A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[mickreed]

I agree with you Mick - Ed is just the messanger. And the "what told to him by others" bothers me. With the "possibly some from private discussion", I have to wonder what seeds of obfustication RE sowed as he walked around at Salisbury?

As for "new data in the pipeline" - did RE pony up some more money? Dr JL was quite specific in stating the "budget was blown"

And I'll say it again, if they are having to look for more data (13 markers) is that an admission that 314.1c was err ... a mistake?

cheers, gryff

Hey Gryff

Really, with all respect to Ed, has anyone ever heard of serious science being presented like this?

I'm sure Ed is trying to be as objective as possible, and what he is telling us is what he believes to have been said, either by RE or by JL, or both.

I just cannot believe any serious scientist would allow such a load of non-specific claims to do the rounds in such an uncontrolled way.

We've already seen in an interview (can't recall where) soon after publication, that JL tried to let the odd caveat come out, and was quickly put in his place by RE.

My question really is, who's running this science show?

[Lechmere]

Check out post 1099, where the strands of information are separated out.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

To be fair to Ed, Gryff, I imagine he's trying to give us a flavour of what was said at Salisbury. And good on him for that.

What I find hard, is working out what he heard first-hand, and what may have been told him by others.

I also find it hard to accept that we should ignore the book from hereon in, because there is unspecified new data in the pipeline (possibly).

I agree with you Mick - Ed is just the messanger. And the "what told to him by others" bothers me. With the "possibly some from private discussion", I have to wonder what seeds of obfustication RE sowed as he walked around at Salisbury?

As for "new data in the pipeline" - did RE pony up some more money? Dr JL was quite specific in stating the "budget was blown"

And I'll say it again, if they are having to look for more data (13 markers) is that an admission that 314.1c was err ... a mistake?

cheers, gryff

[mickreed]

Uhm, hi guys, I'm not pretending to be any kind of expert on DNA, but I've been trying to look into this 12 (or 13) marker thing that's been brought up here and elsewhere in regard to the DNA. From looking at what genealogical sites have to say a 12 marker match even on YDNA is a minimum and could only prove common ancestral heritage over many generations. Would anyone with more knowledge/understanding look into this please? It seems that you can be tested against many more markers than 12 and the higher the number of positive matches the more likely you can narrow down the relationship? Thanks.

Hi Panderoona,

Well, really your guess is a good as mine. From everything I know about mtDNA, it is unlikely that they can prove a direct descent between the DNA on the shawl and the DNA of the Eddowes descendant. The only thing that claimed to make it highly likely was the extreme rarity of 314.1C. That fell over when it was found to be an error of nomenclature, and not rare at all. As I said somewhere else, mtDNA can exclude somebody where there's no match, but cannot prove. In court it's may used as a building block with loads of other evidence.

For example, you might have a witness that places someone who resembles Freda Bloggs at the scene of a crime, Freda may have no alibi for the occasion, Proceeds of the crime might be found in her bottom drawer, and mtDNA that matches hers may have been found at the scene. All in all strongly suggestive.

We don't have anything like that in this case.

Your comments on Y-DNA seem apt, but irrelevant in the case of the Eddowes match, since we are talking about women. It may be relevant if the so-called 'Kosminski' DNA is ever made public.

[mickreed]

To me it seems like the info coming from Ed Stow (Lechmere?) is only adding to the confusion as some of it seems to be a contradiction of information from RE's book and early radio shows. The origin of this information is?

To be fair to Ed, Gryff, I imagine he's trying to give us a flavour of what was said at Salisbury. And good on him for that.

What I find hard, is working out what he heard first-hand, and what may have been told him by others.

I also find it hard to accept that we should ignore the book from hereon in, because there is unspecified new data in the pipeline (possibly).

Well, no! As I said somewhere else, the book is all there is. Everything else is pie in the sky, until it comes down from the sky in the form of hard data.

