A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[mickreed]

I posted this on jtrForums, but just in case some people don't go there, here it is again.

Hello Ed,

Perhaps I should draw together the points that keep getting referred to, as reasons for the frustration of many of us. This frustration may have led me to be facetious sometimes. That's in my nature, sadly, and is not attractive, and I will try to avoid it in future. However I, and many others have resisted more extreme calls of 'fraud' etc, which seem entirely unjustified.

So here goes:

1. A book was published in which the author claimed to have 'solved' the Ripper case. He claimed via the media that no reasonable person could counter his claims.

I have argued that there is not one item in his book where his claims are supported by his so-called evidence. The only thing that appeared to have any substance was 314.1C, and that was found to be wanting.

So now, it seems, we are being told, that the real evidence to prove the case is forthcoming at some unspecified time. Where does that leave the book? Are they saying that the book does not prove the case?

2. I have said that JL's record on this matter does not inspire confidence. I say this for the following reasons:

a) The shawl DNA is 'ancient DNA' - so defined by its condition, not its age. According to ancient DNA experts, this should only be worked on in properly-accredited ancient DNA labs. So far as I can tell, the Liverpool John Moores lab is not so accredited. I'm open to correction on this, if my source was out of date..

b) In properly-run ancient DNA labs, only properly accredited and trained staff are allowed in. It would seem that RE, Robin Napper, at least one TV camera crew, and who knows who else, have been in the lab when the shawl was being worked on.

c) JL seems to have made a very basic error over the rarity of 314.1C.

d) JL seems to have made a very basic error regarding the rarity of the non-existant 314.1C mutation. He said it was 1 in 290,000 when it couldn't have been more than about 1 in 30,000, even if it had existed.

e) JL, according to RE, claimed that mtDNA haplogroup T1a1 was typical of Russian/Polish Jews. It is not, although it is not completely unknown, it is quite rare - well under 5%. Much more common in other groups.

There may be other things, that I don't recall at present.

3. JL has indeed refused to discuss these matters.

a) He failed to respond to requests to discuss it from people who had actually helped find the descendants early on.

b) When I approached him, he showed an initial willingness to discuss it, but then - I forget, but less than an hour after our first exchange - he said that 'having learned of the activities of (sod it, let's name names) Chris Phillips, he was not prepared to discuss it further.

c) He refused to comment to the Independent, or so the paper claimed.

d) On his Facebook page, he claimed that the Independent was the only source (not true) that had been negative from the start, and that he believed they had an 'agenda' due to some unspecified dispute with the publisher.

e) Soon after my contact with him, he posted on his Facebook page that he had heard only from 'nutters'. This was in response to a suggestion from a 'friend' that he might get masses of funding as a result of this work.

Now, given the exaggerated claims of the author and the publisher regarding the book, and the subsequent failure of anyone to respond to reasonable requests, I think it is quite reasonable for people to feel frustrated. If that spills over into print, then that's probably wrong. But let's not assume the 'rudeness' is all one way.

Since the Independent story broke, I have sought comments from the publisher, the publisher's PR people, the Whitechapel Society (that one only a few days ago), and others. There has been zero response in every case.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

I posted this on jtrForums, but just in case some people don't go there, here it is again.

...

Thanks Mick. I actually saw it on the jtrforums.

To me it seems like the info coming from Ed Stow (Lechmere?) is only adding to the confusion as some of it seems to be a contradiction of information from RE's book and early radio shows. The origin of this information is?

According Mr Stow (3rd post down):

Some of this comes from Dr Jari's talk, some from the Q and A and possibly some from private discussion - it is difficult to unravel.

"possibly" from private discussion. Surely people know/remember if they had a private discussion?

And private discussion can always be ooh - denied, or that's not what I meant, or a misunderstanding.

If research is continuing does that mean Edwards has come up with more research funds, because Dr. JL said the "budget was blown" on the BBC4 InScience show?

Why the sudden claim that the sperm cells are fragile? This is a new story.

If we now have Dr JL looking at "13 markers", is he acknowledging the criticism of the 314.1c claim?

