A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Aldebaran]

Hello Trevor. I think you are wasting your time.

Do you recall a certain Petrie dish washer who used to post and who fancied himself a scientist? He may have returned. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

Indeed, I have encountered many a Petrie dish with more wit than you display, sir.

[lynn cates]

return

Hello Trevor. I think you are wasting your time.

Do you recall a certain Petrie dish washer who used to post and who fancied himself a scientist? He may have returned. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Aldebaran]

Its not a question of understating DNA its a question of proving the provenance of the shawl in the first instance, which isnt a shawl in any event, as can clearly seen from the photos.

What would you like it to be called?

There is no primary DNA in all of this, and without that there is nothing.

????

Even if you had a perfect DNA match for both Eddowes and Kosminski in the absence of the provenance what would it prove. Nothing, other than both had been in contact with that item. It wouldn't necessarily prove they had contact with each other.

Now that is true. That is why I have said over and over that Kosminski can't be pointed at as the killer on this evidence. In fact, even if he had been in intimate contact with Eddowes and her ...er....item....that still doesn't prove he was the killer, as a prostitute gets around. At least you seem to allow that the molecular geneticists involved with this business aren't incompetents and know what they're about. I hope that's the case with you. That's all I'm convinced of at this point. That they have very likely been able, via DNA, to connect both Eddowes and Kosminski to the shawl. I never said one thing more. But certain people, who aren't here to defend themselves--is it okay for them to be defended by someone with some knowledge against others who have accused them of being dishonest and or incompetent?

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh? You mean people like me as opposed to people like you who know diddly about DNA? You just don't get. That's the whole problem with you and others, like Cates. You don't understand it, therefore you don't want to deal with it. If you had read the comments on the blog whose URL I gave with any kind of comprehension, you wouldn't even be asking the question "What would it prove?" Just incredible.

Its not a question of understating DNA its a question of proving the provenance of the shawl in the first instance, which isnt a shawl in any event, as can clearly seen from the photos.

There is no primary DNA in all of this, and without that there is nothing. Even if you had a perfect DNA match for both Eddowes and Kosminski in the absence of the provenance what would it prove. Nothing, other than both had been in contact with that item. It wouldn't necessarily prove they had contact with each other.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

[Aldebaran]

Hi,

As discussed at length in earlier threads in 2014, the link that you refer to is from a genealogy site, but unfortunately the statistics are based upon erroneous data, i.e. because the sampling they refer to is based upon their own family tree database rather than a wider analysis: see http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...=8296&page=397, post 3968, where I cite more reliable authority.

Okay, thanks. I'll quote what you said:

Thus, Kosminski is haplogroup T1a1. Currently, haplogroup T1 makes up about 2,17% of the mtDNAs in England and Wales and 80% of the T1 tree falls within subclade T1a1, leaving us with a concentration of about 1.736%. See:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...4/#!po=64.2857

The most relevant sections are p7 and s2 document, which you can download as an Excel file.

I posted just about the same in another thread. Now I have to go back and find what I said.

Now if we consider the population of London in 1888 then, based upon these figures, about 94000 Londoners would have shared Kosminski's mtDNA.
Of course, we do not know that the genetic material was deposited by a Londoner or in 1888.

It could also be argued that demographics have changed since 1888 but I would doubt that this would make much difference to the calculations: T1 represents about 2% of overall genetic diversity in Western Europe and around 3% in Eastern Europe and the Near East: see p7.

Fine, but unless you can dispute that there was a 100% match with that T1a1 found on the shawl and that of a Kosminski relative, you should, strictly speaking, reckon with even a smaller population than the person used on the blog, that being Eastern European Jews of London. Because the Kosminskis were of that ethnicity. I would be the last one to say it doesn't matter that the results were not published in a journal because I certainly would like that. But they all aren't for one reason or another. The main reason is that there has to be a conclusion reached in the paper--which can't be done in this case. The DNA is no proof that Kosminski was Jack the Ripper. An editor of such a journal would probably say "Then what's the point?" I think you know what I'm saying. But, for our purposes here, I just want to point out another thing the blog author brought up. Autosomal DNA. You can't predict hair color without that insofar as I know, so that doctor [the spelling of whose name I can never recall] is hinting he had compared the autosomal DNA of the shawl and the Kosminski relative, as well. And was satisfied there was a match there, too--or he would probably have given up on the project for the reasons you mention. Or he may have more than hinted. We just get what the news articles supply. But wasn't the main point of the blogger the odds of the two different DNA samples from the shawl matching that of two relatives of persons suspected of being associated with the item?

You might be interested in seeing what T1a1 looks like at Family Tree:

https://www.familytreedna.com/public...tion=mtresults

[MsWeatherwax]

Oh? You mean people like me as opposed to people like you who know diddly about DNA? You just don't get. That's the whole problem with you and others, like Cates. You don't understand it, therefore you don't want to deal with it. If you had read the comments on the blog whose URL I gave with any kind of comprehension, you wouldn't even be asking the question "What would it prove?" Just incredible.

