it was made, including coming up with an age for the dye pigments. I really don't want to quote lumps of the book, but the dye was apparently hand painted, not screen printed and was natural dye, not synthetic. He also thinks the origins of the shawl could place it as being made in Russia or at least that the composition of the dye was similar to those used in that area. Some of his conclusions in this area are a little theoretical in my opinion.

[jerryd]

Hi Paddy

That's why I was asking if it was possible to determine where it was made. Styles overlap. I wonder how long that design was in production? The 1886 quote is interesting. Eddowes dress was indeed printed with Michaelmas daisies, but also with golden lilies. Call me a cynic, but it's a bit of a coincidence that the "shawl" is also printed with Michaelmas daisies. It beggars the question. Did someone go out and purposely acquire a length of fabric printed with Michaelmas daisies in order to "marry" the two fabrics together? That is Eddowes dress, and the "shawl".

Regards

Observer

Observer,

There were also matching gloves. Both with right thumbs!!

Enjoy your bath.

jerryd

[Penny_Dredfull]

Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

Ok, Prosecutor- actually, we don't disagree at all. It still remains that you wouldn't obtain mitochondrial DNA from blood. As I understand it, mitochondrial DNA is usually extracted from "remains"- not from body fluids. And it is NOT a means of identifying a SPECIFIC individual- only of indicating relatedness.
You are spot on regarding the issue of contamination and reliability of the material tested. That's one of the biggest problems with this. But it's not the only problem, by any means. The whole issue is fraught with difficulties which cannot be overcome. As far as I'm concerned the "shawl" is a tissue of lies.

[pinkmoon]

The book does go into his search for evidence on where and when it was made, including coming up with an age for the dye pigments. I really don't want to quote lumps of the book, but the dye was apparently hand painted, not screen printed and was natural dye, not synthetic. He also thinks the origins of the shawl could place it as being made in Russia or at least that the composition of the dye was similar to those used in that area. Some of his conclusions in this area are a little theoretical in my opinion.

It might well be made at the right time but to take this seriously we have to be able to place it at eddowes murder scene and we can't we will never be able to do that so this will run forever.

[Qlder]

Qlder, in terms of hair colour, it is written as a single paragraph, right at the end of the book, which isn't very well explained. He says that even the scientist Jari was keen to point out that this element of the conclusion was fairly experimental science, so not to be taken as gospel.

Thank you, Poch

[Penny_Dredfull]

Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

Pink Moon- you're absolutely right there.

When I first heard of this shawl business I groaned inwardly. It reminds me of the shroud of Turin.

[Debra A]

Having read almost all of this thread over recent days, I must register my disappointment at the lack of any use of the term "whole cloth" when refering to the shawl's antecedents. To wit, the provenance of the shawl appears to have been manufactured out of whole cloth.

Turning now to something slightly more constructive (although it might be truer to say destructive):
Back at #660 Fisherman posted a link to a discussion at DNA Explained posted by Roberta Jestes who is a genetic genealogist (exactly the type of scientist who can shed some light on this stuff) which queried the Jewish Russian aspect of the mtDNA results as reported in the press.

I recommend having a read through it. It is relatively brief and to the point and everyone who wants to talk about the probabilities involved with the mtDNA evidence (and who does not already have a degree in genetics or bioinformatics) really should have a look at it. Some of the prior discussions hereabouts have been way off when putting numbers to what can be done with mtDNA. (The author of "Jack the Ripper???" at DNA Explained lets herself down very slightly with a mathematical error (actually it is a transposition error, showing 43,329/6,000,000 instead of 52/43,329) in the second last column of her table of figures but the error is not carried forward into the vital final column (although there is the introduction of some rounding error, but that is a mathematician's quibble).

The bottom-line is that mtDNA has various "haplotypes" or "haplogroups". Like old-fashioned blood-types, we all have them and so do many hundreds, thousands and millions of others, although some are rarer than others. However, within each haplogroup there are multiple subgroupings and these subgroupings can dramatically narrow down a cohort to a surprisingly small number. The example given by Ms Jestes is her own type J1c2f. The J-group on its own applies to close to 8% of all people in the database to which she refers, however, the additional divisions provided by the subgroups 1,c,2 and f narrows J1c2f down to just 6 people out of 43,329 (ie 1.4 in 10,000). Hint as to how this happens: mtDNA is passed down directly along the maternal line but like all DNA, it mutates along the way, so we get people with related DNA, but not identical DNA. The closer they are related, the fewer differences they have.

Now, here's the kicker to Ms Jestes' posting (and it is perhaps a reflection of the level of genetics expertise in this thread that none here seem to have picked it up):

Ms Jestes refers to the Daily-Mail's quotations of Jari Louhelainen:


What Jestes has picked up on is the fact that Louhelainen claims to have identified a hair colour from the genetic material taken from the semen stain. DNA for hair colour is from autosomal DNA, not mitochondrial DNA. If they had any significant autosomal DNA to work with, why didn't they match that against the descendant's DNA. If the descendant is, say, a great-grand niece, then she would share about 1/16th (6.25%) of her autosomal DNA with her great-grand uncle. Such a matching would be very persuasive, bordering on conclusive. If they had that matching, that would be the story. Instead, we are presented with the weaker mtDNA argument.

To those who are reading the book: please provide what details and comments you can about Louhelainen's claim to have determined a hair colour.

I had a similar coversation about this with Fisherman by PM.
In the book, Kosminski's haplotype was determined as T1a1. I assumed that the descendant used for mtDNA testing was also the same haplotype as I was positive I had read that an mtDNA sequence match without a haplotype match was practically worthless (although I cannot locate the exact reference at present)

As far as I am aware, in the book the haplotype of the tested Kosminski family descendant is not mentioned; moreover, an 'ethnicity' for the haplogroup T1a1, determined from the shawl DNA was looked for by the team in the National Centre for Biotechnology Information DNA database and an mtDNA T1a1 from someone with Russian heritage was taken as the evidence needed to link this haplotype to a Russian Jewish population.

If the Kosminski descendant had this haplotype the search for ethnicity for this haplotype would be unnecessary as there would be proven Jewish ancestry in her genealogy?

Unless I have missed something in the book, or got things terribly wrong, the conclusion then would be there was no haplotype match between the shawl DNA and the Kosminski family female descendant...unless anyone knows differently?