A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[tji]

Hi John

Yes, I like to be thorough!

Mission successful

Tracy

[mickreed]

Hi Mick,

Yes, I think this thread started to confuse me several weeks ago! Nonetheless, considering the degree of detail, I'm beginning to think that I must have had lot of time on my hands when I submitted my last post!

Seriously, though, I think that you and Chris have done excellent work and statements made by Dr Jari L and Russell Edwards, regarding the shawl and DNA evidence, and some of the conclusion they drew, are now clearly seriously undermined.

Incidentally, from what now seems millennia ago, I seem to remember that Dr Jari L stated in a radio interview that he had intended to check the shawl for genomic DNA but was unable to do so before the book publishing deadline. Do you know if this is a project he still intends to pursue?

Cheers,

John

Hi John

Thanks for the kind words. Chris did most of of it, of course. All I did was to follow up with a few people.

I also recall JL talking about genomic DNA. I thought he said he'd got some but, as you say, it was too late for the book. What he's got, and what it says, is quite unknown to we, the public.

I've no idea what his plans are. I did have brief communication with him a few days ago, but it didn't develop usefully.

All I do know is that there seems to be some sort of privacy issue with discussing the details. In Jari's own words to me:

I cannot discuss this in great details as the DNA sequence matches with a living individual as well and we try to keep the minor details hidden as well as we can.

Now, I'll be the first to insist that privacy is very important, but the privacy of Karen Miller has, surely, been compromised by the fact that she is named in the book as the Eddowes descendant, has appeared on a TV programme on the Ripper, and so on.

Now it could be that the entire DNA profile of Karen could tell us things that she might not want the world to know. I've no idea, but the bit that is out there and from which all the claims derive from is this stuff about 314.1C, and that is the central part of the book really. I'd go further and say it (or the DNA stuff in general) is the only aspect of the book that warrants any attention at all.

So, I cannot see how a discussion of this issue will compromise anyone's privacy.

[Chris]

I also recall JL talking about genomic DNA. I thought he said he'd got some but, as you say, it was too late for the book. What he's got, and what it says, is quite unknown to we, the public.

The part about the hair colour in the book comes from nuclear DNA. Eye colour has also been mentioned in interviews, but I don't think it's in the book.

All I do know is that there seems to be some sort of privacy issue with discussing the details. In Jari's own words to me:

I cannot discuss this in great details as the DNA sequence matches with a living individual as well and we try to keep the minor details hidden as well as we can.

Considering all he was being asked about was the sequence variation "314.1C", which had already been published in the book, this is incomprehensible.

[Debra A]

Considering all he was being asked about was the sequence variation "314.1C", which had already been published in the book, this is incomprehensible.

I totally agree. It's already out there, published in a book on sale to the public for everyone to see. All we need is an explanation as to why (314.1c) was determined to be a global private mutation , and was described as practically Eddowes family specific in 1888; because according to the book only about 20 people in London in 1888 would have this mutation-and there were at least 13 (probably more) Eddowes family members who were in London in 1888 who would have carried it and so made up a significant percentage of that 20 people . That's pretty strong evidence that the shawl had the DNA of someone belonging to the Eddowes family and adds weight to the Simpson family story.
So it's important. In fact it is the most significant piece of information in the book, isn't it?

[Debra A]

Excellent post #292 Mick. Well done.

[mickreed]

Excellent post #292 Mick. Well done.

Thanks Debs. Couldn’t have done it without you lot.

[mickreed]

In fact it is the most significant piece of information in the book, isn't it?

Yep! One could say the only significant piece.

[mickreed]

Considering all he was being asked about was the sequence variation "314.1C", which had already been published in the book, this is incomprehensible.

Others have wondered whether JL was on some kind of embargo with the publishers about discussing anything.

I've always thought that unlikely, but this apparent reticence does make you wonder what is going on?

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Others have wondered whether JL was on some kind of embargo with the publishers about discussing anything.

I've always thought that unlikely, but this apparent reticence does make you wonder what is going on?

I relistened to the interview Dr JL did with Adam Rutherford for Radio 4's Inside Science show.

At the end of the interview Dr JL talks about budget issues and the need for more funds for further research and publishing a peer reviewed scientific paper. Maybe the good doctor hopes that Edwards will provide that funding - so he does not wish to antagonize/upset him for the moment.