I've just re-read the comments on that blog in case I was confusing them with various other things I've been reading. The vast majority are saying exactly the same things that are being said here - contamination, lack of peer review, and the fact that it's not particularly surprising that a man who was supposed to have used prostitutes ended up with semen on a shawl belonging to (allegedly) a prostitute.

If they go to peer review, I'll eat my words.

[John G]

Now--if I recall correctly, I had already posted this URL on the subject in a different thread, but it's worth reposting here. It wasn't written by a reporter for a newspaper but by someone who actually works in the field of genetics.

https://dna-explained.com/2014/09/08/jack-the-ripper/

The one criticism I would have of the piece is that the person did not have much experience with T1a1 in Jewish subjects and reached a faulty conclusion based on a paper, whereas it took me only a few minutes to find people with Jewish ancestresses by searching T1a1 in the Family Tree DNA database, which is the result of people submitting their own samples for testing by the company. Family Tree then groups them by haplogroups [naturally] and also shows the sequences of their mitochondrial or yDNA. Further investigation showed that this haplogroup subclade, T1a1, does exist in about 5% of Eastern European Jewry.

I also dispute the conclusion that Aaron Kosminski must be Jack the Ripper, but I can find no problem with the math on this page. Have a look at it. Maybe you can see an error. If not, the odds are pretty compelling. It would mean that one doesn't really need proof of the shawl's provenance. On the contrary, the proof lies with those who wish to dispute the claims regarding the shawl. Because there is so little likelihood that the DNA found on it doesn't belong to Aaron Kosminski. And probably the shawl had belonged to a murdered woman, too. I have a couple of shawls. Mine don't have any blood on them. Because I am still alive.

Hi,

As discussed at length in earlier threads in 2014, the link that you refer to is from a genealogy site, but unfortunately the statistics are based upon erroneous data, i.e. because the sampling they refer to is based upon their own family tree database rather than a wider analysis: see http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...=8296&page=397, post 3968, where I cite more reliable authority.

[Aldebaran]

May I ask why you flogging a dead DNA horse ?

As I said in post #1235 if you cannot prove the provenance of the shawl. Any DNA issues that anyone raises thereafter are irrelevant, unless a full DNA profile is extracted from the shawl, which matches a full DNA profile of Kosminski, and Eddowes, and then what would it prove?

You or anyone else can talk about MtD and percentages till the cows come home but it will not prove anything conclusive. Its all a smoke screen created by Edwards, which has sucked people like you in.

Oh? You mean people like me as opposed to people like you who know diddly about DNA? You just don't get. That's the whole problem with you and others, like Cates. You don't understand it, therefore you don't want to deal with it. If you had read the comments on the blog whose URL I gave with any kind of comprehension, you wouldn't even be asking the question "What would it prove?" Just incredible.

[Trevor Marriott]

Now--if I recall correctly, I had already posted this URL on the subject in a different thread, but it's worth reposting here. It wasn't written by a reporter for a newspaper but by someone who actually works in the field of genetics.

https://dna-explained.com/2014/09/08/jack-the-ripper/

The one criticism I would have of the piece is that the person did not have much experience with T1a1 in Jewish subjects and reached a faulty conclusion based on a paper, whereas it took me only a few minutes to find people with Jewish ancestresses by searching T1a1 in the Family Tree DNA database, which is the result of people submitting their own samples for testing by the company. Family Tree then groups them by haplogroups [naturally] and also shows the sequences of their mitochondrial or yDNA. Further investigation showed that this haplogroup subclade, T1a1, does exist in about 5% of Eastern European Jewry.

I also dispute the conclusion that Aaron Kosminski must be Jack the Ripper, but I can find no problem with the math on this page. Have a look at it. Maybe you can see an error. If not, the odds are pretty compelling. It would mean that one doesn't really need proof of the shawl's provenance. On the contrary, the proof lies with those who wish to dispute the claims regarding the shawl. Because there is so little likelihood that the DNA found on it doesn't belong to Aaron Kosminski. And probably the shawl had belonged to a murdered woman, too. I have a couple of shawls. Mine don't have any blood on them. Because I am still alive.

May I ask why you flogging a dead DNA horse ?

As I said in post #1235 if you cannot prove the provenance of the shawl. Any DNA issues that anyone raises thereafter are irrelevant, unless a full DNA profile is extracted from the shawl, which matches a full DNA profile of Kosminski, and Eddowes, and then what would it prove?

You or anyone else can talk about MtD and percentages till the cows come home but it will not prove anything conclusive. Its all a smoke screen created by Edwards, which has sucked people like you in.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies, but it doesn't always tell the truth"

[lynn cates]

posting

Hello Aldebaran. Thanks.

