A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Aldebaran]

Hi Aldebaran.

Even without the (very) dubious provenance of the shawl, I understand that even Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, the inventor of genetic fingerprinting has chimed in to say that the analysis of the DNA was highly questionable. The scientist who conducted the original tests has stated that he now admits that the recovered DNA 'could belong to anyone'. More than 99% of people of Eastern European descent share the mutation in the sample.

The last I heard, the shawl in question was being auctioned for nearly £3 million, so mission accomplished and ethics be damned, eh?

I do wonder what poor Catherine would make of that figure - it would certainly have covered her doss for a while, wouldn't it?

Ever since I have been following those who have worked with ancient or older DNA [and that has been for quite some time], there have always been nay-sayers. Every single high-profile project has had its critics. However, here, we should not say "Well, this one was not impressed" because that is not enough information. In science, it is important to say why--so that someone like me can address that. I doubt that the man who recovered the DNA from the blood on the shawl meant that it could belong to anyone. If it was a match to that of the relative of Catherine Eddowes, then the mitochondrial DNA was the same as that of the murdered woman. I don't think people are grasping this. Everyone who belongs to the same maternal line has the same mtDNA. Therefore, it appears to corroborate the family's story that the shawl was removed from the dead body of Eddowes. Unless one supposes that someone else in the family got blood all over that shawl or whatever the object is.

Could the person who claimed that the other DNA did not come from semen please point to where this information was obtained--because the other expert who worked on that was quoted as saying it was semen from my reading and that he had to look for it deep inside the fabric.

[Aldebaran]

From this news report, all I see is Sir Alec Jeffreys saying that the matter is "inconclusive". That's right, because it can't lead to the conclusion that Kosminski was Jack. Then he said he wished the project would be published and submitted to peer review. Also right, because that would have to yield more information. But there is nothing there about "highly questionable" MsWeatherwax. Jeffreys would know better than to say that the work of a colleague was of questionable merit.

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/jack-ripper-dna-evidence-needs-work-professor-sir/story-22897321-detail/story.html

Meanwhile, it might be a good idea to have a look at how many mitochondrial haplogroups there actually are. This page shows them, but does not list all the subclades or sub-groups associated with them. My haplogroup is H1, a subclade of H. Could it "belong to anyone"? Certainly not! H is common but the subclades narrow it down considerably.

http://isogg.org/wiki/MtDNA_haplogroup_projects

[MsWeatherwax]

Hi Aldebaran.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/jack-the-ripper-id-hinges-on-a-decimal-point-as-scientists-flag-up-dna-error-in-book-that-claims-to-9804325.html

Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, the inventor of genetic fingerprinting – who found that Dr Louhelainen made a basic mistake in analysing the DNA extracted from a shawl supposedly found near the badly disfigured body of Ripper victim Catherine Eddowes.

They say the error means no DNA connection can be made between Kosminski and Eddowes. Any suggestion therefore that the Ripper and Kosminski are the same person appears to be based on conjecture and supposition

I don't claim to be an expert on DNA analysis, because I'm definitely not. However, if Sir Alec Jeffreys is saying that the error means that no DNA connection can be made then I'm happy to take his word for it. In fact, what he actually said is that it's not even questionable...it's just wrong.

Also, even without his opinion, the fact that this study has never been submitted for peer review speaks volumes to me. That's before anyone...and I'm sure that they have already...goes down the route of the potential for contamination.

Assuming that this 'shawl' actually belonged to Catherine (and I'm afraid I really don't believe that it did), we have absolutely nothing to prove where it has been or what has happened to it in the intervening period.

Remember, Catherine was going to go to Bermondsey to borrow money from her daughter - her partner had just pawned his boots for their previous nights lodgings. I have a very hard time believing that her partner was walking around barefoot while she held on to a very expensive looking shawl (and where on earth did she get the money to buy it in the first place!)

[MsWeatherwax]

Didn't sell at auction, what a shock that was, I was certain they'd be lined up all over the place to pay 3 million quid for a table clothe that wasn't even listed among her merge possessions, that a copper knocked off (and if he'd been caught out would have lost his job) that his missus kept, unwashed, and never put to use in any way.

Yep real strange.

Hi GUT.

I honestly had no idea what had happened at the auction, but I have to say I'm delighted. The whole thing is extremely dubious, feels very unethical and having had a squint through this thread now, it looks like there may even be some questions about plagiarism.

There's just something very distasteful about flogging off a shawl that was stolen from a murder victim, for £3 million - particularly when that woman was so poor that she was probably prostituting herself, which may have directly lead to her incredibly brutal murder.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi GUT.

