Perfect mDNA match is proof of fraud

[j.r-ahde]

Hello alkuluku!

Even my relative, who is a medical professional, considers this seriously. (Yes, she knows this case on the general level... )

All the best
jukka

[alkuluku]

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.Untill we can prove the shawl was at the murder scene then nobody can be expected to take this seriously and endorse it quite simple really.

I'm aware of that but the media and the common people are already taking this seriously because of the letters D,N and A.

"He said 100% match, case closed."

[pinkmoon]

Obviously we can and IMO should.

Proving that the shawl was at the murder scene is impossible at this point. Proving it wasn't there would most likely be possible if it's really made around 1902-1904, but I doubt the present owner is willing to put it under further testing.

So far their case is "we have the proof, but we are not showing it to anyone". As long as they don't provide anything else, it doesn't even matter if the shawl/table cloth/whatever was at the murder scene or not.

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.Untill we can prove the shawl was at the murder scene then nobody can be expected to take this seriously and endorse it quite simple really.

[alkuluku]

G'day alkuluku

Welcome to Casebook, I hope you stay around after all the hoo haw dies down.

So we ignore the contemporaneous records of what Kate was wearing and what possessions she had?

Thanks and if you check my post at the pub, you'll notice that I've been lurking for a long time.

We definitely shouldn't ignore anything.

If this is a hoax, I think it's important to tackle every claim they are making.

And no matter what, I think understanding mtDNA testing is important for everyone interested in forensic science.

Couple days ago I also thought 100% match is only possible with having the samples from the same person or identical twins. Now I have learned that mitochondrial testing isn't as conclusive as nuclear DNA testing is.

[GUT]

Obviously we can and IMO should.

Proving that the shawl was at the murder scene is impossible at this point. Proving it wasn't there would most likely be possible if it's really made around 1902-1904, but I doubt the present owner is willing to put it under further testing.

So far their case is "we have the proof, but we are not showing it to anyone". As long as they don't provide anything else, it doesn't even matter if the shawl/table cloth/whatever was at the murder scene or not.

G'day alkuluku

Welcome to Casebook, I hope you stay around after all the hoo haw dies down.

So we ignore the contemporaneous records of what Kate was wearing and what possessions she had?

[alkuluku]

We cannot and should not be discussing anything scientific on here untill we have proof the this shawl or whatever it is was at the murder scene of Catherine eddowes murder.

Obviously we can and IMO should.

Proving that the shawl was at the murder scene is impossible at this point. Proving it wasn't there would most likely be possible if it's really made around 1902-1904, but I doubt the present owner is willing to put it under further testing.

So far their case is "we have the proof, but we are not showing it to anyone". As long as they don't provide anything else, it doesn't even matter if the shawl/table cloth/whatever was at the murder scene or not.

[pinkmoon]

We cannot and should not be discussing anything scientific on here untill we have proof the this shawl or whatever it is was at the murder scene of Catherine eddowes murder.

[alkuluku]

The article states, "100% perfect match", and if that's what the data shows, then the ONLY possible conclusion is that the specimen originated with the living donor and not the ancestor, EVEN IF IT'S A SMALL PORTION OF THE mDNA. Sorry, those are the facts.

That would be true for nuclear DNA tests if we discount identical twins.

http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA_tests

A mitochondrial DNA test (mtDNA test) traces a person's matrilineal or mother-line ancestry using the DNA in his or her mitochondria. mtDNA is passed down by the mother unchanged, to all children. If a perfect match is found to another person's mtDNA test results, one may find a common ancestor in the other relative's (matrilineal) "information table". However, because mtDNA mutations are very rare, the match will not necessarily be within a genealogical time frame.

I have seen a study that there's almost 1% probability for perfect mtDNA match in random samples from the people living in the same area so this we have to keep in mind.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Yes but does eating from the gutter stop you having fancy bits of material?

To be serious though that was a while after the killing.

yes. I admit, it is possible his mental state deteriorate to the point of no longer being violent.

But he was 25 at this time, still had a family, no?

How wealthy were they?

[Mr Lucky]

Clearly no one is claiming a 100% exact match between two individual mtDNA molecules

Not true, the article states this.

No it doesn't - it is clearly talking about 'DNA profiles' and it does so through out the article - they are talking about matching known marker genes from the two samples with a 100% fit and you are trying to counter this by describing mutations that occur in the base code of these genes at the level of the individual protein pairs

I'm merely going by what is stated in the article. I'm perfectly aware of what the lab is doing, but you still don't get it.