I honestly cannot recall such a schemozzle in any field of study that I've been concerned with for 40-odd years, in which a book is published making effusive claims, and in only two months we are being told to ignore the book and that all will be revealed some time.

Now, whether this is Ed's take on it, or whether it's what was said at Salisbury by RE and/or JL, I don't know, but if the latter, then confidence falls even further, if that is possible.

Now if the book is not considered definitive by the author, then a lot of people have been sold a pig in a poke, and ought (but probably can't) to be reimbursed.

I really am at a loss to work out what the heck is going on. As I say, I've never seen such a schemozzle.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

I posted this on jtrForums, but just in case some people don't go there, here it is again.

...

Thanks Mick. I actually saw it on the jtrforums.

To me it seems like the info coming from Ed Stow (Lechmere?) is only adding to the confusion as some of it seems to be a contradiction of information from RE's book and early radio shows. The origin of this information is?

According Mr Stow (3rd post down):

Some of this comes from Dr Jari's talk, some from the Q and A and possibly some from private discussion - it is difficult to unravel.

"possibly" from private discussion. Surely people know/remember if they had a private discussion?

And private discussion can always be ooh - denied, or that's not what I meant, or a misunderstanding.

If research is continuing does that mean Edwards has come up with more research funds, because Dr. JL said the "budget was blown" on the BBC4 InScience show?

Why the sudden claim that the sperm cells are fragile? This is a new story.

If we now have Dr JL looking at "13 markers", is he acknowledging the criticism of the 314.1c claim?

And if RE & Dr. JL are too prove their case the need rock solid data for both Eddowes and Kosminski to link them together. Data for only one proves nothing.

I get the feeling that someone is blowing smoke in our eyes.

cheers, gryff

[mickreed]

I posted this on jtrForums, but just in case some people don't go there, here it is again.

Hello Ed,

Perhaps I should draw together the points that keep getting referred to, as reasons for the frustration of many of us. This frustration may have led me to be facetious sometimes. That's in my nature, sadly, and is not attractive, and I will try to avoid it in future. However I, and many others have resisted more extreme calls of 'fraud' etc, which seem entirely unjustified.

So here goes:

1. A book was published in which the author claimed to have 'solved' the Ripper case. He claimed via the media that no reasonable person could counter his claims.

I have argued that there is not one item in his book where his claims are supported by his so-called evidence. The only thing that appeared to have any substance was 314.1C, and that was found to be wanting.

So now, it seems, we are being told, that the real evidence to prove the case is forthcoming at some unspecified time. Where does that leave the book? Are they saying that the book does not prove the case?

2. I have said that JL's record on this matter does not inspire confidence. I say this for the following reasons:

a) The shawl DNA is 'ancient DNA' - so defined by its condition, not its age. According to ancient DNA experts, this should only be worked on in properly-accredited ancient DNA labs. So far as I can tell, the Liverpool John Moores lab is not so accredited. I'm open to correction on this, if my source was out of date..

b) In properly-run ancient DNA labs, only properly accredited and trained staff are allowed in. It would seem that RE, Robin Napper, at least one TV camera crew, and who knows who else, have been in the lab when the shawl was being worked on.

c) JL seems to have made a very basic error over the rarity of 314.1C.

d) JL seems to have made a very basic error regarding the rarity of the non-existant 314.1C mutation. He said it was 1 in 290,000 when it couldn't have been more than about 1 in 30,000, even if it had existed.

e) JL, according to RE, claimed that mtDNA haplogroup T1a1 was typical of Russian/Polish Jews. It is not, although it is not completely unknown, it is quite rare - well under 5%. Much more common in other groups.

There may be other things, that I don't recall at present.

