A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Chris]

Hypervariable region 1:
T16126C - 12.6%
A16163G - 1.63%
C16186T - 1.51%
C16188- - 1.64%
16193.1C - 8.87%
C16294T - 10.4%
T16519C - 61.2%

Just in case anyone has been worrying about these figures (:-)) there are more issues of nomenclature here. Apparently a more standard description of the Russian sequence would be:

Hypervariable region 1:
T16126C - 12.6%
A16163G - 1.63%
C16186T - 1.51%
16188T - 0.633%
16189C - 27.3%
C16294T - 10.4%
T16519C - 61.2%

Putting these sequence variations into HaploGrep does indeed produce T1a1 as the top suggestion. But there are four discrepancies - one sequence variation expected but not present, and three present but not expected.

I think it's clear that the result of this indirect procedure - of using a partial sequence from the "shawl" to obtain a match in a database, and then finding the haplogroup of the matching sequence - will be very sensitive to how much of the "shawl" DNA was sequenced.

[robhouse]

On Yahoo home page just now... "Trending"

[robhouse]

Here is more crap news coverage: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014...n_6021122.html

After talking about the shawl, the video cuts to Martin Fido talking about the apron (!), how the killer wiped his hands on it.

Also, I am still confused about how everyone is saying a decimal was put in the wrong place. Where did that come from? If nothing else, this episode is making clear to me how badly "news" is reported across the board.

Also, the "reporter" keep referring the item as a "shaw". What the...?

RH

[Chris]

Also, I am still confused about how everyone is saying a decimal was put in the wrong place. Where did that come from? If nothing else, this episode is making clear to me how badly "news" is reported across the board.

Sir Alec Jeffreys was quoted in the Independent report as pointing out that the EMPOP database was too small by about a factor of ten to give a frequency of 1 in 290,000, even if there was a match to only one sequence in the database. Hence the suggestion that it might have been an error for 1 in 29,000 (it wasn't clear from the article whether that suggestion actually came from Jeffreys).

I think only Dr Louhelainen can tell us where that figure came from. But he shows no sign of telling us anything.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Now that all this DNA BS about Aaron Kosminski has been relegated to the Ripperological scrapheap, it might be a humane gesture if we all contributed to some sort of place-marker which removed him from suspicion and finally allowed him to rest in peace.

Ripperology was quick enough to memorialise Abberline and Swanson, so now might be a good time to do a similar thing for Aaron Kosminski.

It's the very least we owe him.

Regards,

Simon

PS. We might then repeat the process with Montague John Druitt.

[Henry Flower]

Now that all this DNA BS about Aaron Kosminski has been relegated to the Ripperological scrapheap, it might be a humane gesture if we all contributed to some sort of place-marker which removed him from suspicion and finally allowed him to rest in peace.

Simon, you keep banging away at this theme. I'm confused. Has Kosminski somehow been 'cleared' by this DNA bungle? Has the real killer been identified? Has the situation re Kosminski changed one jot from what it was before Mr Edwards appeared with his table-cloth?

With respect, you seem slightly confused by what has been proved and what hasn't in this episode.

[richardh]

Essentially... we're back to square one. Kosminski is STILL one of a number of viable suspects. I reckon that DNA found on the shawl was John Merrick's (book coming soon)

Simon, you keep banging away at this theme. I'm confused. Has Kosminski somehow been 'cleared' by this DNA bungle? Has the real killer been identified? Has the situation re Kosminski changed one jot from what it was before Mr Edwards appeared with his table-cloth?

With respect, you seem slightly confused by what has been proved and what hasn't in this episode.

[mickreed]

Hi All,

Now that all this DNA BS about Aaron Kosminski has been relegated to the Ripperological scrapheap, it might be a humane gesture if we all contributed to some sort of place-marker which removed him from suspicion and finally allowed him to rest in peace.

Hey Simon,

Nice thought, although I'm not sure that AK is fully cleared by this. In a court he would be of course, and that would be that. However, in Ripperology, you can be tried twice for the same offence. Unless someone can find evidence that he couldn't have done it - maybe he was in Margate or somewhere - then the idea that he is a viable suspect may continue.

I do wonder about 'M' though. The implication was that living AK family members are 'upset' with suggestions of his guilt.