In which case you might consider no longer posting.

Cheers.
LC

[Aldebaran]

Now--if I recall correctly, I had already posted this URL on the subject in a different thread, but it's worth reposting here. It wasn't written by a reporter for a newspaper but by someone who actually works in the field of genetics.

https://dna-explained.com/2014/09/08/jack-the-ripper/

The one criticism I would have of the piece is that the person did not have much experience with T1a1 in Jewish subjects and reached a faulty conclusion based on a paper, whereas it took me only a few minutes to find people with Jewish ancestresses by searching T1a1 in the Family Tree DNA database, which is the result of people submitting their own samples for testing by the company. Family Tree then groups them by haplogroups [naturally] and also shows the sequences of their mitochondrial or yDNA. Further investigation showed that this haplogroup subclade, T1a1, does exist in about 5% of Eastern European Jewry.

I also dispute the conclusion that Aaron Kosminski must be Jack the Ripper, but I can find no problem with the math on this page. Have a look at it. Maybe you can see an error. If not, the odds are pretty compelling. It would mean that one doesn't really need proof of the shawl's provenance. On the contrary, the proof lies with those who wish to dispute the claims regarding the shawl. Because there is so little likelihood that the DNA found on it doesn't belong to Aaron Kosminski. And probably the shawl had belonged to a murdered woman, too. I have a couple of shawls. Mine don't have any blood on them. Because I am still alive.

[Aldebaran]

Hi, Aldebaran.
I was referring to the Russell Edwards book, 'Naming Jack the Ripper'.
This thread and several others on Casebook were started in direct response to the book and the claims that it makes.
You might do well to read through this entire thread. In doing so you'll discover that many of the issues you are bringing up have been already addressed.
On this page, post #908 from Chris http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=315772 deals with the sperm cells issue, for example.
Other threads pertaining to the book and DNA -
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8296 (430 pages)
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8384 (continuation of previous thread, 46 pages)

I'm not intending to stifle any conversation. Evidential ground quite often gets retrodden around here and it can be useful to re-evaluate one's stance from time to time.

Yours, Caligo

That seems to be a problem here, people being quick to assume things. If I am interested in the DNA aspect of the JTR case, why would I not have read the entire thread? This website is searchable and I looked for all I could find. Then I discovered a group of persons, most of them not knowing what they are talking about, having a lot of opinions critical of those who are actual molecular biologists. I am not one of the latter, but I have spent years studying this science due to an interest I developed in 1999. I would have thought it was fairly obvious that I have learned something--but evidently no one has noticed anything of the kind. Sorry, but this is one of the most ignorant threads on an otherwise excellent website. It reminds me , in the case of an unsolved crime, of the general public murmuring, "Those coppers couldn't catch a cold" even though they really know little to nothing about police procedure. But I'm glad you don't seek to stifle conversation.

I have ordered the Edwards book and, when it reaches me, I will have an opinion on that. If I seem to be a little late in investigating this compared to the rest of you, it is only because Jack the Ripper has never been a priority in my life, although I am not totally ignorant about the case. I am very much open to learning from others here but close-mindedness does not impress me.

[Aldebaran]

Hello (again) Aldebaran.

"That shawl! If it had been found on Eddowes . . . "

. . . should have been included in the inventory. It was not.

As for the "expert," not only did he get the haplogroup wrong, he also made a beginner's error in math. Have you kept up with the discussion? These items were pointed out over a year ago.

Cheers.
LC

As it happened, I read this thread from the beginning. And, no, he did not get the haplogroup wrong. That was not the error and "beginner's math" is hardly involved. If one can't criticize responsibly, perhaps one should refrain from doing so.

[MsWeatherwax]

Hi, Aldebaran.
I was referring to the Russell Edwards book, 'Naming Jack the Ripper'.
This thread and several others on Casebook were started in direct response to the book and the claims that it makes.
You might do well to read through this entire thread. In doing so you'll discover that many of the issues you are bringing up have been already addressed.
On this page, post #908 from Chris http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=315772 deals with the sperm cells issue, for example.
Other threads pertaining to the book and DNA -
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8296 (430 pages)
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8384 (continuation of previous thread, 46 pages)

I'm not intending to stifle any conversation. Evidential ground quite often gets retrodden around here and it can be useful to re-evaluate one's stance from time to time.

Yours, Caligo

Thank you for posting this - fascinating stuff.

Although I had read a fair bit of this thread, I was certainly unaware that there is a possibility that part of the fabric of the shawl had been dyed using woad. If the estimates that Edwards provides for the origin of the shawl are correct, there is a clear possibility that it could be contaminated with urine. Shocker.

[Elamarna]

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

Hi Trevor


Agree 100% with that summary.

And I Say that from a pro Kosminski favoured suspect point of view

Steve