Perfect mDNA match is proof of fraud

[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]

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.

[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]

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."

[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

[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.

[Ghost]

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

[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.

[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.

[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".

[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

[Columbo]

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

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]

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]

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.