A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Chris]

Anyway I am trying to dredge up some information to share - imperfect as it might be it is better than nothing I would suggest.

(The 'Eddowes' sample is mDNA, the 'Kosminski' sample is nDNA - I think)

No, they were both mitochondrial DNA.

... he [Louhelainen] started work on comparing M’s mitochondrial DNA with that of the cells extracted from the semen stain on the shawl.
...
What Jari had found was a 99.2 per cent match when he ran the alignment in one direction, and going the other way it was a 100 per cent perfect match.

[Tom_Wescott]

(The 'Eddowes' sample is mDNA, the 'Kosminski' sample is nDNA - I think)

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

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lechmere]

Caligo
Yes I did go to the conference.
One problem is that was was accompanied by a torrent of propagandising and internal politicing to apportion blame for the 314.1C question not being asked.
In that heat, whatever new light was shed on the matter was lost.
Instead of the people who were actually present sitting down together to make sense of what is a very technical subject by comparing notes, there was a semi hysterical atmosphere, where the only subject under discussion involved what direction the finger should be pointed.
Anyway I am trying to dredge up some information to share - imperfect as it might be it is better than nothing I would suggest.

(The 'Eddowes' sample is mDNA, the 'Kosminski' sample is nDNA - I think)

[Chris]

And didn't he call you a nutter first?

No, he didn't. But I've certainly seen indications that some people have been deliberately trying to stir up ill will. My only concern is to clarify what the DNA evidence shows and what it doesn't.

[Lechmere]

Chris - I haven't been trawling through your posts specifically to see if you have been rude (or anyone's for that matter) but the understandable reaction is to tar people with the same brush - the Casebook community for example - or the JTR Forum community.
The general tone from Day 1 of the release (not Day 1 when you and a few others were involved in assisting in a variety if ways) was rudeness, outright hostility and rather nasty accusations. Actually that was the overwhelming tone.
I would suggest that this resulted in a siege mentality and suspicion that people were out to get them.
This whole business has not been going on for very long so Dr Jari's refusal to reply could not have persisted for long before the 314.1C issue was openly discussed.
Anyway I don't want to get drawn into this stuff - I just posted up what I had learnt over the weekend. Take it or leave it.

[Chris]

Oh I am sorry Chris - I won't bother passing anything else on.

What I don't like, to be frank, is the continual insinuation that we are being somehow unreasonable for trying to disentangle this unholy mess.

Try to look at it from our point of view. What you're now telling us that Dr Louhelainen has said flatly contradicts what he said when he was interviewed by the BBC. If I understand correctly (but correct me if I'm wrong) he actually teaches forensic science at a university. What in heaven's name are we supposed to make of it?

[Tom_Wescott]

Mr Stow, you should perhaps bear in mind that a group of us were made aware of Russell Edwards's research last year because he wanted our help in tracing a female-line relation of Aaron Kozminski. We helped him, and he appeared most appreciative. We enjoyed a perfectly cordial correspondence with him over the succeeding months, and that was the spirit in which Dr Louhelainen was initially made aware of this problem, in private, because we thought he deserved that consideration. It was only after he failed to respond that it was mentioned in public at all. If there was rudeness, it didn't come from our side.

And didn't he call you a nutter first?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

A very large part of the problem here has been the gratuitous rudeness from day 1 which has prevented dialogue.

Mr Stow, you should perhaps bear in mind that a group of us were made aware of Russell Edwards's research last year because he wanted our help in tracing a female-line relation of Aaron Kozminski. We helped him, and he appeared most appreciative. We enjoyed a perfectly cordial correspondence with him over the succeeding months, and that was the spirit in which Dr Louhelainen was initially made aware of this problem, in private, because we thought he deserved that consideration. It was only after he failed to respond that it was mentioned in public at all. If there was rudeness, it didn't come from our side.

[Lechmere]

Oh I am sorry Chris - I won't bother passing anything else on.

[Lechmere]

Mick - I discussed Dr Jari's possible expertise without being rude about him. That is the difference.
A very large part of the problem here has been the gratuitous rudeness from day 1 which has prevented dialogue.

[Chris]

JL: Well, you probably know the answer, because this is based on mitochondrial evidence. It wouldn't be conclusive in the modern court.