3. JL has indeed refused to discuss these matters.

a) He failed to respond to requests to discuss it from people who had actually helped find the descendants early on.

b) When I approached him, he showed an initial willingness to discuss it, but then - I forget, but less than an hour after our first exchange - he said that 'having learned of the activities of (sod it, let's name names) Chris Phillips, he was not prepared to discuss it further.

c) He refused to comment to the Independent, or so the paper claimed.

d) On his Facebook page, he claimed that the Independent was the only source (not true) that had been negative from the start, and that he believed they had an 'agenda' due to some unspecified dispute with the publisher.

e) Soon after my contact with him, he posted on his Facebook page that he had heard only from 'nutters'. This was in response to a suggestion from a 'friend' that he might get masses of funding as a result of this work.

Now, given the exaggerated claims of the author and the publisher regarding the book, and the subsequent failure of anyone to respond to reasonable requests, I think it is quite reasonable for people to feel frustrated. If that spills over into print, then that's probably wrong. But let's not assume the 'rudeness' is all one way.

Since the Independent story broke, I have sought comments from the publisher, the publisher's PR people, the Whitechapel Society (that one only a few days ago), and others. There has been zero response in every case.

[drstrange169]

Since, according to Edwards, it has been definitively solved, one has to wonder why tests are continuing.

[Chris]

Regarding the 'Kosminski' nDNA I am not going on what is in the book, but what was said at the conference - and you have to bear in mind that further testing has been done since the book went to print.

Has it?

[Lechmere]

Chris
Regarding the 'Kosminski' nDNA I am not going on what is in the book, but what was said at the conference - and you have to bear in mind that further testing has been done since the book went to print.

[Panderoona]

"At the 12-marker level, for example, even an exact match on all 12 markers will only indicate a common ancestors thousands of years ago. This is beyond the ‘genealogical time frame’ – i.e. it is beyond the point that anyone would be able to trace back their family trees and is thus essentially useless for genealogy purposes. Of course, your father and your father’s father will all match you on all 12 markers, so while a 12 marker test cannot be used to show any kind of useful family connection, it can be use to disprove a family connection. For example, if you are a man and you find another man who you think is related to you on your paternal line, if your 12 marker test shows different results than the other man, then you are not likely related on your paternal line. Thus even a 12 marker test has some usefulness, but it is limited to disproving theories, not proving anything."

http://bloodandfrogs.com/2011/04/using-dna-for-genealogy-y-dna-and-mtdna.html

I know it's just a blog, that's why I'm asking. It goes on to suggest at least a 37 marker test for any kind of meaningful ancestral result. (and it's discussing YDNA).

[Panderoona]

Uhm, hi guys, I'm not pretending to be any kind of expert on DNA, but I've been trying to look into this 12 (or 13) marker thing that's been brought up here and elsewhere in regard to the DNA. From looking at what genealogical sites have to say a 12 marker match even on YDNA is a minimum and could only prove common ancestral heritage over many generations. Would anyone with more knowledge/understanding look into this please? It seems that you can be tested against many more markers than 12 and the higher the number of positive matches the more likely you can narrow down the relationship? Thanks.

[mickreed]

And didn't he call you a nutter first?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

He said on his Facebook page, that he had heard only from 'nutters' on this matter. This was posted shortly after I asked him to discuss the issues raised. I don't know whether he included me in the 'nutter' category.

In his reply to me, he explicitly named one Casebook participant and said he had 'no interest' in discussing the matter with that person, because he did not approve of his 'activities'.

[Chris]

To be clear, the match with Aaron Kozminski's relation was from mitochondrial DNA.

The hair, eye and skin colour came from nuclear DNA.

Edit: As Mick says, it's not made clear in the book that it came from nuclear DNA, but evidently it did, and that was confirmed in the "Inside Science" interview.

[mickreed]

Whoa, nuclear DNA sample from Aaron Kosminski? Where the hell did they get that?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

The Kosminski' DNA in the book is mtDNA and some false claims about it are made - namely that mtDNA haplogroup is 'typical' of Russian/Polish Jews. It's not at all typical.

JL says that he also has nuclear DNA but that is not in the book.