A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Update

I've updated my :

A DNA Mystery

to include animations

Now just click on each of the "create" buttons (on left) to make the 314.1c or 315.1c from the CRS.

There is no click on the "?" anymore, but you have the same mouse options:

Left Mouse and Drag - rotates. You can also use the arrow keys.
Scroll Wheel - zoom in and out

Same OS and video card criteria:

A computer from last few of years with decent video card.

Windows 7 + : You can use IE11, Chrome, Firefox
Windows XP: Chrome, Firefox
Recent Mac OS: Chrome, Firefox

And finally, as I write this I have no "Edit" button to edit my past posts - a forum glitch or is that only for current posts in the current login session?

cheers, gryff

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

There is the GenBank database, where the match with a sequence belonging to haplogroup T1a1 was apparently found:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank

And there's HaploGrep, which is not quite a database but a web application that produces suggested haplogroups based on differences from the reference sequence:

http://haplogrep.uibk.ac.at/

HaploGrep works on information from the classification scheme at PhyloTree:
http://www.phylotree.org/

Thanks Chris

And here is another comment/blog on the RE book from

Jack the Ripper: The Ripping Yarn Goes On and On…

By Mark Wells, Lecturer-Broadcast/Multimedia Journalism at the University of East Anglia.

Unfortunately not a very in depth review. A lot about past theories with discussion of Edwards book confined to the last few paragraphs.

cheers, gryff

[Chris]

If I am remembering correctly, 3 DNA searchable databases have been mentioned on this thread two of which correct for the entry of 314.1c and one that does not (and returns "global private variation").

I have a link to EMPOP database, would anyone have a links to the other two?

There is the GenBank database, where the match with a sequence belonging to haplogroup T1a1 was apparently found:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank

And there's HaploGrep, which is not quite a database but a web application that produces suggested haplogroups based on differences from the reference sequence:

http://haplogrep.uibk.ac.at/

HaploGrep works on information from the classification scheme at PhyloTree:

http://www.phylotree.org/

[Richard Dewar]

I can't disagree with that view, however, more research should perhaps have gone into validating the back story to this shawl. It didn't take long for me to find Pc Amos Simpson on the 1881 and 1891 census's, and not much longer to discover his children's baptisms at Cheshunt Herts, in 1885, three full years before the Ripper struck in Mitre Square. At the same time as I found that, with nothing more than a subscription to Ancestry, others were verifying police records which proved he was stationed at Cheshunt. Without the back story, everything else falls apart.

Panderoona,

I agree with your conclusions. The problem with many theorists is that they are so anxious to prove their point, they don't look carefully at evidence that contradicts their findings. Or, even worse, the theorist will make rationalizations.

Had the initial contentions about the shawl been true - DNA match to the degree contended - this would have represented a significant finding. But with the science now in question, the deficiencies in the backstory of the shawl are even more significant.

[Panderoona]

Chris,

Perhaps I worded my contention poorly.

It is my contention that if the goal is to try to solve this case, we will never do so by the methods authors have used for years basing theories on trying to psychologically profile suspects and then determine if their specific whereabouts were unknown at the time of the murders.

If the case is ever to be solved, it will likely be with science. And so introducing DNA into Ripper research, in my view, is a good thing not a bad one. Even if the early efforts are clumsy and unsuccessful.

Richard

I can't disagree with that view, however, more research should perhaps have gone into validating the back story to this shawl. It didn't take long for me to find Pc Amos Simpson on the 1881 and 1891 census's, and not much longer to discover his children's baptisms at Cheshunt Herts, in 1885, three full years before the Ripper struck in Mitre Square. At the same time as I found that, with nothing more than a subscription to Ancestry, others were verifying police records which proved he was stationed at Cheshunt. Without the back story, everything else falls apart.

[Richard Dewar]

Without wishing to be priggish, I think there some of us who would prefer it to be a question of historical scholarship rather than either a puzzle or a parlour game.

And I don't think the debate has been elevated at all by this DNA analysis.

Chris,

Perhaps I worded my contention poorly.

It is my contention that if the goal is to try to solve this case, we will never do so by the methods authors have used for years basing theories on trying to psychologically profile suspects and then determine if their specific whereabouts were unknown at the time of the murders.

If the case is ever to be solved, it will likely be with science. And so introducing DNA into Ripper research, in my view, is a good thing not a bad one. Even if the early efforts are clumsy and unsuccessful.

Richard

[Richard Dewar]

I think the differences is many ripper authors are respected for their research and info they've uncovered while Cornwall & Edwards hardly research at all, but rather try to misrepresent science in a way stupid people will believe. There's nothing to respect about that.

Rocky,

I have read both books and although I cannot support their conclusions, I cannot say they were not researched. Indeed, I think arranging for the testing of DNA is research.

Richard

[Richard Dewar]

What physical evidence? The Diary was approached with an open mind and showed to be a fake. Cornwell tested letters not sent by the killer himself, and the Abberline diary had Abberline's name misspelled. These books were derided because they were nonsense.

