Perfect mDNA match is proof of fraud

[Aldebaran]

Or any other person on earth.

Let's not get carried away. The world of Catherine Eddowes wasn't that large.

[GUT]

Having seen only the paperback, I can't be sure of any edits, but I can tell you for certain that there was nothing about the mitochondrial haplogroup of Eddowes and her living relative being rare within Britain. [I recall it written here that this was claimed at some point.] However, the book does state that "the Ripper's haplogroup is very typical in people of Russian Jewish ethnicity". Polish Jewry was included in this, meaning "Ashkenazi", of course, but I dispute that T1a1 [the haplogroup] is "typical". Perhaps that was just a poor choice of words. My research indicates it is quite uncommon, but helps the author's case rather than otherwise. The Kosminski descendant who shared her DNA is Jewish and so, if her profile was a good match to the DNA obtained from the shawl, so was the "sperm donor". In fact, the shawl, itself, was likely to have been of Russian origin, according to the book, so was perhaps the property of the Kosminski family rather than Catherine Eddowes. It can have been given to her by Aaron or another male Kosminski in my own opinion.

Or any other person on earth.

[Aldebaran]

Hello Aldebaran,

I've only read the hardback version, but I'm told the paperback edits out some of the contentious claims. Is that correct?

Having seen only the paperback, I can't be sure of any edits, but I can tell you for certain that there was nothing about the mitochondrial haplogroup of Eddowes and her living relative being rare within Britain. [I recall it written here that this was claimed at some point.] However, the book does state that "the Ripper's haplogroup is very typical in people of Russian Jewish ethnicity". Polish Jewry was included in this, meaning "Ashkenazi", of course, but I dispute that T1a1 [the haplogroup] is "typical". Perhaps that was just a poor choice of words. My research indicates it is quite uncommon, but helps the author's case rather than otherwise. The Kosminski descendant who shared her DNA is Jewish and so, if her profile was a good match to the DNA obtained from the shawl, so was the "sperm donor". In fact, the shawl, itself, was likely to have been of Russian origin, according to the book, so was perhaps the property of the Kosminski family rather than Catherine Eddowes. It can have been given to her by Aaron or another male Kosminski in my own opinion.

[drstrange169]

Hello Aldebaran,

I've only read the hardback version, but I'm told the paperback edits out some of the contentious claims. Is that correct?

[Aldebaran]

I finally finished the Edwards book, "Naming Jack the Ripper". I ordered a used paperback and it came to me from England, that explaining why it took so long. However, once I had the book in my hands, it was difficult to put it down. Of all the recent Ripper books I have read, it was the most interesting. [I don't recall the ones I read long ago or who wrote them].

This forum led me not to expect much, but "Naming Jack the Ripper" was very well-written and the author seems a rather humble but enthusiastic person, not at all self-aggrandizing. I saw no sign whatsoever of anybody trying to pull the wool over the reader's eyes and I fail to see why anybody here could allege "fraud". The scientific process was well-explained and, of course, I enjoyed that. I only wish there could have been a bit more about the mtDNA of the descendant of Catherine Eddowes. I was hoping for her mt-haplogroup, but it was not mentioned, unless I missed something. I can't agree with the conclusion on the final page, but I must say I am leaning toward Kosminski as a viable suspect more than before I read this book. And it's not on account of the DNA, although I agree that the chance of DNA matching to both a descendant of Eddowes and one of Kosminski on the same item is "astronomically small". I am starting to believe that someone really did recognize Kosminski but would not give evidence against him.

But that doesn't mean I still don't have problems with Aaron Kosminski as the killer. Edwards wrote something like "It was as if the Ripper was a ghost" and that pretty much articulated my own thoughts for a long time. It's like he really did emerge from hell and then disappeared back into it without further ado. Or was a devilishly clever man--and I can't quite see Kosminski as being that calm and cool. Regardless, I found the explanation of how Sgt. Amos Simpson was able to get the shawl quite convincingly put. Experts looked at the item and didn't dispute that it was a shawl, BTW.

[Aldebaran]

It's a means to an end. The scientist does this and attracts business for money. Name recognition alone would get it for him. From hospitals, universities etc. He can extract any DNA, it doesn't have to be a hundred years old. It's a competitive business.

