A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Tom_Wescott]

Don't you get this? It's nothing to do with what I believe Tom, I can detect BS about DNA when I see it , it's a simple as that really and I object to it. Someone has got to stick up for science here against the mob, and I'm sure there may be others who would like too, but are not confident enough about the subject and are scared of being brow beaten out of it - frankly I'd rather some one else did it - but if I have too, I will.

Okay...so, do you you think Kosminski's DNA is on the shawl?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Mr Lucky]

Mr Lucky

No - 314.1C simply means the insertion of a C after position 314, just as 315.1C means the insertion of a C after position 315.

The situation where there is a series of seven Cs would be described as 315.1C 315.2C. Anyone perverse enough could indeed describe it as 314.1C 315.1C, or in various other non-standard ways. But clearly they couldn't describe it simply as 314.1C, because that would mean only one extra C had been inserted, not two.

You are now creating a false argument, that's not my claim at all. The additional C's are totally distinct from the global private mutation - from post 69 -"I would suggest that the 'global private mutation' found in the Eddowes family mtDNA is not "314.1C" but starts at location 314.1C"

Incidentally, if you put 315.1C 315.2C into the EMPOP database, you'll see that while it is rare - about 0.18% - it's not remotely as rare as 1 in 290,000.

Really!!, let's have a think about this - perhaps if you put the wrong information into the database you will get the wrong answer out - maybe it's as simple as that!

Basically you need to know what the global private mutation actually is first, to then be able to actually type the correct sequence in to the right database, you will then get the right answer (1 in 290000) back. It's no good just typing random sequences in to the EMPOP and then complaining because the wrong answer comes out.

However, this is all irrelevant as the match between the shawl sample and the Eddowes family mtDNA is a "global private mutation", not the well known problem with variance/nomenclature in the poly-cytosine region that you seem to think it is.

[Mr Lucky]

Okay...so, do you you think Kosminski's DNA is on the shawl?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I don't know, Tom

[Tom_Wescott]

Then what are you arguing for? Just Kate's DNA?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mickreed]

Basically you need to know what the global private mutation actually is

However, this is all irrelevant as the match between the shawl sample and the Eddowes family mtDNA is a "global private mutation", not the well known problem with variance/nomenclature in the poly-cytosine region that you seem to think it is.

I don't know what the 'global private mutation actually is', Lucky. Do you? I've re-read that part of the book, and I'm none the wiser.

If it's not what Chris et al seem to think, then we'd all love to know, I'm sure. I've contacted several DNA specialists regarding this, and, from the text, they don't know either.

I'm all for giving the science a fair hearing. I just haven't yet seen a fair statement of what the science actually is.

[Mr Lucky]

I don't know what the 'global private mutation actually is', Lucky. Do you?

? What the actual sequence is, No I don't.

I've re-read that part of the book, and I'm none the wiser.

I heartily agree.

If it's not what Chris et al seem to think, then we'd all love to know, I'm sure. I've contacted several DNA specialists regarding this, and, from the text, they don't know either.

No, that's right. The only people who would know what the mutant sequence is are those who have conducted the tests and seen the results - conversely, if you ask some one who hasn't conducted the test, like a local shop keeper, they will not be able to tell you. Don't try and understand this - it's like frigging magic or something.

I'm all for giving the science a fair hearing. I just haven't yet seen a fair statement of what the science actually is.

Ok hypothetical - say if a supposed sequence of DNA was produced - allegedly the global private mutation, would you be able to test its validity in some way - perhaps work out using protein topography or something , whether that sequence could actually exist or not? - I mean would there be anything you can do to test this in some way? or are you just going to look at it, like the rest of us and point out it says "CAT" somewhere?

[mickreed]

?
No, that's right. The only people who would know what the mutant sequence is are those who have conducted the tests and seen the results - conversely, if you ask some one who hasn't conducted the test, like a local shop keeper, they will not be able to tell you. Don't try and understand this - it's like frigging magic or something.

Well yes, a local shopkeeper maybe not. I have asked a couple of DNA specialists who couldn't (or maybe didn't want to) say anything from the bit of info I sent them.

I've also contacted a colleague who is an academic forensic criminologist and (probably) quite well-known to some TV viewers of historical investigation programmes (enough said), and although she can't say, she has given me contact details for a couple of (her words) 'world-class' forensic DNA outfits who, I know, she has had dealings with.

