A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[MsWeatherwax]

Hi Trevor.

It was less a commentary on the provenance of the shawl (and I agree, there's more chance of Ghandi being the next England manager than that shawl belonging to Catherine Eddowes), and more a comment on the dire ethics of the entire pantomime surrounding the shawl.

My point really is that it's extremely distasteful regardless of whether it belonged to her or not.

[lynn cates]

summation

Hello Trevor.

Perfect summation.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi GUT.

I honestly had no idea what had happened at the auction, but I have to say I'm delighted. The whole thing is extremely dubious, feels very unethical and having had a squint through this thread now, it looks like there may even be some questions about plagiarism.

There's just something very distasteful about flogging off a shawl that was stolen from a murder victim, for £3 million - particularly when that woman was so poor that she was probably prostituting herself, which may have directly lead to her incredibly brutal murder.

This suggestion that the shawl belonged to Eddowes is unbelievable

There is no evidence that there was ever a shawl in her possession.
There is no evidence to show a shawl was ever seen or found in Mitre Sq
There is no evidence to show Pc Simpson was ever in or near Mitre Sq that night
There is no evidence to show anyone other than PC Watkins was ever alone with the body whilst it was in the square, and he was alone only for a few moments.

If I were you I would not waste anymore time trying to prove or disprove this, as its already been disproved, even without the DNA aspect.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The evidence never lies, but doesnt always tell the truth

[MsWeatherwax]

Didn't sell at auction, what a shock that was, I was certain they'd be lined up all over the place to pay 3 million quid for a table clothe that wasn't even listed among her merge possessions, that a copper knocked off (and if he'd been caught out would have lost his job) that his missus kept, unwashed, and never put to use in any way.

Yep real strange.

Hi GUT.

I honestly had no idea what had happened at the auction, but I have to say I'm delighted. The whole thing is extremely dubious, feels very unethical and having had a squint through this thread now, it looks like there may even be some questions about plagiarism.

There's just something very distasteful about flogging off a shawl that was stolen from a murder victim, for £3 million - particularly when that woman was so poor that she was probably prostituting herself, which may have directly lead to her incredibly brutal murder.

[MsWeatherwax]

Hi Aldebaran.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/jack-the-ripper-id-hinges-on-a-decimal-point-as-scientists-flag-up-dna-error-in-book-that-claims-to-9804325.html

Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, the inventor of genetic fingerprinting – who found that Dr Louhelainen made a basic mistake in analysing the DNA extracted from a shawl supposedly found near the badly disfigured body of Ripper victim Catherine Eddowes.

They say the error means no DNA connection can be made between Kosminski and Eddowes. Any suggestion therefore that the Ripper and Kosminski are the same person appears to be based on conjecture and supposition

I don't claim to be an expert on DNA analysis, because I'm definitely not. However, if Sir Alec Jeffreys is saying that the error means that no DNA connection can be made then I'm happy to take his word for it. In fact, what he actually said is that it's not even questionable...it's just wrong.

Also, even without his opinion, the fact that this study has never been submitted for peer review speaks volumes to me. That's before anyone...and I'm sure that they have already...goes down the route of the potential for contamination.

Assuming that this 'shawl' actually belonged to Catherine (and I'm afraid I really don't believe that it did), we have absolutely nothing to prove where it has been or what has happened to it in the intervening period.

Remember, Catherine was going to go to Bermondsey to borrow money from her daughter - her partner had just pawned his boots for their previous nights lodgings. I have a very hard time believing that her partner was walking around barefoot while she held on to a very expensive looking shawl (and where on earth did she get the money to buy it in the first place!)

[Aldebaran]

From this news report, all I see is Sir Alec Jeffreys saying that the matter is "inconclusive". That's right, because it can't lead to the conclusion that Kosminski was Jack. Then he said he wished the project would be published and submitted to peer review. Also right, because that would have to yield more information. But there is nothing there about "highly questionable" MsWeatherwax. Jeffreys would know better than to say that the work of a colleague was of questionable merit.

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/ja...ail/story.html

Meanwhile, it might be a good idea to have a look at how many mitochondrial haplogroups there actually are. This page shows them, but does not list all the subclades or sub-groups associated with them. My haplogroup is H1, a subclade of H. Could it "belong to anyone"? Certainly not! H is common but the subclades narrow it down considerably.

http://isogg.org/wiki/MtDNA_haplogroup_projects

[Aldebaran]

Hi Aldebaran.

Even without the (very) dubious provenance of the shawl, I understand that even Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, the inventor of genetic fingerprinting has chimed in to say that the analysis of the DNA was highly questionable. The scientist who conducted the original tests has stated that he now admits that the recovered DNA 'could belong to anyone'. More than 99% of people of Eastern European descent share the mutation in the sample.

The last I heard, the shawl in question was being auctioned for nearly £3 million, so mission accomplished and ethics be damned, eh?

I do wonder what poor Catherine would make of that figure - it would certainly have covered her doss for a while, wouldn't it?

