A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Lechmere]

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.

[mickreed]

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.
l

Hey Ed

The more I read about JL's contributions, whether in the book, the media, or through your (admittedly second-hand) contributions, the more I think JL knows very little about this stuff.

[mickreed]

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

Hey Ed,

As I posted in the other place, 13 mtDNA markers would NOT satisfy a court.

A nuclear DNA match of the 13 core STR loci permits little doubt that a questioned sample has come from a known individual, except in the case of identical twins. However, because mitochondrial DNA is maternally inherited, all a woman’s offspring, her siblings, her mother, and other maternal relatives will have the same mitochondrial DNA profile (Figure 3). Mitochondrial DNA, therefore, is not a unique identifier and the test’s conclusion can be only whether or not a known individual is excluded as the donor of the questioned sample.

[Lechmere]

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

[Chris]

I see Edward Stow has posted some information from Dr Louhelainen:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=251676&postcount=263

If accurate, it suggests for the first time that he has acknowledged an error was made over the rarity of 314.1C/315.1C, and that he is not now claiming that the mtDNA found on the shawl is specific to Catherine Eddowes:
"He also said there are 12 points of comparison (markers?) to determine a match.
The one they mentioned by name (315.1C or whatever) was just one of the twelve, which was presented as an example, was found late in the process and included in the book at the last minute.
This is one that they seem to have mistakenly thought was more rare than it was. I believe they are looking at the others.
Whether the others narrow the field down to Eddowes remains to be seen but they seem confident that it will."

OK. Back to square one. Edward Stow now says the error "has not been admitted to". Difficult to make sense of the stuff about the other markers narrowing it down if so, but there you are.

And he is now talking about 13 markers (not 12) "for a match to satisfy the courts". It sounds as though there is confusion here with the Combined DNA Index System used by the FBI. But that relates to nuclear DNA, not mitochondrial DNA.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=251741&postcount=279

[Trevor Marriott]

If you are speaking of The Missing Evidence documentary on Charles Lechmere, I would be grateful if you worded yourself a bit more carefully. To me, misleading is a very conscious act, and I can assure you that neither me nor Edward have any intentions of misleading anybody. We are both quite convinced that Lechmere is the best bid there is for the Rippers role, and so we promote the case from a conviction and not from a wish to mislead.

It also deserves pointing out that you of course need to see a documentary before you can brand it as misleading. As far as I know, you haven´t done so when it comes to The Missing Evidence.

There is also the question of what exactly it is that you find misleading in our theory, but if you wish to pursue such a discussion, it would serve the boards better if it was moved to either the specific thread for the documentary or to the suspects threads.

If you are not referring to The Missing Evidence documentary, I apologize for having taken up your time.

All the best,
Fisherman

Duly noted question posed on the relevant site

[Fisherman]

Now we have another documentary coming out which will mislead them yet again.

If you are speaking of The Missing Evidence documentary on Charles Lechmere, I would be grateful if you worded yourself a bit more carefully. To me, misleading is a very conscious act, and I can assure you that neither me nor Edward have any intentions of misleading anybody. We are both quite convinced that Lechmere is the best bid there is for the Rippers role, and so we promote the case from a conviction and not from a wish to mislead.

It also deserves pointing out that you of course need to see a documentary before you can brand it as misleading. As far as I know, you haven´t done so when it comes to The Missing Evidence.

There is also the question of what exactly it is that you find misleading in our theory, but if you wish to pursue such a discussion, it would serve the boards better if it was moved to either the specific thread for the documentary or to the suspects threads.

If you are not referring to The Missing Evidence documentary, I apologize for having taken up your time.

All the best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

I visited Edwards shop Tuesday and Wednesday on my visit to London, he was closed both times.

He was probably on important ripper business, either that or no one wants to but lip balm, yo-yos and jelly beans any more.

[tji]

I visited Edwards shop Tuesday and Wednesday on my visit to London, he was closed both times.

[Chris]

I await the release of the apparently completed paper in to the process with interest, and its peer review.

I think that's a side-issue really, but if I were refereeing that paper I'd want to see some evidence about how useful the technique is in minimising the effects of surface contamination. Especially considering that for the "Eddowes" sample two of the six segments successfully sequenced were attributed by Dr Louhelainen to contamination.