Columbo

I don't think you understand me. It's quite a feat to recover DNA from a sample that's over a hundred years old in the sense that it's wonderful that this science is so retroactive. It can sort out or at least contribute to the understanding of matters that were once considered hopeless before the technology arose. For example, pharaohs of ancient Egypt and their queens have actually been identified via their DNA now, even though the mummies have lain in a museum about a century, as well, following their discovery. But that doesn't mean anybody trained in molecular genetics can't do the work. And they all use the same equipment and DNA amplifier kits. Obtaining mitochondrial DNA from old, degraded samples is the easiest for reasons set forth below:

http://www.mitotyping.com/page/10

There is such a thing as unwarranted speculation. Mistrusting someone just because you can [without good cause] falls under that category.

[Columbo]

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that obtaining viable DNA from some body fluid that is over a century old is a great feat? Well, it is rather impressive--but what customers would require that expertise and why? All most people want is to have their own DNA tested and that is routinely done by several companies. Other scientists have obtained viable DNA from Egyptian mummies who are 3,000 years old. Someone else got DNA from the back of the stamp on the Openshaw letter, also having to do with the JTR case.

It's a means to an end. The scientist does this and attracts business for money. Name recognition alone would get it for him. From hospitals, universities etc. He can extract any DNA, it doesn't have to be a hundred years old. It's a competitive business.

Columbo

[Aldebaran]

Hi Aldebaran,

Scientists are humans just like everyone else. Look at doctors who participate in unlawful activities. You would think they would want to protect their reputations as well. It all boils down to money. If this scientist could make people believe he did this, he would make a ton of money from impressed customers.

Columbo

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that obtaining viable DNA from some body fluid that is over a century old is a great feat? Well, it is rather impressive--but what customers would require that expertise and why? All most people want is to have their own DNA tested and that is routinely done by several companies. Other scientists have obtained viable DNA from Egyptian mummies who are 3,000 years old. Someone else got DNA from the back of the stamp on the Openshaw letter, also having to do with the JTR case.

[Columbo]

Was Walter Sickert's DNA on it as well? I'm pretty sure he is relative to Kosminski.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Whenever DNA is involved, there are scientists with their own reputations to protect. They do not benefit from any book sales and do not have any special knowledge of the JTR case, presumably. That is, they wouldn't have a favorite suspect. So what is the reason for the purported "hoax"? You couldn't expect the popular media to report any findings in a scientific manner. Besides, no owner of a shawl would claim "match" if he knew that the microbiologist[s] who had done the testing could easily refute that claim. So accusations of fraud are not very well thought out. In DNA testing, match means just that. In this case "common ancestress".

Hi Aldebaran,

Scientists are humans just like everyone else. Look at doctors who participate in unlawful activities. You would think they would want to protect their reputations as well. It all boils down to money. If this scientist could make people believe he did this, he would make a ton of money from impressed customers.

Columbo

[Aldebaran]

Whenever DNA is involved, there are scientists with their own reputations to protect. They do not benefit from any book sales and do not have any special knowledge of the JTR case, presumably. That is, they wouldn't have a favorite suspect. So what is the reason for the purported "hoax"? You couldn't expect the popular media to report any findings in a scientific manner. Besides, no owner of a shawl would claim "match" if he knew that the microbiologist[s] who had done the testing could easily refute that claim. So accusations of fraud are not very well thought out. In DNA testing, match means just that. In this case "common ancestress".

[Semper_Eadem]

2 cents

Yeah, Most folks do take DNA seriously. My family who has zero interest in JTR say you can't argue with DNA when we saw this on face book but to be fair people try every day.

[Chris]

Hello again,if the shawl/table cloth wasn't at the murder scene then how did eddowes blood and kosminskis semen end up on it?If it wasn't at the murder scene then the only way the blood and semen could be on the shawl would be if someone planted d.n.a from the descendants on it at a later day.

The problem is, how could that be done?

According to the book, the material was extracted from the shawl before the descendants were contacted. Granted we have no way of checking those dates, but obviously the date of the extraction is known to Dr Louhelainen and the dates of contact are known to the descendants.

And would it be wise to plant DNA from a female relation on the shawl in the hope that it would be taken for the DNA of the male Aaron Kozminski? Granted that Dr Louhelainen has extracted nuclear as well as mitochondrial DNA from the cells, clearly it wouldn't.

[Ghost]

No, it's proof of salesmanship. There's a difference.

[MDRice]

This is in reply to the original post started here by Mike:


Exactly! This is what I have been trying to explain to everyone I have spoken to about this. Thank you for saying it so much more eloquently than I ever could.