Ever since I have been following those who have worked with ancient or older DNA [and that has been for quite some time], there have always been nay-sayers. Every single high-profile project has had its critics. However, here, we should not say "Well, this one was not impressed" because that is not enough information. In science, it is important to say why--so that someone like me can address that. I doubt that the man who recovered the DNA from the blood on the shawl meant that it could belong to anyone. If it was a match to that of the relative of Catherine Eddowes, then the mitochondrial DNA was the same as that of the murdered woman. I don't think people are grasping this. Everyone who belongs to the same maternal line has the same mtDNA. Therefore, it appears to corroborate the family's story that the shawl was removed from the dead body of Eddowes. Unless one supposes that someone else in the family got blood all over that shawl or whatever the object is.

Could the person who claimed that the other DNA did not come from semen please point to where this information was obtained--because the other expert who worked on that was quoted as saying it was semen from my reading and that he had to look for it deep inside the fabric.

[GUT]

Hi Aldebaran.

Even without the (very) dubious provenance of the shawl, I understand that even Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, the inventor of genetic fingerprinting has chimed in to say that the analysis of the DNA was highly questionable. The scientist who conducted the original tests has stated that he now admits that the recovered DNA 'could belong to anyone'. More than 99% of people of Eastern European descent share the mutation in the sample.

The last I heard, the shawl in question was being auctioned for nearly £3 million, so mission accomplished and ethics be damned, eh?

I do wonder what poor Catherine would make of that figure - it would certainly have covered her doss for a while, wouldn't it?

Didn't sell at auction, what a shock that was, I was certain they'd be lined up all over the place to pay 3 million quid for a table clothe that wasn't even listed among her merge possessions, that a copper knocked off (and if he'd been caught out would have lost his job) that his missus kept, unwashed, and never put to use in any way.

Yep real strange.

[MsWeatherwax]

Hi Aldebaran.

Even without the (very) dubious provenance of the shawl, I understand that even Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, the inventor of genetic fingerprinting has chimed in to say that the analysis of the DNA was highly questionable. The scientist who conducted the original tests has stated that he now admits that the recovered DNA 'could belong to anyone'. More than 99% of people of Eastern European descent share the mutation in the sample.

The last I heard, the shawl in question was being auctioned for nearly £3 million, so mission accomplished and ethics be damned, eh?

I do wonder what poor Catherine would make of that figure - it would certainly have covered her doss for a while, wouldn't it?

[lynn cates]

semen

Hello Aldebaran. Please be aware that it was NEVER definitely established that semen was on the "shawl" (or table runner). The "positive" was also consistent with other fluids.

Cheers.
LC

[Aldebaran]

Anyone would find it strange but, on the other hand, how often would one discover both blood and semen on an old shawl? That's the strangest part of all. But those are the very factors that actually serve to connect the item to the JTR case [outside of family lore]. Here are the DNA facts as I gave gathered them: Mitochondrial DNA from the blood on the shawl proved a match to that of a relative of Catherine Eddowes. Mitochondrial DNA is haploid, comes only from the maternal side, and has what is known as a haplogroup attached to it. The DNA expert involved thought the haplogroup to be an uncommon one--but someone else later decided there was an error and the group was quite common. Well, that may be, but matching DNA is still matching DNA. Even though mitochondrial DNA may belong to a woman or a man, there are other haplogroups in existence and if the Eddowes modern relative was connected on the maternal side for certain--then Catherine would have had the same mtDNA as that person. Point in favor.

Next comes the semen found on the shawl. Mitochondrial DNA was obtained from that by another expert. The haplogroup associated with that DNA was T1a1, not common among Eastern European [or any] Jews. Evidently, the body fluid was suspected as having originated with Aaron Kosminski, as a relative of his was sought for modern mitochondrial DNA. There was a match there, as well. As only about 5% of EE Jews carry T1a1, the fact that it was found in a Kosminski relative is quite meaningful. It is a rare haplogroup for the Jews of the Whitechapel district for sure--and since the source was semen, that makes it twice as rare, as it can have come only from a male. Point in favor.

But the rest is mysterious. I need to do a bit more research on T1a1.

I'll have to talk to myself here for a moment, as not everyone is willing to the research on the subject. The next logical question to ask is--how common is T1a1 in the non-Jewish population? By the 19th Century, London, the capital, had already become a considerable melting pot, so one could ask "How common in Europe, generally?" and that is the best one can do. This 2012 paper addresses the haplogroup T and some of its subgroups:

"Haplogroup T makes up almost 10% of mtDNAs in Europe and ∼8% in the Near East. Like J1 and J2, T1 and T2 most likely originated in the Near East, and both date to ∼21 ka ago, although the origin of T2 is the least clear and an ancient presence in Europe is possible. T1 represents ∼2% of overall genetic variability in western Europe and ∼3% in eastern Europe and the Near East, whereas T2 reaches ∼8% in western Europe and ∼5% in the Near East.