And of course, the "Eddowes" match is not based on anything like a whole mitochondrial haplotype. It's based on a single "small segment" - one of seven segments taken from the hypervariable regions, which together make up only 7% of the whole molecule. According to what Dr Louhelainen said previously, a match of 100% of the molecule wouldn't be conclusive in court. So it seems most unlikely that he would now be claiming that a match of perhaps 1-2% of the molecule would be enough to satisfy a court.

But who knows, when all we have to rely on are second-hand statements coming from someone who makes no claim to understand the technical details?

[Chris]

While identification of DNA types is possibly not Dr Jari's speciality, I would guess he would know whether or not 13 markers in an MDNA sequence would be enough a satisfy a court.

As the others have pointed out, when Dr Louhelainen was interviewed by Adam Rutherford for BBC's Inside Science (broadcast 11 September) he was asked exactly that question (at 10:33 in the podcast):

AR: Let me ask you a different question. If this shawl had been presented as evidence in a murder case that happened last week or last month, would you be confident that your results could be presented in a court of law as a piece of evidence?

JL: Well, you probably know the answer, because this is based on mitochondrial evidence. It wouldn't be conclusive in the modern court.

[mickreed]

From the paucity of information published in the book and then later stated in a podcast by JL, my understanding was that the DNA/mDNA evidence wouldn't have been close to sufficient for a conviction if the case had been a current one.

Yours, Caligo.

Hello Caligo,

JL said that very explicitly on the radio.

So far as I am aware, only RE has made the claim that the evidence would stand up in court.

Of course, whatever was said at Salisbury may alter the above impression, but prior to that, JL had explicitly denied the DNA evidence would stand up in court, while RE has explicitly said it would.

[mickreed]

Mick
You do have a habit of unnecessarily casting personal aspersions, instead of sticking to the data. I read similar unnecessary personal remarks in earlier posts. In my opinion it is better to avoid that sort of stuff.

You are probably right, Ed, but we are constantly told that JL is a 'leading expert', and he may well be, but from what I can glean, his expertise is not quite in this field. You implied this yourself in your previous post.

While identification of DNA types is possibly not Dr Jari's speciality

So far his track record in this case, so far as we can define it, does not inspire confidence.

However, I take your point. Apologies.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Dr Jari's talk mentioned that if there are 13 markers in a evidence sample that match a comparative sample of MDNA, then that is enough for a court to accept that the two samples can be regarded as being genetically linked.
They claim to have that link for Eddowes.
Later they took one of these matches and looked at it more closely. This aspect of the examination of the Eddowes DNA was carried out late in the process and added to the book at the last minute, shortly before publication as the icing on the cake - as something that a layman could understand to illustrate the closeness of the match (even though actually the 13 markers did the same).
This was part of the dumbing down of the science for a general audience.
But tests are on going.
That was essentially said in Dr Jari's talk.

In the Q&A it was said that Dr Jari will do a peer review paper once the further tests are concluded - on the other markers and on other unspecified aspects - which could include the supposed Kosminski sample or other samples (e.g. to test for body parts). Before this peer review it was said that he would do a paper about his vacuuming methodology - there was no particular need to wait for that as it was not dependent on further tests.

Through second or third hand information, the legal reasons for not going into details on the DNA most likely relate to publishers not wanting to have doubts (which they would claim are unnecessary doubts) cast over the story.
There has been no explicit admission that the 314.1C thing was an error, although you may wish to read into it that there is an implicit admission.
There is a hint of an admission that if the 314.1C is an error then it is of no overall importance to their thesis and does not affect the outcome.

While identification of DNA types is possibly not Dr Jari's speciality, I would guess he would know whether or not 13 markers in an MDNA sequence would be enough a satisfy a court.

Anyway that is the information to hand. Make of it what you will

Hi, Lechmere.

You were at the conference?
I'm jealous.
I'm living in Texas at the moment but if I'd been back home in old blighty I'd definitely have attended.

When he was talking of the 13 markers do you recall if JL gave any indication as to whether he was referring to the AK or CE DNA/mDNA samples taken?

From the paucity of information published in the book and then later stated in a podcast by JL, my understanding was that the DNA/mDNA evidence wouldn't have been close to sufficient for a conviction if the case had been a current one.

Yours, Caligo.