And if RE & Dr. JL are too prove their case the need rock solid data for both Eddowes and Kosminski to link them together. Data for only one proves nothing.

I get the feeling that someone is blowing smoke in our eyes.

cheers, gryff

[mickreed]

To me it seems like the info coming from Ed Stow (Lechmere?) is only adding to the confusion as some of it seems to be a contradiction of information from RE's book and early radio shows. The origin of this information is?

To be fair to Ed, Gryff, I imagine he's trying to give us a flavour of what was said at Salisbury. And good on him for that.

What I find hard, is working out what he heard first-hand, and what may have been told him by others.

I also find it hard to accept that we should ignore the book from hereon in, because there is unspecified new data in the pipeline (possibly).

Well, no! As I said somewhere else, the book is all there is. Everything else is pie in the sky, until it comes down from the sky in the form of hard data.

I honestly cannot recall such a schemozzle in any field of study that I've been concerned with for 40-odd years, in which a book is published making effusive claims, and in only two months we are being told to ignore the book and that all will be revealed some time.

Now, whether this is Ed's take on it, or whether it's what was said at Salisbury by RE and/or JL, I don't know, but if the latter, then confidence falls even further, if that is possible.

Now if the book is not considered definitive by the author, then a lot of people have been sold a pig in a poke, and ought (but probably can't) to be reimbursed.

I really am at a loss to work out what the heck is going on. As I say, I've never seen such a schemozzle.

[mickreed]

Uhm, hi guys, I'm not pretending to be any kind of expert on DNA, but I've been trying to look into this 12 (or 13) marker thing that's been brought up here and elsewhere in regard to the DNA. From looking at what genealogical sites have to say a 12 marker match even on YDNA is a minimum and could only prove common ancestral heritage over many generations. Would anyone with more knowledge/understanding look into this please? It seems that you can be tested against many more markers than 12 and the higher the number of positive matches the more likely you can narrow down the relationship? Thanks.

Hi Panderoona,

Well, really your guess is a good as mine. From everything I know about mtDNA, it is unlikely that they can prove a direct descent between the DNA on the shawl and the DNA of the Eddowes descendant. The only thing that claimed to make it highly likely was the extreme rarity of 314.1C. That fell over when it was found to be an error of nomenclature, and not rare at all. As I said somewhere else, mtDNA can exclude somebody where there's no match, but cannot prove. In court it's may used as a building block with loads of other evidence.

For example, you might have a witness that places someone who resembles Freda Bloggs at the scene of a crime, Freda may have no alibi for the occasion, Proceeds of the crime might be found in her bottom drawer, and mtDNA that matches hers may have been found at the scene. All in all strongly suggestive.

We don't have anything like that in this case.

Your comments on Y-DNA seem apt, but irrelevant in the case of the Eddowes match, since we are talking about women. It may be relevant if the so-called 'Kosminski' DNA is ever made public.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

To be fair to Ed, Gryff, I imagine he's trying to give us a flavour of what was said at Salisbury. And good on him for that.

What I find hard, is working out what he heard first-hand, and what may have been told him by others.

I also find it hard to accept that we should ignore the book from hereon in, because there is unspecified new data in the pipeline (possibly).

I agree with you Mick - Ed is just the messanger. And the "what told to him by others" bothers me. With the "possibly some from private discussion", I have to wonder what seeds of obfustication RE sowed as he walked around at Salisbury?

As for "new data in the pipeline" - did RE pony up some more money? Dr JL was quite specific in stating the "budget was blown"

And I'll say it again, if they are having to look for more data (13 markers) is that an admission that 314.1c was err ... a mistake?

cheers, gryff

[Lechmere]

Check out post 1099, where the strands of information are separated out.

[mickreed]

I agree with you Mick - Ed is just the messanger. And the "what told to him by others" bothers me. With the "possibly some from private discussion", I have to wonder what seeds of obfustication RE sowed as he walked around at Salisbury?

As for "new data in the pipeline" - did RE pony up some more money? Dr JL was quite specific in stating the "budget was blown"

And I'll say it again, if they are having to look for more data (13 markers) is that an admission that 314.1c was err ... a mistake?

cheers, gryff

Hey Gryff

Really, with all respect to Ed, has anyone ever heard of serious science being presented like this?