Clearly one of us doesn't "get it"

Data is more important than someone's conclusion of data, especially if there's clear bias. It's called confirmation bias.

Oh dear!!

The article states, "100% perfect match", and if that's what the data shows, then the ONLY possible conclusion is that the specimen originated with the living donor and not the ancestor, EVEN IF IT'S A SMALL PORTION OF THE mDNA. Sorry, those are the facts.

If "100% perfect match" is the product of a reporter trying to convince the reader of their agenda, then we can't really trust the article then can we. I'm only going by what I read.

This is not how DNA is used to identify relationships between people. I'm not wasting any further time on this thread.

[GUT]

I think the claim is that the shawl was not hers, but his.

Which still doesn't compute well to me, because of this: When Kosminski was admitted to Colney Hatch, it was said that, 'He goes about the streets and picks up bits of bread from the gutter and eats them, he drinks water from a standpipe and refuses food at the hands of others, he is very dirty and will not be washed'. (from "a suspect guide")

hmm

Yes but does eating from the gutter stop you having fancy bits of material?

To be serious though that was a while after the killing.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

That's a good point. So we are now being led to believe that miss Eddowes only took the shawl out with her one night and it just so happens it is the one night she bumps into jack.
Or
She bought or was given the shawl that during that day and it was the first time she had taking it with her.

If that is the case I think the shawl is a unlucky one.

I think the claim is that the shawl was not hers, but his.

Which still doesn't compute well to me, because of this: When Kosminski was admitted to Colney Hatch, it was said that, 'He goes about the streets and picks up bits of bread from the gutter and eats them, he drinks water from a standpipe and refuses food at the hands of others, he is very dirty and will not be washed'. (from "a suspect guide")

hmm

[mklhawley]

Hi Mr. Lucky,

Clearly no one is claiming a 100% exact match between two individual mtDNA molecules

Not true, the article states this. I'm merely going by what is stated in the article. I'm perfectly aware of what the lab is doing, but you still don't get it. Data is more important than someone's conclusion of data, especially if there's clear bias. It's called confirmation bias.

The article states, "100% perfect match", and if that's what the data shows, then the ONLY possible conclusion is that the specimen originated with the living donor and not the ancestor, EVEN IF IT'S A SMALL PORTION OF THE mDNA. Sorry, those are the facts.

If "100% perfect match" is the product of a reporter trying to convince the reader of their agenda, then we can't really trust the article then can we. I'm only going by what I read.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Mr Lucky]

I don't think you understand mutation rate. It's not a chance of mutation. Mutation is 100% guaranteed. There are dozens of changes in the mDNA per generation. Ideally, an exact copy is passed from mom to daughter, but it never happens, i.e., mutation rate.

Hi Mike,

Yes, yes ok mtDNA can mutate but that isn’t relevant

Clearly no one is claiming a 100% exact match between two individual mtDNA molecules - with every single protein in exactly the same place, especially considering one sample is 120+ years old - you would struggle to do that even if both samples were taken from the same cell in a lab.

What they are doing is matching various small sequences of mtDNA from the two different samples. if these sequences match up to the point of excluding all others then the two samples can be said to have a shared maternal origin - they don’t need to match every single part of the mtDNA to do this

A 100% perfect match IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, therefore, if so, then why? Answer the descedents touch it. Fraud? Well, if the owner of the shawl allowed the descendents to touch the shawl and told no one, at least it's deception.

Fraud - really??? - how would they even know who was descended from who ???

This type of analysis has been going on for years, why you think this is some kind of deception I have no idea. You really want to make some attempt to find out the basics behind the analysis they have used and what these people are claiming before you start accusing them of fraud and deception.

[mklhawley]

Yes.



Chance of mutation per generation = 0.00003%

0.00003% doesn't guarantee anything mutating during the 3? to 5? generations under consideration.



Even if it were wrong (and it isn't) that doesn't mean it's fraud.

Hi Mr. Lucky,

I don't think you understand mutation rate. It's not a chance of mutation. Mutation is 100% guaranteed. There are dozens of changes in the mDNA per generation. Ideally, an exact copy is passed from mom to daughter, but it never happens, i.e., mutation rate.

A 100% perfect match IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, therefore, if so, then why? Answer the descedents touch it. Fraud? Well, if the owner of the shawl allowed the descendents to touch the shawl and told no one, at least it's deception.

Sincerely,


Mike