Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[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

[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

[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.

[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 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 ...
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.

[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!

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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...

[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!

[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.

[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

[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

[mickreed]

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

See my previous post.

We don't know.