I honestly had no idea what had happened at the auction, but I have to say I'm delighted. The whole thing is extremely dubious, feels very unethical and having had a squint through this thread now, it looks like there may even be some questions about plagiarism.

There's just something very distasteful about flogging off a shawl that was stolen from a murder victim, for £3 million - particularly when that woman was so poor that she was probably prostituting herself, which may have directly lead to her incredibly brutal murder.

This suggestion that the shawl belonged to Eddowes is unbelievable

There is no evidence that there was ever a shawl in her possession.
There is no evidence to show a shawl was ever seen or found in Mitre Sq
There is no evidence to show Pc Simpson was ever in or near Mitre Sq that night
There is no evidence to show anyone other than PC Watkins was ever alone with the body whilst it was in the square, and he was alone only for a few moments.

If I were you I would not waste anymore time trying to prove or disprove this, as its already been disproved, even without the DNA aspect.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The evidence never lies, but doesnt always tell the truth

[lynn cates]

summation

Hello Trevor.

Perfect summation.

Cheers.
LC

[MsWeatherwax]

Hi Trevor.

It was less a commentary on the provenance of the shawl (and I agree, there's more chance of Ghandi being the next England manager than that shawl belonging to Catherine Eddowes), and more a comment on the dire ethics of the entire pantomime surrounding the shawl.

My point really is that it's extremely distasteful regardless of whether it belonged to her or not.

[Robert]

Is it too late to get Gandhi? If he's been reborn as something, maybe we could track him down?

[Aldebaran]

Hi Aldebaran.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/jack-the-ripper-id-hinges-on-a-decimal-point-as-scientists-flag-up-dna-error-in-book-that-claims-to-9804325.html

I don't claim to be an expert on DNA analysis, because I'm definitely not. However, if Sir Alec Jeffreys is saying that the error means that no DNA connection can be made then I'm happy to take his word for it. In fact, what he actually said is that it's not even questionable...it's just wrong.

Also, even without his opinion, the fact that this study has never been submitted for peer review speaks volumes to me. That's before anyone...and I'm sure that they have already...goes down the route of the potential for contamination.

Assuming that this 'shawl' actually belonged to Catherine (and I'm afraid I really don't believe that it did), we have absolutely nothing to prove where it has been or what has happened to it in the intervening period.

Remember, Catherine was going to go to Bermondsey to borrow money from her daughter - her partner had just pawned his boots for their previous nights lodgings. I have a very hard time believing that her partner was walking around barefoot while she held on to a very expensive looking shawl (and where on earth did she get the money to buy it in the first place!)

Where did you get that quote? Not from the URL I provided! The error, to which the first DNA *expert* admitted [and he is a doctor, the same as Jeffreys] has to do with a subclade! That's it. The difference between a haplogroup or one of its subclades is the difference between *many* and *many less*. It's not a great error. It merely means that Catherine Eddowes and her modern-day relative *both* belonged to a different subclade within the haplogroup to which they had originally been assigned.

I just can't believe this. People in this group often hang their theories on the shakiest of evidence--where no science at all is involved--and seem willing to defend them to the death. But now--let's see--they are willing to make liars and/or incompetents out of the Simpson family [okay, they had a shawl instead of some other heirloom with lore attached to it] and everyone else attached to this shawl business. What does it matter what Catherine's bloke had done with his boots on the previous day? The woman was a prostitute. Why did she need money to purchase the shawl? She could have been given it by a customer [in lieu of money], even Mr. Aaron Kosminski. She could have gotten it from another prostitute by way of some transaction, if she had received some money and the other woman needed a drink badly enough. People in need pawn articles for much less than their worth in order to get hold of funds.

True, it is not a good thing that a policeman would take a shawl off a dead woman and that does seem strange but, if his family is admitting that this happened--then they are not exactly claiming the impossible. DNA has nobody's name on it. The name emerges when compared to a suspected relative. In this case, two actual relatives of two people connected to the murder, one the victim and the other a suspect, have a DNA match to that found on the shawl. And one of the DNA matches [the Kosminski one] is a rare one! To some people writing in this thread, that may appear to be the merest coincidence--but not to me.

Does this mean Aaron Kosminski is the killer? No, it's not proof of that. But it's quite indicative of Kosminski having been in contact with the shawl. These prostitutes didn't take off their clothes--nothing. They lifted their skirts, offered their backsides, and that was the pose. Under those circumstances, it was possible for seminal fluid to have come in contact with a shawl, which probably hung down at the back at the time.

