A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[GUT]

G'day Mick

This bit is me and may not be right. If cells are found in a stain that fluoresces, are they necessarily part of the stain, or could they pre- or post-date it?

As I understand it, with proper testing that can be determined, but there is no evidence presented that any such testing was done n this case.

[mickreed]

Archaic, as I understand it, Dr. JL felt a stain fluoresced like semen. A qualitative opinion not a quantitative measure. Then cells were extracted from within the fabric of the "semen stain" (not surface cells) to be tested.
)

And, Gryff, the man who examined the epithelial cells could not find sperm heads which he said he would have expected to find were it semen. He also said the cells could likely have come from saliva etc. Ignoring this admirable caution, RE blundered on based purely on the fluorescence which also has multiple possible causes.

This bit is me and may not be right. If cells are found in a stain that fluoresces, are they necessarily part of the stain, or could they pre- or post-date it?

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

I'm baffled why a scientist encountering "epithelial cells" on a piece of antique fabric would make the leap to "semen satin" when the most likely causes would be contamination by skin cells or by a source as simple as saliva - which could also occur from a person merely wiping their mouth or perhaps sneezing and later touching the fabric.

There seems to have been a great deal of extrapolation.

Thanks,
Archaic

Archaic, as I understand it, Dr. JL felt a stain fluoresced like semen. A qualitative opinion not a quantitative measure. Then cells were extracted from within the fabric of the "semen stain" (not surface cells) to be tested.

However, to my way of thinking, areas outside the "semen stain" should have been examined and any cells found using similar extraction methods should also have been tested. A control for the "semen stain".

cheers, gryff

[Archaic]

According to the book, Russell Edwards posted the materials to Karen Miller, she took buccal swabs and posted them back to him, then they went into his freezer, before they were delivered to Jari Louhelainen, who put them in his freezer.

For 'M', the descendant of Aaron's sister Matilda, she took buccal swabs when she met Russell Edwards and the next day he took them to Jari Louhelainen in person.

On the timetable in the book, the material was extracted from the shawl before the sample was taken from 'M'. The epithelial cells had been found by 12 December 2012. We can confirm that Russell Edwards was sent the contact details of 'M' in October 2013.

I've never thought that there was any likelihood of these DNA result having been deliberately manufactured. I think the problem with the squamous epithelial cells is that they could be the result of contamination, because they could just be skin cells. If - as the book seems to imply - results from two different cells were combined and then matched with a unique entry in the database, then obviously there would need to be some check that the two cells came from the same person.

Hi Chris; thank you.

Agreed.

I'm baffled why a scientist encountering "epithelial cells" on a piece of antique fabric would make the leap to "semen satin" when the most likely causes would be contamination by skin cells or by a source as simple as saliva - which could also occur from a person merely wiping their mouth or perhaps sneezing and later touching the fabric.

There seems to have been a great deal of extrapolation.

Thanks,
Archaic

[mickreed]

On the timetable in the book, the material was extracted from the shawl before the sample was taken from 'M'. The epithelial cells had been found by 12 December 2012. We can confirm that Russell Edwards was sent the contact details of 'M' in October 2013.

And of course, Chris, the book makes it plain that RE had AK in his sights long before October 2013 and that JL was aware of this. Which, of course, utterly transgresses the rules about blind testing. Jari knew what result was wanted, and duly found it. That's not to say it's fraudulent, but it is well-known that unwitting prejudice can colour interpretation of results.

Another of many reasons why this will never go to peer review.

[Chris]

Can anyone provide a statement from JL or RE as to:
a. The type of samples taken from the relatives.
b. Where and how those samples were stored.

According to the book, Russell Edwards posted the materials to Karen Miller, she took buccal swabs and posted them back to him, then they went into his freezer, before they were delivered to Jari Louhelainen, who put them in his freezer.

For 'M', the descendant of Aaron's sister Matilda, she took buccal swabs when she met Russell Edwards and the next day he took them to Jari Louhelainen in person.

