A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[GUT]

I've just found the reference relating to genetic variability: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3376494/ As you can see, haplogroup T represents 2% of overall genetic variability in Western Europe, and 3% in Eastern Europe. And 80% of samples in the T1 tree fall within subclade T1a1. Document s2 gives the figures for the current genetic diversity per country. As you can see, the current concentration levels of haplogroup T1a1 in England are 1.8 %. Therefore, as a rough guide, the population of London was about 5.6 million in 1888, so 1.8% of that total would be about 100000 individuals.

Of course, as GUT points out, lack of provenance is a major problem: as a consequence we have no idea when the genetic material was deposited. I mean, it could have been in 1888, but presumably would be just as likely to be 1867, 1901, 1936...

And if they've abandoned the Eddows DNA and after the 314.1c rubbish did they have much choice, how is the material linked to her in any way, let alone to the murder site. By a rather vague family story.

Then we have a link not to Koz but to any one of about 95000 people.

Case closed?

Sure is on this ridiculous claim.

[John G]

And if they've abandoned the Eddows DNA and after the 314.1c rubbish did they have much choice, how is the material linked to her in any way, let alone to the murder site. By a rather vague family story.

Then we have a link not to Koz but to any one of about 95000 people.

Case closed?

Sure is on this ridiculous claim.

Yes, and even the figure of, say, one in 95000 or 1 in 100000, presupposes that the genetic material was deposited in 1888 by a Londoner. However, without provenance that is not an assumption we're entitled to make. I mean, it surely could have just as easily have been 1870, 1920, 1973 or any other year you might wish to pick out at random. And who is to say that the genetic material belongs to a Londoner? In fact, to put things into further perspective, the population of England today is around 54 million, therefore about 1 million of those individuals will share Kosminski's haplogroup, and could have theoretically deposited the genetic material!

Clearly the case is far from closed. In fact maybe Russell could write an exciting sequel entitled, "JtR: Case Reopened!"

[Hunter]

Why not. After all, Edwards is now an "expert."

[PaulB]

so nothing to link a fairly substantial bit of silk rag to the crime site other than a rather vague family story

It is not a rag.

[Jonathan H]

The DNA is a sideshow, and a dodgy one at that.

This is because the shawl, or tablecloth, or whatever, has no credible provenance.

It also makes little sense as an object carried either by a victim or her killer.

These researchers, I think, started with DNA and thus needed wiz-bang human material. That leads one, inevitably, to Mr Solitary Vices and if the gene pool is big enough then you get the match you want. And if you don't like it you can get another, and so on.

Personally I found Russell Edwards' book chatty and charming, fun and funny, sometimes deliberately so and sometimes inadvertently so. Plus at least it cemented MP Farquharson as Macnaghten's [initial] source on Druitt, which, it has to be said, is better than twenty or so books on this distorted subject.

[Rosemary]

Legality

GUT..as one of the resident barristers here, please correct me if I'm wrong. All you'd have to say, assuming Kosminski's mtDNA & Y haplogroup were both on the shawl, along with Eddowes' mtDNA, it would only show that the pair exchanged body fluids, not that he murdered her.

As you have all said: no provenance & there's back-tracking on Eddowes' mt DNA. Would they not have to fully sequence the genome to prove it truly was Kosminski's & not any of the other thousands of Eastern Europeans in London then? Just a thought. Shred if necessary. Back to lurking...

[c.d.]

I can't remember. Why did they choose to test Kosminski's DNA and not one of the other suspects?

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, and even the figure of, say, one in 95000 or 1 in 100000, presupposes that the genetic material was deposited in 1888 by a Londoner. However... it surely could have just as easily have been 1870, 1920, 1973 or any other year you might wish to pick out at random.

... or any location, for that matter, John. Either way, the number of potential "donors" are astronomical.

[John G]

... or any location, for that matter, John. Either way, the number of potential "donors" are astronomical.

Hi Sam,

Absolutely. The genetic material, said to relate to Kosminksi, could have been deposited anywhere during the lifetime of the garment. It is also worth reiterating that only mitochondrial DNA was extracted. This simply means that you share a common anscester along the maternal line. As noted, it is far from unique and Kosminski's haplogroup (the group of people who share the same maternal common ancestor) accounts for around 1.8% of England's current population (genetic diversity), as well as about 1.6% of Western Europeans and 2.4% of Eastern Europeans.

[GUT]

I can't remember. Why did they choose to test Kosminski's DNA and not one of the other suspects?

c.d.

They initially tested for Demming as I recall.

[GUT]

It is not a rag.

I'm sorry but a bit of cloth, shawl, table runner whatever, with a chunk cut out of it is nothing but a rag.

[GUT]

GUT..as one of the resident barristers here, please correct me if I'm wrong. All you'd have to say, assuming Kosminski's mtDNA & Y haplogroup were both on the shawl, along with Eddowes' mtDNA, it would only show that the pair exchanged body fluids, not that he murdered her.

As you have all said: no provenance & there's back-tracking on Eddowes' mt DNA. Would they not have to fully sequence the genome to prove it truly was Kosminski's & not any of the other thousands of Eastern Europeans in London then? Just a thought. Shred if necessary. Back to lurking...

Not even that they exchanged fluids, we're the DNA correct the most it could prove is that at some stage they each had contact with it. It doesn't even show that it was at the same time.

[Pcdunn]

Isn't the provenance questionable? I mean, we're not sure the policeman who supposedly kept it existed (or at least was on the scene at the time), nor are we sure it was ever listed in the list of Eddowes' possessions.
I've read about the shawl being given to Scotland Yard, but not displayed due to questions about what it really was. Many years later, the family asks for it back, and later it (or something purporting to be it) is obtained at auction by Mr. Edwards.
It seems to me that it has passed through so many hands that the stains could have occurred on it at any point in time.

[Rosella]

Hi, pcdunn,
PC Amos Simpson existed, all right, and the shawl (or whatever it is) was in the possession of Simpsons' descendants, it seems. However, PC Simpson was a Met copper, (N Division) and it's never been proven that he was ever in or near Mitre Square on that particular night. City PC Watkins found Eddowes' body.

The silk shawl was never traced back to Eddowes or found in her possession. If she had owned it surely she would have tried to pawn it for a bed for the night? (She and John Kelly were 2d short of a night's lodging together when they parted earlier that day.)

IMO the 'Eddowes shawl' legend was a family story that perhaps started out generations before as a joke and then got completely changed out of all recognition over the years.

[Panderoona]

PC Amos Simpson was based at Cheshunt at the time of the murders. Rather a long way from all the murder scenes.

Unfortunately the Daily Mail has revived the story today: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...us-killer.html