I'm sure Ed is trying to be as objective as possible, and what he is telling us is what he believes to have been said, either by RE or by JL, or both.

I just cannot believe any serious scientist would allow such a load of non-specific claims to do the rounds in such an uncontrolled way.

We've already seen in an interview (can't recall where) soon after publication, that JL tried to let the odd caveat come out, and was quickly put in his place by RE.

My question really is, who's running this science show?

[Panderoona]

Hi Panderoona,

Well, really your guess is a good as mine. From everything I know about mtDNA, it is unlikely that they can prove a direct descent between the DNA on the shawl and the DNA of the Eddowes descendant. The only thing that claimed to make it highly likely was the extreme rarity of 314.1C. That fell over when it was found to be an error of nomenclature, and not rare at all. As I said somewhere else, mtDNA can exclude somebody where there's no match, but cannot prove. In court it's may used as a building block with loads of other evidence.

For example, you might have a witness that places someone who resembles Freda Bloggs at the scene of a crime, Freda may have no alibi for the occasion, Proceeds of the crime might be found in her bottom drawer, and mtDNA that matches hers may have been found at the scene. All in all strongly suggestive.

We don't have anything like that in this case.

Your comments on Y-DNA seem apt, but irrelevant in the case of the Eddowes match, since we are talking about women. It may be relevant if the so-called 'Kosminski' DNA is ever made public.

many thanks for your reply. The main reason I mentioned the YDNA is that it appears to be YDNA that requires these 12/13 markers in say, a paternity test, where one person could be excluded rather than a certain identification. If this 12/13 marker thing is only relevant to YDna, why is it being discussed in the case of Kates MTDNA?

[mickreed]

why is it being discussed in the case of Kates MTDNA?

I'm a bit mystified as well.

[Chris]

The confusion here seems to be almost total. If anyone else who attended the public sessions at the conference has taken proper notes they may tell us something, but otherwise I can't see the point of trying to decipher these Chinese whispers.

[Archaic]

Article: 'Jack the Ripper, One of Us? No, Thanks.'

Hi guys.

I saw an article this morning in an online journal called The Jewish Daily Forward which discusses the controversy over 'Naming Jack the Ripper', the shawl DNA, and the claimed scientific identification of Aaron Kosminski as Jack the Ripper.

The article is well written and more thorough than most. Its author is Lenny Picker, described as an attorney who has lectured on the Ripper case.

According to the article, an Israeli paper reported that Kosminski family descendents feared "reprisals", which I don't believe I've heard before.

'Jack the Ripper, One of Us? No, Thanks. 125 Years of Accusations and Anti-Semitism': http://m.forward.com/articles/209121...-us-no-thanks/

Best regards,
Archaic

[caz]

No, they were both mitochondrial DNA.

... he [Louhelainen] started work on comparing M’s mitochondrial DNA with that of the cells extracted from the semen stain on the shawl.
...
What Jari had found was a 99.2 per cent match when he ran the alignment in one direction, and going the other way it was a 100 per cent perfect match.

Hi Chris,

Many thanks for all your interesting and informative posts on this topic. I have been away from the boards lately (and meetings and conferences too), so am struggling to catch up. What struck me about the above quote was the alleged 99.2 per cent match. I recalled that exact percentage appearing in your initial post to this thread (quoted again below), but in another context entirely (in fact it could hardly have been more different: one implying a suspect's involvement; the other undermining the case regarding the victim), so I have to presume it's just one of those odd little coincidences, although it still makes me very slightly uncomfortable. I have underlined the percentage in each quote for the sake of clarity.

Anyway, it all makes a nice change from the blessed diary shenanigans!

In "Naming Jack the Ripper", Russell Edwards quotes Dr Jari Louhelainen's comments about the match between a segment of mitochondrial DNA obtained from the area of a possible blood stain on the "shawl" and the corresponding segment from a female-line descendant of Catherine Eddowes:
"One of these amplified mtDNA segments had a sequence variation which have a match between one of the shawl samples and Karen Miller’s DNA only; i.e. the DNA sequence retrieved from the shawl did not match with control reference sequences. This DNA alteration is known as global private mutation (314.1C) and it is not very common in worldwide population, as it has frequency estimate of 0.000003506, i.e. approximately 1/ 290,000. This figure has been calculated using the database at Institute of Legal Medicine, GMI, based on the latest available information."