Am I naïve to believe that people in the world of science know how to do their work and do it as well as they can? I think not. Trust me, this DNA business has come up in relation to another kind of history and any number of people, who freely admit they know next to nothing about DNA--are willing to dispute the findings of experts--just because that doesn't agree with their own pet theories. Now, if anyone would like to formulate a theory as to how both blood and semen got on and old shawl, involving both the DNA of an Eddowes and Kosminski relative--I am all eyes.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, Aldebaran.

Can I ask if you have read the book all the way through?

And if you did, did you notice anything peculiar or unusual about it?

Your, Caligo

[Aldebaran]

Hi, Aldebaran.

Can I ask if you have read the book all the way through?

And if you did, did you notice anything peculiar or unusual about it?

Your, Caligo

Which book, please? I am not going by any book in my observations--just by my knowledge of DNA and what I know of the Eddowes murder from a dissertation on this very site.

Signed,
Lux Perpetua

[MsWeatherwax]

Is it too late to get Gandhi? If he's been reborn as something, maybe we could track him down?

We could use DNA testing.

To be perfectly honest, I've had a quick search and it looks like this subject has already been completely exhausted by people more knowledgeable than myself.

Aldebaran - the quote in my post was from the link that I provided. I never suggested it was something that you posted.

Believe it or not, I do understand the DNA implications - I will take another look at the findings when the parties concerned submit their research for peer review, which I imagine will make people more comfortable with the evidence that has been provided.

[Aldebaran]

Aldebaran - the quote in my post was from the link that I provided. I never suggested it was something that you posted.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I will address your link now, obviously written by someone who is not that well versed in the subject. First:

"If true, it would mean his calculations were wrong and that virtually anyone could have left the DNA that he insisted came from the Ripper's victim."

Virtually anyone? Did everyone in 19th Century London have the same mitochondrial DNA? From my understanding, a full mitochondrial sequence could not be obtained from the blood on the shawl. This often happens with ancient or degraded DNA. However, a molecular geneticist would look at the rest and compare that to the full sequence of the living person. It comes out as a long chain of numbers at various markers and, if there wasn't a close enough match, that would be quite obvious. The mtDNA of Catherine Eddowes would already be known. No bloody shawl necessary. It would be exactly the same as her living maternal relative. That is a given.

Believe it or not, I do understand the DNA implications - I will take another look at the findings when the parties concerned submit their research for peer review, which I imagine will make people more comfortable with the evidence that has been provided.

Fair enough, but unless you have already read another publication of DNA findings, don't be so sure. They are not easily comprehended, neither their language nor their charts. Oh--and your URL said that the problem with the Eddowes DNA undermined the case against Kosminski as a suspect. How? The Kosminski DNA was not under controversy.

[Trevor Marriott]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I will address your link now, obviously written by someone who is not that well versed in the subject. First:

"If true, it would mean his calculations were wrong and that virtually anyone could have left the DNA that he insisted came from the Ripper's victim."

Virtually anyone? Did everyone in 19th Century London have the same mitochondrial DNA? From my understanding, a full mitochondrial sequence could not be obtained from the blood on the shawl. This often happens with ancient or degraded DNA. However, a molecular geneticist would look at the rest and compare that to the full sequence of the living person. It comes out as a long chain of numbers at various markers and, if there wasn't a close enough match, that would be quite obvious. The mtDNA of Catherine Eddowes would already be known. No bloody shawl necessary. It would be exactly the same as her living maternal relative. That is a given.




Fair enough, but unless you have already read another publication of DNA findings, don't be so sure. They are not easily comprehended, neither their language nor their charts. Oh--and your URL said that the problem with the Eddowes DNA undermined the case against Kosminski as a suspect. How? The Kosminski DNA was not under controversy.

If the first part of the suggested provenance cannot be proved, then the highly contentious DNA findings are totally irrelevant, because they do not conclusively prove what Edwards and his expert say they do, and therefore cannot point specifically to Kosminski.

So forget Kosminski as a suspect based on everything Edwards and his expert say. In fact forget him as a suspect based on all that has been put forward to date.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The evidence never lies,but it doesnt always tell the truth

[Paddy]

I have seen a picture of the shawl being held by three people before Russell Edwards brought it. None had gloves on. Would that have made a difference?
I did scan R E's book quickly but did not see if they had discounted anybodys DNA, did they say, does anybody know?
For using my tiddly bit of info on Kosminski (Providence Street) all I asked of Mr Edwards was a signed book. I never got it and after reading the book I dont think I mind.

Pat.........