A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[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 havenīt 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

[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 havenīt 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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Lechmere]

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

[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.