Just a thought ...

cheers, gryff

[Caligo Umbrator]

Others have wondered whether JL was on some kind of embargo with the publishers about discussing anything.

I've always thought that unlikely, but this apparent reticence does make you wonder what is going on?

Hi, Mickreed.

Firstly, I believe the work Chris, yourself and others have done to uncover this apparently significant error concerning the mDNA information as given in the book, has been sterling.

Regarding the reticence seeming displayed by the good Dr., I wonder if the living relatives who supplied their DNA might have required a legal document of some sort to be drawn up, ensuring that only genetic information fully pertinent to the proof of identity be disclosed.
I can say that I certainly wouldn't wish to have the general public trawling through my families DNA, and uncovering markers for mental health issues, alcoholic tendencies, obesity or whatever else might be there.

Yours, Caligo.

[mickreed]

I can say that I certainly wouldn't wish to have the general public trawling through my families DNA, and uncovering markers for mental health issues, alcoholic tendencies, obesity or whatever else might be there.

Yours, Caligo.

Agreed in full, Caligo.

However, I cannot imagine that the mtDNA that is central to this matter would be relevant for medical explorations. I imagine the results would look something like the following - which are mine - make what you will of them. I'm sure nobody would need much more, but I may be wrong.

Of course the subjects may still have required such an understanding.

Note that if my 315.1C had erroneously been noted as 314.1C, then I'd be an Eddowes relative too. 1 in 290,000

[Chris]

One thing to remember is that we're not dealing with the full mitochondrial DNA sequence, or even the 7% or so in the "hypervariable regions" (which Mick's profile above was limited to).

The match was obtained from something described as a "small segment" - one of seven small segments from within the hypervariable regions that were examined. (Of the other six, the amplification process failed for one, and two others matched control samples from other people who had been in contact with the "shawl". We're not told what happened with the remaining three.)

We don't know how long the matching segment was, or how many mutations it contained - we only know it included positions 311-315, and contained the sequence variation 314.1C (aka 315.1C). So it's anybody's guess whether the match could have just happened by chance.

Of course, one possibility is that if the error over 314.1C were corrected, then this segment could also match one of the control samples.

Otherwise the match is meaningless without either full details of the matching sequence, or a trustworthy estimate of how common it is. Obviously that estimate wouldn't breach anyone's privacy. But given that the estimate published in the book appears to be completely wrong, how believable would it be? It would be far preferable to have the details of the sequence. And I've seen no evidence at all that Karen Miller would be unhappy with that.

[mickreed]

And I've seen no evidence at all that Karen Miller would be unhappy with that.

I wonder whether she's been stitched by in some sort of non-discosure agreement. I suppose someone could ask her to find out if she was interested in establishing the truth, a simple swab test and a couple of hundred bucks would sort it.

[Chris]

I wonder whether she's been stitched by in some sort of non-discosure agreement. I suppose someone could ask her to find out if she was interested in establishing the truth, a simple swab test and a couple of hundred bucks would sort it.

That could confirm that there was 315.1C and nothing else at positions 311-315, but the trouble is it wouldn't give us really conclusive information about the significance of the match. For that, we'd need to know how much of the sequence was matched.

For example, for the sake of argument suppose the length of the segment was 100 (not unreasonable, given that there were seven segments, and they came from HVR1 and HVR2, whose total length is 1100+). If the segment extended 50 positions either side of 315 - covering positions 265-365 - then EMPOP tells us that more than 80% of the population have the string of 6 Cs starting at 311 and a string of either 7, 8 or 9 Cs starting at 303, and no other sequence variations in that range.

A match confined to that range might be shared by as much as 35% of the population. Of course, if like Mick's the sequence had a genuinely uncommon variation within that range, it might be much more significant. But without more information, we couldn't know whether the match was significant at all.

[mickreed]

That could confirm that there was 315.1C and nothing else at positions 311-315, but the trouble is it wouldn't give us really conclusive information about the significance of the match. For that, we'd need to know how much of the sequence was matched.

I'm sure you're right Chris, overall. But surely if it highlighted, as I am utterly confident it would, that 314.1C is really 315.1C, then wouldn't it destroy the published claims about the significant aspects of the match, and thereby throw everything into disarray?