Just over a week ago, Tracy I'anson posted an excerpt from a paper describing software designed to identify missing persons, which discusses the conventions for describing variations in the mitochondrial DNA sequence:
"An insert, such as the common extra “C” after base position 315 is listed as “315.1 C”. For matching purposes, the program tolerates errors in nomenclature for equivalent variants such as the extra C in the poly-cytosine region being reported as “314.1 C”."

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=309837&postcount=2968

The paper she quoted can be found here:

http://www.genecodesforensics.com/news/Promega%202004%20M-FISys%20for%20Missing%20Persons%20paper%20revised.pdf

The authors refer to 314.1C as an "error in nomenclature". This is because 314.1C indicates that the measured sequence differs from the standard reference sequence for mitochondrial DNA by the insertion of one additional C (cytosine) after position 314 in the sequence. But the reference sequence actually has a string of five Cs in a row around here, in positions 311 to 315. The additional C could be inserted at any point in this string, and the resulting sequence - which is all that can be measured - would be exactly the same. The convention in forensic genetics is to describe the insertion as having occurred after the last possible position - that is, in this case, after position 315. So the conventional description for this mutation is 315.1C, not 314.1C.

The problem is that 315.1C is not a rare mutation, as the authors quoted by Tracy indicate. In fact the presence of an extra C in this position is much more common than its absence, because this is a case in which the reference sequence itself contains an uncommon mutation. The database referred to in the book can be found at http://empop.org/ and it indicates that 315.1C is present in 99.2% of the sequences which have information for this position.

It appears that something has gone badly wrong with the analysis here, and obviously the quoted figure of 1 in 290,000 can't be accepted without further explanation.

Love,

Observant Caz
X

[Chris]

Many thanks for all your interesting and informative posts on this topic. I have been away from the boards lately (and meetings and conferences too), so am struggling to catch up. What struck me about the above quote was the alleged 99.2 per cent match. I recalled that exact percentage appearing in your initial post to this thread (quoted again below), but in another context entirely (in fact it could hardly have been more different: one implying a suspect's involvement; the other undermining the case regarding the victim), so I have to presume it's just one of those odd little coincidences, although it still makes me very slightly uncomfortable. I have underlined the percentage in each quote for the sake of clarity.

Thank you. I hadn't seen this when you first posted it, nor had I noticed the coincidence. But as you say, the contexts in which the figure appears are completely different, so I think it can only be a coincidence.

[Chris]

People who have been following the discussion of the Ripper DNA analysis may be interested to see the scientific paper which has just been published on the DNA analysis relating to the bones identified as those of Richard III:

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141202/ncomms6631/full/ncomms6631.html

When the results were first announced, there was some criticism on the same lines as the criticism of the Edwards-Louhelainen work on the Ripper case, namely that the announcement was made before the work had been peer-reviewed, that the match might be the result of contamination and that it might not be conclusive if it was limited to short segments of DNA:

http://www.livescience.com/26839-richard-iii-announcement-reactions.html

But as published, the match is based on the whole mitochondrial DNA sequence (sixteen and a half thousand base positions long). A perfect match was found with one living relation in the female line, and a single difference in the sequence for another relation.

The researchers searched the EMPOP database containing 26,127 European sequences (the same one used by Dr Louhelainen) and another database of 1,832 British sequences, and didn't find a match to the sequence from the bones. On that basis, given the uniform frequencies of mitochondrial haplotypes across Europe, and the historical mobility of noble women, they suggested that an estimated frequency of [less than] 1 in 10,000 would be justified, but they chose to err on the side of caution by basing the estimate instead on the smaller British database, giving 1 in 1,832.

[Chris]

People who have been following the discussion of the Ripper DNA analysis may be interested to see ...

And also to know that the sequence variations found in the mtDNA from the bones included 315.1C ...