The validity of the "Eddowes" and "Kozminski" matches is obviously central to the question of whether the technique has really enabled them to retrieve century-old DNA. So I doubt that he will find it as easy as he'd like to defer the difficult questions.

[mickreed]

Its pulp Ripperology Mick,

Akin to Ball, Trenouth, Marriott, Williams et al. I expected something with a touch of gravitas, instead of a mixture of autobiography and hard sell. As interesting a man the non egotistical Edwards may be, he doesn't interest me, the shawl did. Therefore, deadline or not, one assumes all issues would be addressed OR, acknowledged at least.

It has become clear that either this has hit them off guard, or someone has dressed a pig in a frock and called it a beauty queen, which I suspect does not sit well with one of the three parties involved, at least it shouldn't.

I await the release of the apparently completed paper in to the process with interest, and its peer review.

Monty

Spot on, Monty. It's what happens when you put together a load of loosely-written thought bubbles and some half-baked science and call it 'Case Closed'.

I'm no doubt much less well-read on Ripper stuff than you are, but this one is probably the worst I've ever read, and I've read a few dogs.

I hope the process article comes out. Problem is, with all the adverse publicity on 314.1C, you can probably bet the peer-review will be even more searching than usual, so I'm not holding my breath.

Like you, I suspect one of the parties isn't feeling real flash right now.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Hey Gryff,

This book brings nothing once the DNA is shown to be nonsense.

Ohh but Mick we have the Michaelmas Daisy theory - how can you not believe? Oh the dates are not right ... dear me

The feeble suggestions that there may be something in the pipeline, cuts little ice with me. After the 314.1C/315.1C debacle, anything that is produced without the fullest release of data will have no credibility.

Totally agree. I'm inclined to quote er ... Lewis Carroll:

Well, I never heard it before, but it sounds uncommon nonsense.

But then of course Carroll is a suspect

cheers, gryff

PS When I read your review, I saw University of New England - thought that must be in YankeeLand. Made me think someone had sense - named the State New South Wales

[Monty]

Hey Gryff,

RE is a Ripper nobody. He may believe his own publicity, but that says more about his lack of critical faculties than anything else.

For me, the key issue is that the book has zero credibility and, I'm sure, will never feature as a 'source' for future studies. Of course it hasn't sold a million copies, but even if it makes the author a few quid, it won't be on the essential reading list for Ripper Studies 101, unless as an example of how not to do it. I think that's all we can hope for.

Many books that have not stood the test of critical scrutiny have still added something. Whether it be Leonard Matters, Stephen Knight, even Cornwell, many books have brought something in the form of new information, even though their theories were rubbish. This book brings nothing once the DNA is shown to be nonsense.

The feeble suggestions that there may be something in the pipeline, cuts little ice with me. After the 314.1C/315.1C debacle, anything that is produced without the fullest release of data will have no credibility.

Its pulp Ripperology Mick,

Akin to Ball, Trenouth, Marriott, Williams et al. I expected something with a touch of gravitas, instead of a mixture of autobiography and hard sell. As interesting a man the non egotistical Edwards may be, he doesn't interest me, the shawl did. Therefore, deadline or not, one assumes all issues would be addressed OR, acknowledged at least.

It has become clear that either this has hit them off guard, or someone has dressed a pig in a frock and called it a beauty queen, which I suspect does not sit well with one of the three parties involved, at least it shouldn't.

I await the release of the apparently completed paper in to the process with interest, and its peer review.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi All,

Thanks in part to the opportunistic, money-grubbing RE/JL double-act it's no small wonder that the gentle art of Ripperology has absolutely sub-zero credibility in the real world.

Sad.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon
You are so right, first there was Russell Edwards, and through the power of the press, the public were misled into believing the case had been solved and the identity of the Ripper known. Not mention his book

Now we have another documentary coming out which will mislead them yet again.

Not to mention all the other books which keep being churned out.

There should be a new Ripper website opened called www.confused.com

[Chris]

And I do not buy this legal stuff. JL never claimed this as a reason for not discussing it earlier, merely questions of privacy, and not liking the tone of Casebook, plus disapproval of one of the contributors.

It may well be that Edward Stow's speculation is wrong, and that the privacy issue is the legal reason.

But of course it would only be a problem if Karen Miller were blocking the release of information, and I'd be amazed if that were the case.