At the moment though, I'd prefer to leave it to Chris, who may well be in touch with people in a position to help.

? Ok hypothetical - say if a supposed sequence of DNA was produced - allegedly the global private mutation, would you be able to test its validity in some way - perhaps work out using protein topography or something , whether that sequence could actually exist or not? - I mean would there be anything you can do to test this in some way? or are you just going to look at it, like the rest of us and point out it says "CAT" somewhere?

Don't know. Normally tests like this would have been done

'on “blind” samples to ensure they do know which sample they are analysing in order to avoid unwitting prejudice, and have even carried out duplicate blinded experiments in two different laboratories to replicate each other’s work.

None of this, as far we know, has been done in this case.'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/has-jack-the-rippers-identity-really-been-revealed-using-dna-evidence-9717036.html?origin=internalSearch

[Tom_Wescott]

Mr. Lucky,

So you don't know if Kosminski's DNA is on the shawl, but since you 'believe in science', you do believe that Eddowes' DNA is on the shawl? Is that what you're on about?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

You are now creating a false argument, that's not my claim at all. The additional C's are totally distinct from the global private mutation - from post 69 -"I would suggest that the 'global private mutation' found in the Eddowes family mtDNA is not "314.1C" but starts at location 314.1C"

314.1C isn't a location. The location is just 314. It just means the 314th letter in the sequence.

314.1C describes the mutation. It describes the way in which the sequence differs from the standard reference sequence. It's just shorthand for the insertion of one extra C after position 314. That's all there is to it.

Just to be clear, all I am saying at present is that some kind of error has been made. It could be an error in the description of the sequence variation, or it could be an error in the estimation of its frequency, or it could be a combination of the two. To understand what's gone wrong, we need information from Dr Louhelainen.

Perhaps it would be a good idea just to wait for that now. I hope it won't be too long in coming.

[tji]

Hi Mr Lucky

Dear Matilda,

It's no good threatening me with exclusion, I'm already excluded.

I am really not sure what you mean by this, I have not threatened you with anything and to what have I excluded you from?

Matilda...er Tracy


Hey Tom

Why is ol' Teej being called Matilda and Lucky is being called Mr. Poster? Somebody or somebodies are very confused.

I mistakenly thought 2 poster's were the same person (Mr Lucky here and Mr P on Jtr forum's) so was my bad. Sorry. Also Matilda isn't bad, I've been called a lot worse

by Mr Lucky

Don't you get this? It's nothing to do with what I believe Tom, I can detect BS about DNA when I see it , it's a simple as that really and I object to it. Someone has got to stick up for science here against the mob, and I'm sure there may be others who would like too, but are not confident enough about the subject and are scared of being brow beaten out of it - frankly I'd rather some one else did it - but if I have too, I will.

Dammit it, Chris, Deb's, we've been found out, thumbscrew's and whips are now a no go. We will have to think of some other way to force people to listen to us. If only there was some sort of forum where we could post our questions and observation's.........

[Debra A]

Uh oh, Mr. Lucky's in trouble now.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I just happen to think that, unlike some others, Chris's knowledge, understanding and explanation of this potential problem makes perfect sense. But I am no expert, with just a basic understanding of mtDNA sequencing, mutations and rCRS comparison, so everything I say is obviously a rage against the science just for the sake of it!
I can wait until Jari gets a chance to explain things.

Meanwhile, poor Chris can't win! He's a double agent now.

[Fantasio]

I just happen to think that, unlike some others, Chris's knowledge, understanding and explanation of this potential problem makes perfect sense.

I, too, think that Chris did the best he could do to explain us the potential problem. The best we can do instead is waiting for dr. JariLou to answer the question. I agree that he's the only one who knows the answer.

[Observer]

I can wait until Jari gets a chance to explain things..

Precisely what I have been saying for some time now. Leave it to the experts to thrash out. Dr Louhelainen believes there's a good chance that Eddowes DNA is present on the cloth.

[Debra A]

Precisely what I have been saying for some time now. Leave it to the experts to thrash out. Dr Louhelainen believes there's a good chance that Eddowes DNA is present on the cloth.

What would he need to explain if Chris hadn't brought this up?

[Observer]

What would he need to explain if Chris hadn't brought this up?

Are you seriously trying to tell me that if the "mistake" had not been pointed out on this thread other infinitely more knowledgeable experts in the field would not have passed comment?