Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[John G]

Watch out, here be Geneticists.

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.

[John G]

Hello John,none of this is true because the shawl couldn't have been at any of the murder sites.

Hi Pinkmoon.

Yes, I think i was trying to highlight the absurdity of it all. Thus, even if we knew the shawl was at the murder site, for which there isn't the slightest evidence, and even if we knew that the DNA on the shawl was deposited at the murder site, which we don't, the odds of it being Kosminski's DNA would still be astronomically large!

[pinkmoon]

Hi Jeff,

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.

However, we do not know that the genetic material was deposited in 1888 or by a Londoner so the actual odds are probably far greater than 1 in 95000.

Of course, these odds could be shortened if we had other evidence linking Kosminski to Eddowes- such as reliable testimony from an eye witness who saw them together shortly before the murder!

It would also help if we could establish that the genetic material was deposited on the shawl sometime in the 19th C and in London!

However, as things stand it seems that the DNA evidence relating to Sickert, provided by Patricia Cornwall, gives us a more reliable match!

And, unlike Dr Jari, I am, of course, willing to submit my conclusions to this Board for peer group review!

Best wishes,

John

Hello John,none of this is true because the shawl couldn't have been at any of the murder sites.

[Observer]

And, unlike Dr Jari, I am, of course, willing to submit my conclusions to this Board for peer group review!

Watch out, here be Geneticists.

[Observer]

That's not going to happen.

Russell Edwards' book is selling like hotcakes and you think he's gonna have a peer review done, or allow any further testing on his property, the shawl?

Where have people dreamed up this idea of review. (not just you Observ)

A White Paper

Get real folks, the horse has left the barn.

Roy

I'd agree Roy. Leave well alone should be Mr Edwards mantra from this day on.

[John G]

THe simple answer is NO.

My understanding is that statisyically the Eddow's match is far better than the Kosminski match.

I'm far from being an expert as you know but I have been following this thread and thats what I take from it..

I think Colin Roberts gave some more accurate statistal analysis somewhere

Trust its as sunny in brumie as it is in sunstone.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

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.

However, we do not know that the genetic material was deposited in 1888 or by a Londoner so the actual odds are probably far greater than 1 in 95000.

Of course, these odds could be shortened if we had other evidence linking Kosminski to Eddowes- such as reliable testimony from an eye witness who saw them together shortly before the murder!

It would also help if we could establish that the genetic material was deposited on the shawl sometime in the 19th C and in London!

However, as things stand it seems that the DNA evidence relating to Sickert, provided by Patricia Cornwall, gives us a more reliable match!

And, unlike Dr Jari, I am, of course, willing to submit my conclusions to this Board for peer group review!

Best wishes,

John

[Chris]

Does it not strike you as somewhat strange that a scientist of Dr Louhelainen's standing should make such a simple mistake?

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

But do you not feel even the smallest temptation to try to understand the (very straightforward) issues, so that you can reach your own conclusions? As I keep telling you, there's nothing there that's difficult to understand.

[Observer]

Just me....? should my feeling's be hurt here?



If he is putting his name to the finding's then he surely has to accept the questions. I would assume he would have had a look of the final draft before print and as Chris pointed out he is quoted verbatim in the book.

At the end of the day Professional's are not infallible, if he has made a mistake then should we just ignore it because we don't have the 'Doctorate'?

Tracy

Would Dr Louhelainen have made such a simple basic mistake? A mistake so obvious to the layman that it beggars belief that an experienced geneticist should miss the mistake in question? And this, as you imply, rightly or wrongly, after reading the final draft. Is this state of affairs remotely likely?

[Roy Corduroy]

I think I'll wait and see if a professional paper appears.

That's not going to happen.

Russell Edwards' book is selling like hotcakes and you think he's gonna have a peer review done, or allow any further testing on his property, the shawl?

Where have people dreamed up this idea of review. (not just you Observ)

A White Paper

Get real folks, the horse has left the barn.

Roy

[tji]

When it's you who's offering the information, yes.

Just me....? should my feeling's be hurt here?

Are you sure that what you, and others, are questioning with regard to Dr Jari's findings came from the mouth of Dr Jari Louhelainen?

If he is putting his name to the finding's then he surely has to accept the questions. I would assume he would have had a look of the final draft before print and as Chris pointed out he is quoted verbatim in the book.

At the end of the day Professional's are not infallible, if he has made a mistake then should we just ignore it because we don't have the 'Doctorate'?

Tracy

[Observer]

None of this is true because the shawl couldn't have been at any of the murder sites.

Eh? Say again.

[Observer]

I've tried to be as helpful as possible, in the face of pretty rude comments from you, but have to say this is getting a bit tedious now.

On the other thread I have posted precisely what Dr Louhelainen (why do people keep calling him Dr Jari?) is quoted as writing in Russell Edwards's book. There is a long verbatim extract from a summary of the research that Louhelainen provided to Edwards. If you don't believe he wrote it, you'd better take it up with the author, not with me.

But if you haven't read the book - which it appears you haven't - he may not take your enquiry very seriously!

Ah, we agree at last. Yes, it is getting a bit tedious.

Why do people keep calling him Dr Jari? I'd have thought that was pretty obvious.

You say that even I would be able to understand the apparent gaff perpetrated by Dr Louhelainen in Mr Edwards book. Does it not strike you as somewhat strange that a scientist of Dr Louhelainen's standing should make such a simple mistake?

[tji]

Hi Tracy

I'll suggest that to Young Mr Grace.

Regards

Mr Rumbold

I imagine we will get a job well done response back

[pinkmoon]

None of this is true because the shawl couldn't have been at any of the murder sites.

[Chris]

I think I'll wait and see if a professional paper appears. What are the chances? I'll not have a clue with regard to the jargon employed of course, but at least I'll be able to differentiate between what Dr Jari actually found, as opposed to what you and others believe he found.

I've tried to be as helpful as possible, in the face of pretty rude comments from you, but have to say this is getting a bit tedious now.

On the other thread I have posted precisely what Dr Louhelainen (why do people keep calling him Dr Jari?) is quoted as writing in Russell Edwards's book. There is a long verbatim extract from a summary of the research that Louhelainen provided to Edwards. If you don't believe he wrote it, you'd better take it up with the author, not with me.

But if you haven't read the book - which it appears you haven't - he may not take your enquiry very seriously!