A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[c.d.]

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

c.d.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[Hunter]

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

[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!"

[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]

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...

[GUT]

The 'bit of rag' is a fairly substantial piece of printed silk. We may not like the claims being made, but that doesn't mean that things shouldn't be stated and described fairly.

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

[PaulB]

And from that we jump to "It must be him".

And again no link to the bit of rag other than some vague family story.

The 'bit of rag' is a fairly substantial piece of printed silk. We may not like the claims being made, but that doesn't mean that things shouldn't be stated and described fairly.

[GUT]

Just found my previous post on this subject from last year. Kosminski is haplogroup T1a1 and around 2.17% of the population of England and Wales are mtDNA group T1. The subclade T1a1 represents about 80% of this total, giving a concentration of around 1.736%. That means around 94000 Londoner's, in 1888, would have shared Kosminski's mtDNA.

And from that we jump to "It must be him".

And again no link to the bit of rag other than some vague family story.

[John G]

Just found my previous post on this subject from last year. Kosminski is haplogroup T1a1 and around 2.17% of the population of England and Wales are mtDNA group T1. The subclade T1a1 represents about 80% of this total, giving a concentration of around 1.736%. That means about 94000 Londoner's, in 1888, would have shared Kosminski's mtDNA.

[GUT]

The problem is that the DNA linked to Kosminski is MtDNA, haplogroup T1a1, which is a common subtype.

And of course they still have to link the rotten bit of rag to Kate and more particular her murder site.

[John G]

The problem is that the DNA linked to Kosminski is MtDNA, haplogroup T1a1, which is a common subtype.

[GUT]

Everything relating to the rarity of the Eddowes DNA (314.1c) has been deleted from the paperback and, as in this interview, the concentration is on the match with Kosminski's DNA, which they claim is 100%. They go on to state that having the DNA of both Eddowes and Kosminski on the same piece of material is pretty decisive (which I guess it would be), but I'm not sure how certain the Eddowes DNA match now is. It certainly seems to be played down.

So, the emphasis is on the Kosminski DNA match.

Leaving out the 314.1c!!

Almost an admission huh????