A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[c.d.]

One more question -- so apparently they were hanging their hat on the uniqueness of this mutation. Is that correct?

c.d.

[tji]

Hi C.d

Yes they stated the mtdna was rare enough that it would exclude a huge chunk of the population, so a match of this mutation between Eddowes and her descendant, would favour highly in their favour. However it looks like the mtdna wasn't as rare as they originally thought.

Tracy

[c.d.]

Thanks, Tracy. Just so I am completely clear on this -- they claimed that this mutation appeared in the DNA taken from the shawl as well the DNA taken from Eddowes descendent. But that is irrelevant since the mutation is common throughout the population. Correct?

c.d.

[tji]

Hi C.d

they claimed that this mutation appeared in the DNA taken from the shawl as well the DNA taken from Eddowes descendent. But that is irrelevant since the mutation is common throughout the population. Correct?

That seems to be the basics yes.I mean it could be said it still could be Catherine Eddowes shawl but the odd's of proving it by Mtdna if we are correct has now dropped dramatically.

Tracy

[mickreed]

Thanks Mick for your post and all your work on this. If you could dumb it down for non-scientists that would be great. Does the shawl show a mutation that Karen Miller's DNA does not? Is that correct? Thanks.

c.d.

So far as we can tell, cd, the shawl has the same dna as Karen Miller in one respect at least. The problem is that the defining 'mutation', rather than being very rare, is shared by almost everyone.

[c.d.]

Thanks for that, Mick. I appreciate the response.

c.d.

[mickreed]

But that is irrelevant since the mutation is common throughout the population. Correct?

c.d.

Hi cd. This is a trivial point in this discussion, but I always put 'mutation' in quotes in this context. It implies that the DNA has changed in some way from the original. Really it's a deviation from the reference sequence. So far as I understand it, scientists at some point analysed the mtdna of a single person, and used that as, what you might call, the standard for measurement (rCRS). The mtDNA of other people is described by means of its differences from that standard.

As the scientist from Phylotree noted, the rCRS has only five Cs at the relevant point whereas almost all of us have six. This difference (that is, the additional C) is correctly described as 315.1C but RE/JL seem to have described as 314.1C - hence all the confusion.

[Amanda]

Dna ..

Hi cd. This is a trivial point in this discussion, but I always put 'mutation' in quotes in this context. It implies that the DNA has changed in some way from the original. Really it's a deviation from the reference sequence. So far as I understand it, scientists at some point analysed the mtdna of a single person, and used that as, what you might call, the standard for measurement (rCRS). The mtDNA of other people is described by means of its differences from that standard.

As the scientist from Phylotree noted, the rCRS has only five Cs at the relevant point whereas almost all of us have six. This difference (that is, the additional C) is correctly described as 315.1C but RE/JL seem to have described as 314.1C - hence all the confusion.

Hi Mick,
Just catching up with the latest on the shawl saga.....

Is the 315.1C only stated incorrectly in RE's book, or does it appear elsewhere in statements from JL?
Just wondering if this is a case of RE not interpreting/logging the data correctly rather than JL making a huge scientific mistake..

Must admit I found the DNA stuff rather confusing, but the last few posts have laid it out pretty clearly, thanks.
Amanda

[c.d.]

"As the scientist from Phylotree noted, the rCRS has only five Cs at the relevant point whereas almost all of us have six. This difference (that is, the additional C) is correctly described as 315.1C but RE/JL seem to have described as 314.1C - hence all the confusion."

Yeah, that clears it right up. If that is the simplified, dumb-downed version of your response, I am even dumber than I thought. I now have to go back and see if my university was accredited.

c.d.

[GUT]

G'day cd

What that there university thingy yous talking 'bout is it like that DNA stuff that's got 'em all going.

[c.d.]

See I can talk to you GUT but Mick and those other people I'm not even sure they're speaking English.

c.d.

[mickreed]

Hi Mick,
Just catching up with the latest on the shawl saga.....

Is the 315.1C only stated incorrectly in RE's book, or does it appear elsewhere in statements from JL?
Just wondering if this is a case of RE not interpreting/logging the data correctly rather than JL making a huge scientific mistake..

Must admit I found the DNA stuff rather confusing, but the last few posts have laid it out pretty clearly, thanks.
Amanda

It's in what is claimed to be a direct quote from JL. The whole 'Eddowes match' case, as presented in the book, hinges on this one thing.

[mickreed]

See I can talk to you GUT but Mick and those other people I'm not even sure they're speaking English.

c.d.

Yeah cd, well GUT's an Aussie and I'm a Pom. Makes all the difference. Although I've lived here for 20 years, so my English might be losing its clarity.

[GUT]

Yeah cd, well GUT's an Aussie and I'm a Pom. Makes all the difference. Although I've lived here for 20 years, so my English might be losing its clarity.

The really weird bit is he seems ready to admit that he's a Pom. Just no accounting.

[mickreed]

Yeah, that clears it right up. If that is the simplified, dumb-downed version of your response, I am even dumber than I thought. I now have to go back and see if my university was accredited.

c.d.

G'day cd.

I can see how you got to be Superintendant As Sergeant Jones said in Midsomer Murders, the uni-educated fast-trackers can't do it, but still get all the top jobs. Or something like that.

It is confusing. But it's all to do with proteins. At the relevant bits the base sequence against which we are all measured, known as the rCRS, has five successive bits of the protein, cytosine, called C for short. Most of us have six successive bits, as does the DNA on the shawl, and in the Eddowes descendant, if we are to believe what is in the book.

Because nobody can tell which of these six is the extra bit, the convention is to call it 315.1C. JL/RE appear to have made a mistake and called it 314.1C which threw all of their software out and came up with the idea that it was rare when it ain't.

Sorry I don't have GUT's literary flair, but I hope that helps.