On the timetable in the book, the material was extracted from the shawl before the sample was taken from 'M'. The epithelial cells had been found by 12 December 2012. We can confirm that Russell Edwards was sent the contact details of 'M' in October 2013.

I've never thought that there was any likelihood of these DNA result having been deliberately manufactured. I think the problem with the squamous epithelial cells is that they could be the result of contamination, because they could just be skin cells. If - as the book seems to imply - results from two different cells were combined and then matched with a unique entry in the database, then obviously there would need to be some check that the two cells came from the same person.

[mickreed]

Of course the Kosminski descendants deserve the truth (and I have always given the descendants of victims, suspects and so on the highest priority), but perhaps the descendantsin have been reassured by Russell and Jari that their findings are correct and that their critics can be answered.

My point is that IF Russell and Jari continue to believe that their findings are correct, they can sincerely reassure everyone who needs to be reassured and then play the game as they see fit.

Jari's treatment of your "lengthy" email is wrong, of course, although a clue to his reaction might be found in the word "lengthy", and a knee to the groin seems the initial suitable response to the "nutter" remark. Talk about digging holes!

I doubt that all the descendants could have been contacted, Paul. I doubt RE and JL know who they all are. After all, if I understand correctly, M was found by a member of this forum. Most of them will have got the news from the press. Only a public exposition will reach these people.

I'm fully prepared to believe that RE may continue to believe, but given the status of the critics of JL's work, the latter surely must need to look at his work in the light of their comment. After all, the only piece of precise information in the book about the 'Eddowes' DNA is the bit about 314.1C and that is, indisputably, wrong.

Well, yes, a 'lengthy' email suggesting you're wrong might be very annoying to have to read, but when the fan is hit, you won't be able to say you were not warned

[mickreed]

It struck me when I read it that they only have bits and pieces so how do they know that:

1. They have all the bits and pieces?

2. All the bits and pieces belong to the same person? Could they have pieces from two "jigsaws"?
)

Hello Gryff,

This reminds of of a post I did a while. Not sure whether it was in this thread or another.

The DNA on the shawl is 'ancient DNA' which is defined not by its age, but by its condition.

Valid ancient DNA work can only be carried out in specially-equipped labs. Needless to say JL's seems not to be one of them.

http://www.isogg.org/wiki/List_of_forensic_and_ancient_DNA_laboratories

I recall from my earlier post that one of the conditions was that only properly-accredited and trained people were allowed in the lab, which would rule out RE, who if we are to believe him and the photos available was all over the place.

I forget the other points, except that the lab had to be pressurised a bit.

Anyway, if the lab does not meet ancient DNA criteria, wouldn't that preclude any peer-reviewed article?

[Archaic]

re: Epithelial Cell

As I read it (though the description in the book is not very clear), a segment was taken from one epithelial cell and found to match the relation's DNA and NOT to match the controls.

A "segment" of a SINGLE epithelial cell was found to match the relation's DNA?

That's quite interesting, as the epithelial cells are commonly collected for DNA testing using the "Buccal swab" or "Mouth lining scraping" method.

A simple cotton swab in the mouth picks up epithelial cells.

This method is popular because it's quick, cheap, easy, minimally invasive, and the sample does not require special preservation techniques or storage conditions... which means it does not have to be stored in a laboratory.

'Why Mouth Lining Scrapings Are Used for DNA Analysis':

http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/100640.aspx

Can anyone provide a statement from JL or RE as to:
a. The type of samples taken from the relatives.
b. Where and how those samples were stored.

(I think I remember reading it, but do not have the statement to hand and would like to reread it.)

Thank you,
Archaic

[Chris]

Talking of interviews, I was going over the interview that Dr.JL gave to "The Naked Scientists" back in September:

Dr. JL Interview & Transcript

and ran across this:

So, it took some time, but in the end, we managed to extract a DNA sample of these stains. So, in any object or surface, DNA falls apart with age. So, in order to see the big picture, we need to put these bits back together like a jigsaw puzzle. That enables us to read the complete sequence.

