A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

And didn't he call you a nutter first?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

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

What I don't like, to be frank, is the continual insinuation that we are being somehow unreasonable for trying to disentangle this unholy mess.

Try to look at it from our point of view. What you're now telling us that Dr Louhelainen has said flatly contradicts what he said when he was interviewed by the BBC. If I understand correctly (but correct me if I'm wrong) he actually teaches forensic science at a university. What in heaven's name are we supposed to make of it?

[Lechmere]

Chris - I haven't been trawling through your posts specifically to see if you have been rude (or anyone's for that matter) but the understandable reaction is to tar people with the same brush - the Casebook community for example - or the JTR Forum community.
The general tone from Day 1 of the release (not Day 1 when you and a few others were involved in assisting in a variety if ways) was rudeness, outright hostility and rather nasty accusations. Actually that was the overwhelming tone.
I would suggest that this resulted in a siege mentality and suspicion that people were out to get them.
This whole business has not been going on for very long so Dr Jari's refusal to reply could not have persisted for long before the 314.1C issue was openly discussed.
Anyway I don't want to get drawn into this stuff - I just posted up what I had learnt over the weekend. Take it or leave it.

[Chris]

And didn't he call you a nutter first?

No, he didn't. But I've certainly seen indications that some people have been deliberately trying to stir up ill will. My only concern is to clarify what the DNA evidence shows and what it doesn't.

[Lechmere]

Caligo
Yes I did go to the conference.
One problem is that was was accompanied by a torrent of propagandising and internal politicing to apportion blame for the 314.1C question not being asked.
In that heat, whatever new light was shed on the matter was lost.
Instead of the people who were actually present sitting down together to make sense of what is a very technical subject by comparing notes, there was a semi hysterical atmosphere, where the only subject under discussion involved what direction the finger should be pointed.
Anyway I am trying to dredge up some information to share - imperfect as it might be it is better than nothing I would suggest.

(The 'Eddowes' sample is mDNA, the 'Kosminski' sample is nDNA - I think)

[Tom_Wescott]

(The 'Eddowes' sample is mDNA, the 'Kosminski' sample is nDNA - I think)

Whoa, nuclear DNA sample from Aaron Kosminski? Where the hell did they get that?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

Anyway I am trying to dredge up some information to share - imperfect as it might be it is better than nothing I would suggest.

(The 'Eddowes' sample is mDNA, the 'Kosminski' sample is nDNA - I think)

No, they were both mitochondrial DNA.

... he [Louhelainen] started work on comparing M’s mitochondrial DNA with that of the cells extracted from the semen stain on the shawl.
...
What Jari had found was a 99.2 per cent match when he ran the alignment in one direction, and going the other way it was a 100 per cent perfect match.

[mickreed]

Whoa, nuclear DNA sample from Aaron Kosminski? Where the hell did they get that?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

The Kosminski' DNA in the book is mtDNA and some false claims about it are made - namely that mtDNA haplogroup is 'typical' of Russian/Polish Jews. It's not at all typical.

JL says that he also has nuclear DNA but that is not in the book.

[Chris]

To be clear, the match with Aaron Kozminski's relation was from mitochondrial DNA.

The hair, eye and skin colour came from nuclear DNA.

Edit: As Mick says, it's not made clear in the book that it came from nuclear DNA, but evidently it did, and that was confirmed in the "Inside Science" interview.

[mickreed]

And didn't he call you a nutter first?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

He said on his Facebook page, that he had heard only from 'nutters' on this matter. This was posted shortly after I asked him to discuss the issues raised. I don't know whether he included me in the 'nutter' category.

In his reply to me, he explicitly named one Casebook participant and said he had 'no interest' in discussing the matter with that person, because he did not approve of his 'activities'.

[Panderoona]

Uhm, hi guys, I'm not pretending to be any kind of expert on DNA, but I've been trying to look into this 12 (or 13) marker thing that's been brought up here and elsewhere in regard to the DNA. From looking at what genealogical sites have to say a 12 marker match even on YDNA is a minimum and could only prove common ancestral heritage over many generations. Would anyone with more knowledge/understanding look into this please? It seems that you can be tested against many more markers than 12 and the higher the number of positive matches the more likely you can narrow down the relationship? Thanks.

[Panderoona]

"At the 12-marker level, for example, even an exact match on all 12 markers will only indicate a common ancestors thousands of years ago. This is beyond the ‘genealogical time frame’ – i.e. it is beyond the point that anyone would be able to trace back their family trees and is thus essentially useless for genealogy purposes. Of course, your father and your father’s father will all match you on all 12 markers, so while a 12 marker test cannot be used to show any kind of useful family connection, it can be use to disprove a family connection. For example, if you are a man and you find another man who you think is related to you on your paternal line, if your 12 marker test shows different results than the other man, then you are not likely related on your paternal line. Thus even a 12 marker test has some usefulness, but it is limited to disproving theories, not proving anything."

http://bloodandfrogs.com/2011/04/using-dna-for-genealogy-y-dna-and-mtdna.html

I know it's just a blog, that's why I'm asking. It goes on to suggest at least a 37 marker test for any kind of meaningful ancestral result. (and it's discussing YDNA).

[Lechmere]

Chris
Regarding the 'Kosminski' nDNA I am not going on what is in the book, but what was said at the conference - and you have to bear in mind that further testing has been done since the book went to print.

[Chris]

Regarding the 'Kosminski' nDNA I am not going on what is in the book, but what was said at the conference - and you have to bear in mind that further testing has been done since the book went to print.

Has it?

[drstrange169]

Since, according to Edwards, it has been definitively solved, one has to wonder why tests are continuing.