Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[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]

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'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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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!

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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

You got shares in Youtube?

[Robert]

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

[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

[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%.