Coincidentally, I also listened to this again a couple of days ago. I was baffled by the claim that they had read the complete sequence (which relates to the "Eddowes" match), because the book quite specifically says that they tried to compare only seven "small segments" from within the hypervariable regions (which constitute only about 7% of the full mitochondrial genome).

Of those seven segments, for one the sequencing didn't work, two were found "to have apparent contamination from fresh DNA (matching with one of the reference samples)", one matched the descendant's DNA but not the controls, and the other three we're told nothing about.

[That all comes directly from Dr Louhelainen's report to Russell Edwards, as quoted in the book.]

So quite how Dr Louhelainen came to tell the Naked Scientists he had read the complete sequence I can't understand. On the face of it, it looks as though the match may have been based on something like 1% of the complete sequence.

It struck me when I read it that they only have bits and pieces so how do they know that:

1. They have all the bits and pieces?

2. All the bits and pieces belong to the same person? Could they have pieces from two "jigsaws"?

And based on what's said in the book, that question certainly needs to be addressed for the "Kozminski" database match which indicated the T1a1 haplogroup. As I read it (though the description in the book is not very clear), a segment was taken from one epithelial cell and found to match the relation's DNA and NOT to match the controls. And then some additional sequencing was done on a second cell. There is no mention of whether or not that matched the relation's DNA or the controls, or what evidence there was that the two cells came from the same person.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Here's the latest from Dr Louhelainen's Twitter account:
So far seven weeks of interviews, invited talks and photo shoots for magazines etc. Just back from airport now zzz... pic.twitter.com/OR6fRDZDjW

Has anyone seen or heard any interviews with him lately, apart from the ones in the Finnish newspapers?

Well you know Chris that I have asked a question twice on this thread about the BBC and CNN interviews. I have not found anything. So ...?

Talking of interviews, I was going over the interview that Dr.JL gave to "The Naked Scientists" back in September:

Dr. JL Interview & Transcript

and ran across this:

So, it took some time, but in the end, we managed to extract a DNA sample of these stains. So, in any object or surface, DNA falls apart with age. So, in order to see the big picture, we need to put these bits back together like a jigsaw puzzle. That enables us to read the complete sequence.

It struck me when I read it that they only have bits and pieces so how do they know that:

1. They have all the bits and pieces?

2. All the bits and pieces belong to the same person? Could they have pieces from two "jigsaws"?

cheers, gryff

[RockySullivan]

Here's the latest from Dr Louhelainen's Twitter account:
So far seven weeks of interviews, invited talks and photo shoots for magazines etc. Just back from airport now zzz... pic.twitter.com/OR6fRDZDjW

Has anyone seen or heard any interviews with him lately, apart from the ones in the Finnish newspapers?

Well since Russell Edwards is not only the greatest crime solver of all time, but also a shopkeeper, a fiction writer and a reporter for the daily mail...I wouldn't be surprised if Edwards was the one interviewing jari & himself and also photographing them on all the shoots!

[Chris]

Here's the latest from Dr Louhelainen's Twitter account:
So far seven weeks of interviews, invited talks and photo shoots for magazines etc. Just back from airport now zzz... pic.twitter.com/OR6fRDZDjW

Has anyone seen or heard any interviews with him lately, apart from the ones in the Finnish newspapers?

[Fisherman]

And to think that 'Ripperology' isn't regarded as an academic discipline!

Absolutely mindboggling!

The best,
Fisherman

[Colin Roberts]

We are all human and we all make mistakes but for a scientist to get the basic maths totally wrong especially when we have modern things called calculators Its just beyond believe but it dosnt really matter because the book sold well so it's job done from Dr Jan and Mr Edwards point of view.Then again it didn't really matter about the maths because the shawl couldn't have been anywhere near any of the victims or Kosminski in the first place the end result was always going to be wrong if the starting point was wrong in the first place.

And to think that 'Ripperology' isn't regarded as an academic discipline!