I can only hope that 'M' and rellies have drawn some solace from recent events.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Henry,

All that has been demonstrated in this shoddy shawl episode is yet another attempt to make a profit out of the Ripper mystery on the backs of a gullible audience who have been so ill-informed over the past 125 years that they are ready and willing to believe absolutely anything.

Aaron Kosminski was never a suspect, unless of course one is sufficiently naive to believe the deliberately misleading scribblings of Anderson and Macnaghten.

You're right. The real killer has not been identified. And as long as you're content to put Aaron Kosminski in the frame as a possible contender for eternal damnation he never will be.

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

Hi Henry,

All that has been demonstrated in this shoddy shawl episode is yet another attempt to make a profit out of the Ripper mystery on the backs of a gullible audience who have been so ill-informed over the past 125 years that they are ready and willing to believe absolutely anything.

Aaron Kosminski was never a suspect, unless of course one is sufficiently naive to believe the deliberately misleading scribblings of Anderson and Macnaghten.

You're right. The real killer has not been identified. And as long as you're content to put Aaron Kosminski in the frame as a possible contender for eternal damnation he never will be.

Regards,

Simon

What nonsense.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

Good to hear from you.

How so?

Regards,

Simon

[richardh]

Oh I dunno Simon, I don't think it was profit that was on the author's mind. I bet he spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on this project over the last 10 years which I doubt he'll get back. I think the author's aim was to ultimately be (split infinitive!) the one who solved the case. Fame was the motivation.

Hi Henry,

All that has been demonstrated in this shoddy shawl episode is yet another attempt to make a profit out of the Ripper mystery on the backs of a gullible audience who have been so ill-informed over the past 125 years that they are ready and willing to believe absolutely anything.

Aaron Kosminski was never a suspect, unless of course one is sufficiently naive to believe the deliberately misleading scribblings of Anderson and Macnaghten.

You're right. The real killer has not been identified. And as long as you're content to put Aaron Kosminski in the frame as a possible contender for eternal damnation he never will be.

Regards,

Simon

[mickreed]

Also, I am still confused about how everyone is saying a decimal was put in the wrong place. Where did that come from? If nothing else, this episode is making clear to me how badly "news" is reported across the board.
H

Hey Rob,

The decimal point seems to be an attempt to explain how the 1 in 290,000 ever got out.

Alec Jeffries said that, if you ran the check today, the lowest frequency you could possibly get would be 1 in 34,417, due to the size of the database.. When JL ran the check, it was thought to be closer to 1 in 29,000 - hence the decimal point.

It's a perfectly valid speculation, but may have distracted from the real point, that 314.1C isn't real and therefore any cited frequency is a dud.

This report said it best for me.

The rest of the article is deliciously, Britishly, excruciating. It brings in the criticism of multiple notable scientists in the DNA field, including none other than the inventor of genetic fingerprinting and multiple honorific holder Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys himself, who calmly explains that Louhelainen isn’t just a bad scientist, he’s also a bad mathematician. Jeffreys points out that that the supposed rare mutation, which Louhelainen used to link the DNA on the shawl with Kosminsky’s descedent, isn’t actually rare in the slightest. And even if it had been?

Dr Louhelainen appears to have made a basic error in calculating the frequency estimate. There are currently about 34,617 entries in the GMI database, and the figure would have been nearer to 29,000 when Dr Louhelainen carried out his research some time ago. So failing to find a match for a non-existent mutation should have given a frequency of about 1/29,000 – an error suggesting that he had placed a decimal point in the wrong place. ”The random match probability of a sequence only seen once [as claimed for the shawl] is therefore roughly 1/34,617. With a database of this size, it is impossible to arrive at an estimate as low as 1/290,000,” Professor Jeffreys said.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Richardh

It's often a hard task to separate money from fame.

I'd be interested to know how much was paid at auction for this piece of material, because the investment, if substantial, can never now be recouped unless, of course, book sales to the gullible cover the shortfall.

Regards,

Simon

[GUT]

Hi Richardh

It's often a hard task to separate money from fame.

I'd be interested to know how much was paid at auction for this piece of material, because the investment, if substantial, can never now be recouped unless, of course, book sales to the gullible cover the shortfall.

Regards,

Simon

Don't forget to factor in his little shop of Yo-Yos and Jelly Beans and tours. I suspect business boomed when news broke that he'd ID'd Jacky.