T1 (Figure S2) divides into the major T1a and the minor T1b subclades, dating to ∼17 ka and ∼11 ka ago, respectively. There is also a single paraphyletic T1∗ lineage, sampled in Iran, and a possible additional one from Iraq (although the latter in particular could be a revertant). Possible HVS-I matches to the former occur in Iran, Greece, Macedonia, Armenia, and a number of locations across central Asia, as far northeast as Siberia.

T1a represents ∼90% of total T1, and our new data have prompted substantial revision of its tree structure and nomenclature..."

So T1a is not that great in Western Europe, according to that study--and I don't quite know where that puts T1a1, the subgroup. I would just hazard a guess that the T1a1 taken from the shawl stands not much better chance of having come from a non-Jewish male than from a Jew.


Mitochondrial DNA Signals of Late Glacial Recolonization of Europe from Near Eastern Refugia [2012]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3376494/

[Aldebaran]

And then, his wife having been given this lovely shawl, opted not to wash and use it for anything, but instead packed it up bloodstains and all and kept it for posterity?

I'm clueless as to chain of custody arrangements in the 1880's, but I would be very surprised if this wasn't classed as theft. Actually, imagine if we were having this discussion and instead of a shawl we were talking about rings or other jewellery? It's theft from a dead body and it's extremely distasteful, and that's not even touching on the fact that this woman was brutally murdered by a notorious serial killer - she wasn't just someone who passed away on the street. I'd would be beyond amazed if this is how it happened. I just don't see it myself.

I'm not trying to insinuate that merely wearing a Police uniform makes you an angel, but I'd be very surprised if a serving officer at that time would pilfer a shawl from a corpse for any reason, let alone as a 'gift' for his wife.

Anyone would find it strange but, on the other hand, how often would one discover both blood and semen on an old shawl? That's the strangest part of all. But those are the very factors that actually serve to connect the item to the JTR case [outside of family lore]. Here are the DNA facts as I gave gathered them: Mitochondrial DNA from the blood on the shawl proved a match to that of a relative of Catherine Eddowes. Mitochondrial DNA is haploid, comes only from the maternal side, and has what is known as a haplogroup attached to it. The DNA expert involved thought the haplogroup to be an uncommon one--but someone else later decided there was an error and the group was quite common. Well, that may be, but matching DNA is still matching DNA. Even though mitochondrial DNA may belong to a woman or a man, there are other haplogroups in existence and if the Eddowes modern relative was connected on the maternal side for certain--then Catherine would have had the same mtDNA as that person. Point in favor.

Next comes the semen found on the shawl. Mitochondrial DNA was obtained from that by another expert. The haplogroup associated with that DNA was T1a1, not common among Eastern European [or any] Jews. Evidently, the body fluid was suspected as having originated with Aaron Kosminski, as a relative of his was sought for modern mitochondrial DNA. There was a match there, as well. As only about 5% of EE Jews carry T1a1, the fact that it was found in a Kosminski relative is quite meaningful. It is a rare haplogroup for the Jews of the Whitechapel district for sure--and since the source was semen, that makes it twice as rare, as it can have come only from a male. Point in favor.

But the rest is mysterious. I need to do a bit more research on T1a1.

[MsWeatherwax]

I am still working on the provenance of the shawl. If this is how it happened

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-amos.html

then talk about removing evidence from the scene of a crime! Although nobody anticipated DNA in those days, I feel sure police officers were not supposed to remove items found on murder victims and take them home. But, really, this has a strange side. Why would a man think his wife would want a bloodied shawl? "'Ere, dearie, ain't it lovely? Took it off a murdered whore today."

And then, his wife having been given this lovely shawl, opted not to wash and use it for anything, but instead packed it up bloodstains and all and kept it for posterity?

I'm clueless as to chain of custody arrangements in the 1880's, but I would be very surprised if this wasn't classed as theft. Actually, imagine if we were having this discussion and instead of a shawl we were talking about rings or other jewellery? It's theft from a dead body and it's extremely distasteful, and that's not even touching on the fact that this woman was brutally murdered by a notorious serial killer - she wasn't just someone who passed away on the street. I'd would be beyond amazed if this is how it happened. I just don't see it myself.

I'm not trying to insinuate that merely wearing a Police uniform makes you an angel, but I'd be very surprised if a serving officer at that time would pilfer a shawl from a corpse for any reason, let alone as a 'gift' for his wife.

[Aldebaran]

I am still working on the provenance of the shawl. If this is how it happened

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-amos.html

then talk about removing evidence from the scene of a crime! Although nobody anticipated DNA in those days, I feel sure police officers were not supposed to remove items found on murder victims and take them home. But, really, this has a strange side. Why would a man think his wife would want a bloodied shawl? "'Ere, dearie, ain't it lovely? Took it off a murdered whore today."

[drstrange169]

"I have recently, after looking again at RE's book, come to the conclusion that his chapter on Kozminski seems to be largely plagiarized from my own book."

That stuck me as so blatantly obvious when I read his book, I assumed you'd come to some agreement with Edwards before hand.

I can see why you'd be upset.