Keep in mind the shawl has been known to us and discussed since the 90s. The research had already been done and it was not accepted as legit. And not because some author was pushing it, because nobody was. Historically, it was insignificant, therefore it was rather obvious to many of us that this science would not check out. Sure enough, as you've seen, it doesn't check out.

So what exactly is your beef, Richard? That Edwards is getting more flack than other 'final solution' authors? That's just because his book is current and is higher profile. I assure you he's getting less flack than Cornwell and the Diary, probably because of his choice of suspects.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,

I have no problem with critiquing the scholarship and logic of any book or theory. What I consider unfair is attacking motive and integrity - which happened to the supporters of the Maybrick Diary, Patricia Cornwell, and those now proposing the Shawl/DNA theory.

To say someone is a fraud and just trying to sell books, implying what they are claiming they know to be untrue, is not fair. Especially when respected authors in the community have also proposed theories with no supporting facts.

"The Uncensored Facts," "The First American Serial Killer," "The Crimes Detection and Death" have all been written by noteworthy contemporary experts on the case. And, although the titles of their works suggest they have solved the case, I submit they haven't. But I am not going to suggest that their works are dishonest and a fraudulent effort to sell books - I don't think they are.

Shirley Harrison, Patricia Cornwell and now, Mr Edwards may be wrong but there isn't any indication they are intentionally perpetuating a fraud. To claim otherwise, as some have, is unfair.

Richard

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Links

If I am remembering correctly, 3 DNA searchable databases have been mentioned on this thread two of which correct for the entry of 314.1c and one that does not (and returns "global private variation").

I have a link to EMPOP database, would anyone have a links to the other two?

TY in advance if you can help.

cheers, gryff

[GUT]

The FBI profile does suggest a mortuary attendant as possible occupation

My point rocky was the "Well educated in anatomy" part.

[RockySullivan]

And did anyone notice this bit in the sidebar:

"ROBERT MANN: Historian Mei Trow points the finger at mortuary attendant Robert Mann. He was well educated in anatomy, lived locally and came from a poor background. The first two victims, Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman, are known to have been delivered to his mortuary."


My bolding.

The FBI profile does suggest a mortuary attendant as possible occupation

[pinkmoon]

There's a fine line, I suppose. For instance, Paul Begg called his book 'The Facts', which some could take issue with by pointing out that some of what's in his book is open for debate. I subtitled my book 'The True Story of the First Whitechapel Murders', but I included quite a bit of speculation (albeit reasoned), so no doubt there's those who will argue that I can't guarantee the versions as I offered are 'true'. I can't argue with that. However, it conveyed the gist of what I wanted people to get - that my book focused on the earlier murders and presented the information in a new way. Know what I mean? So, if an author has convinced himself beyond doubt that he has solved the case, is he really lying when he titles his book as 'final' or 'conclusive'?

In my opinion, MJ Trow's book is crap, but unless a few authors (not Edwards), he did not fake some relic or write a hoax document to substantiate his story. But he is dogmatic about his conclusions which made it a difficult read. Same with Beadle. But could they be called liars just because they believe in a truth that isn't obviously so? No.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello tom,when someone writes a book about a subject 100 years old there are bound to be mistakes the information used to get the facts might well have been distorted over the years nothing we can do about that mistakes will happen (said the dalek climbing of the dustbin or the hedgehog climbing of the scrubbing brush) .To claim case closed using a piece of evidence that cant even be dated to 1888 let alone placed at any of the murder sites is bad then to use a scientist who cant even do the basic maths is wrong and then to sell lots of books on the back of this just leaves me speechless .Stewart Evans and Trevor Marriott along with other people have written books on this subject they have taken time and money to research their books not everyone on here will agree with what they have written but i dont begrudge them a penny of what they earn because of the effort taken to ensure what they have put onto paper is truthfull.Rant over.

[Caligo Umbrator]

See maths has the answer [I wonder if he got 42] and it is the Daily Mail, so how could it be wrong. At least he doesn't say "Case Closed".

Hi, GUT.
I suppose that depends on whether he was using base 10 or base 13 to make the calculations.

Yours, Caligo.

[Trevor Marriott]

And did anyone notice this bit in the sidebar:

"ROBERT MANN: Historian Mei Trow points the finger at mortuary attendant Robert Mann. He was well educated in anatomy, lived locally and came from a poor background. The first two victims, Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman, are known to have been delivered to his mortuary."


My bolding.

I have heard of killers revisiting the bodies but never heard of the bodies re visiting the killer

[Amanda]

Mmmm...

It's out there as common knowledge,

"Jack the Ripper’s back in the news, with a new book claiming to have definitively established Aaron Kosminski as the true killer already lambasted as a comedy of errors by members of the scientific community."

http://londonist.com/2014/10/ripper-...-islington.php

OUCH !