A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[John G]

Now--if I recall correctly, I had already posted this URL on the subject in a different thread, but it's worth reposting here. It wasn't written by a reporter for a newspaper but by someone who actually works in the field of genetics.

https://dna-explained.com/2014/09/08/jack-the-ripper/

The one criticism I would have of the piece is that the person did not have much experience with T1a1 in Jewish subjects and reached a faulty conclusion based on a paper, whereas it took me only a few minutes to find people with Jewish ancestresses by searching T1a1 in the Family Tree DNA database, which is the result of people submitting their own samples for testing by the company. Family Tree then groups them by haplogroups [naturally] and also shows the sequences of their mitochondrial or yDNA. Further investigation showed that this haplogroup subclade, T1a1, does exist in about 5% of Eastern European Jewry.

I also dispute the conclusion that Aaron Kosminski must be Jack the Ripper, but I can find no problem with the math on this page. Have a look at it. Maybe you can see an error. If not, the odds are pretty compelling. It would mean that one doesn't really need proof of the shawl's provenance. On the contrary, the proof lies with those who wish to dispute the claims regarding the shawl. Because there is so little likelihood that the DNA found on it doesn't belong to Aaron Kosminski. And probably the shawl had belonged to a murdered woman, too. I have a couple of shawls. Mine don't have any blood on them. Because I am still alive.

Hi,

As discussed at length in earlier threads in 2014, the link that you refer to is from a genealogy site, but unfortunately the statistics are based upon erroneous data, i.e. because the sampling they refer to is based upon their own family tree database rather than a wider analysis: see http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...=8296&page=397, post 3968, where I cite more reliable authority.

[MsWeatherwax]

Oh? You mean people like me as opposed to people like you who know diddly about DNA? You just don't get. That's the whole problem with you and others, like Cates. You don't understand it, therefore you don't want to deal with it. If you had read the comments on the blog whose URL I gave with any kind of comprehension, you wouldn't even be asking the question "What would it prove?" Just incredible.

I've just re-read the comments on that blog in case I was confusing them with various other things I've been reading. The vast majority are saying exactly the same things that are being said here - contamination, lack of peer review, and the fact that it's not particularly surprising that a man who was supposed to have used prostitutes ended up with semen on a shawl belonging to (allegedly) a prostitute.

If they go to peer review, I'll eat my words.

[Aldebaran]

Hi,

As discussed at length in earlier threads in 2014, the link that you refer to is from a genealogy site, but unfortunately the statistics are based upon erroneous data, i.e. because the sampling they refer to is based upon their own family tree database rather than a wider analysis: see http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...=8296&page=397, post 3968, where I cite more reliable authority.

Okay, thanks. I'll quote what you said:

Thus, Kosminski is haplogroup T1a1. Currently, haplogroup T1 makes up about 2,17% of the mtDNAs in England and Wales and 80% of the T1 tree falls within subclade T1a1, leaving us with a concentration of about 1.736%. See:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...4/#!po=64.2857
The most relevant sections are p7 and s2 document, which you can download as an Excel file.

I posted just about the same in another thread. Now I have to go back and find what I said.

Now if we consider the population of London in 1888 then, based upon these figures, about 94000 Londoners would have shared Kosminski's mtDNA.
Of course, we do not know that the genetic material was deposited by a Londoner or in 1888.

It could also be argued that demographics have changed since 1888 but I would doubt that this would make much difference to the calculations: T1 represents about 2% of overall genetic diversity in Western Europe and around 3% in Eastern Europe and the Near East: see p7.

Fine, but unless you can dispute that there was a 100% match with that T1a1 found on the shawl and that of a Kosminski relative, you should, strictly speaking, reckon with even a smaller population than the person used on the blog, that being Eastern European Jews of London. Because the Kosminskis were of that ethnicity. I would be the last one to say it doesn't matter that the results were not published in a journal because I certainly would like that. But they all aren't for one reason or another. The main reason is that there has to be a conclusion reached in the paper--which can't be done in this case. The DNA is no proof that Kosminski was Jack the Ripper. An editor of such a journal would probably say "Then what's the point?" I think you know what I'm saying. But, for our purposes here, I just want to point out another thing the blog author brought up. Autosomal DNA. You can't predict hair color without that insofar as I know, so that doctor [the spelling of whose name I can never recall] is hinting he had compared the autosomal DNA of the shawl and the Kosminski relative, as well. And was satisfied there was a match there, too--or he would probably have given up on the project for the reasons you mention. Or he may have more than hinted. We just get what the news articles supply. But wasn't the main point of the blogger the odds of the two different DNA samples from the shawl matching that of two relatives of persons suspected of being associated with the item?

You might be interested in seeing what T1a1 looks like at Family Tree:

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/T_FGS/default.aspx?section=mtresults

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh? You mean people like me as opposed to people like you who know diddly about DNA? You just don't get. That's the whole problem with you and others, like Cates. You don't understand it, therefore you don't want to deal with it. If you had read the comments on the blog whose URL I gave with any kind of comprehension, you wouldn't even be asking the question "What would it prove?" Just incredible.

Its not a question of understating DNA its a question of proving the provenance of the shawl in the first instance, which isnt a shawl in any event, as can clearly seen from the photos.

There is no primary DNA in all of this, and without that there is nothing. Even if you had a perfect DNA match for both Eddowes and Kosminski in the absence of the provenance what would it prove. Nothing, other than both had been in contact with that item. It wouldn't necessarily prove they had contact with each other.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies,but it doesnt always tell the truth"

[Aldebaran]

Its not a question of understating DNA its a question of proving the provenance of the shawl in the first instance, which isnt a shawl in any event, as can clearly seen from the photos.

What would you like it to be called?

There is no primary DNA in all of this, and without that there is nothing.

????

Even if you had a perfect DNA match for both Eddowes and Kosminski in the absence of the provenance what would it prove. Nothing, other than both had been in contact with that item. It wouldn't necessarily prove they had contact with each other.

Now that is true. That is why I have said over and over that Kosminski can't be pointed at as the killer on this evidence. In fact, even if he had been in intimate contact with Eddowes and her ...er....item....that still doesn't prove he was the killer, as a prostitute gets around. At least you seem to allow that the molecular geneticists involved with this business aren't incompetents and know what they're about. I hope that's the case with you. That's all I'm convinced of at this point. That they have very likely been able, via DNA, to connect both Eddowes and Kosminski to the shawl. I never said one thing more. But certain people, who aren't here to defend themselves--is it okay for them to be defended by someone with some knowledge against others who have accused them of being dishonest and or incompetent?

[lynn cates]

return

Hello Trevor. I think you are wasting your time.

Do you recall a certain Petrie dish washer who used to post and who fancied himself a scientist? He may have returned. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Aldebaran]

Hello Trevor. I think you are wasting your time.

Do you recall a certain Petrie dish washer who used to post and who fancied himself a scientist? He may have returned. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

Indeed, I have encountered many a Petrie dish with more wit than you display, sir.