PDA

View Full Version : Jack the ripper's DNA?



Sile
07-09-14, 00:22
Jack the ripper

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746321/Jack-Ripper-unmasked-How-amateur-sleuth-used-DNA-breakthrough-identify-Britains-notorious-criminal-126-years-string-terrible-murders.html

yDNA = T1a1 ................of the L162 branch

States he is a ...........russian-jew of polish ancestry........unsure what that means....and a hairdresser

sparkey
07-09-14, 08:39
The article seems to imply that it is mtDNA T1a1 rather than Y-DNA. Am I missing something? It also doesn't call Kosminski a Russian Jew, it just says that Russian Jews often carry T1a1.

Hopefully a scientific publication comes out of this. The Daily Mail fluff just obscures the story. But it is a very believable result--Kosminski is a very possible culprit.

Sile
07-09-14, 20:42
The article seems to imply that it is mtDNA T1a1 rather than Y-DNA. Am I missing something? It also doesn't call Kosminski a Russian Jew, it just says that Russian Jews often carry T1a1.

Hopefully a scientific publication comes out of this. The Daily Mail fluff just obscures the story. But it is a very believable result--Kosminski is a very possible culprit.

You seem to be correct and I am not.

But due to this mtdna, the question arises if it was jack's dna they found and not the victim and so skeptics are writing off the findings

Yetos
07-09-14, 20:57
as I was reading news I fell upon this

'Solving the mystery of jack the ripper'

it seems like a british business man Russel Edwards and a genetist Jari Louhelaine (liverpool JM university)
search some old evidences from Scotland's Yard Criminal Museum
a scarve, a stole which belonged to Catherine Eddowes family, which was murdered at 1888 at white Chappel.

upon the scarve they found DNA of the victim and sperm from the killer,

the analysis confirm that DNA belonged to Eddowes after comparing it with the modern relatives of her family,
but the sperm, give another person different than all we know,
I will not publish the name, only that he was a haidresser.
to that identity the genetist came to conclusion after comparing a relative of the daughter of the Hairdresser,
anonymity is kept, so plz respect,
but how possible is that?
I mean what statistic % we have to verify? and what % to be wrong?

anyway I wanted to post it that cause genetic seems to be a powerfull tool in criminality.
solving a criminal 126 years after, is something bigggggggggggggggggggggggggg, but what chances we have to be 99.99% certain?

if someone knows more, plz welcome.

hope
08-09-14, 00:11
Fascinating... and a really good read.
That said, even with the DNA testing, I`m still a little skeptical. Can this sample point, without doubt, to Kosminski? I know he was always high in the many, suspects listed. Is there no chance of cross contamination, or would this latest result rule that out?
About the shawl, was there ever a shawl listed with the victims things? And why would such an item not have been displayed to the public at the time I wonder, to see if any-one recognised it, certainly such a shawl did not belong to Eddowes. I understand crime scene investigation then and now is different but to casually give it to a constable when it was taken from the victim, according to the write up, seems a little "clumsy" IMO. Apart from that, why would a husband take such an item [covered in blood and other stains] home to his wife?

The Gheg
08-09-14, 01:20
Even with this DNA evidence, you can't say that this guy was 100% the killer, he may have just been a client of hers, unless of course they find his DNA at another one of the murder locations. However, I'm not sure what yoi are asking at the end? You mean 99.99% certain in terms of the identity of the ripper or in terms of the quality of current DNA testing?

sparkey
08-09-14, 02:17
Mod note: Merged the two threads about this and moved it into the Ancient DNA forum.

Yetos
08-09-14, 03:51
Even with this DNA evidence, you can't say that this guy was 100% the killer, he may have just been a client of hers, unless of course they find his DNA at another one of the murder locations. However, I'm not sure what yoi are asking at the end? You mean 99.99% certain in terms of the identity of the ripper or in terms of the quality of current DNA testing?

no but we are certian that he was client of hers that day for sure, if not the last client of her.

i mean in term of identity,

surely mtDNA is indicator, but could there be someone else with same mtDNA?

sparkey
08-09-14, 08:00
surely mtDNA is indicator, but could there be someone else with same mtDNA?

The resolution of the DNA match is not clearly indicated in the article. It says it was a "100 per cent" match using "whole genome amplification," but the comparison was to an mtDNA-line relative, so presumably it was primarily an mtDNA comparison of some sort. If it was a full sequence mtDNA comparison, then it would have to be either Kosminski or a very close relative. If it was a low-resolution haplogroup determination based on a panel, then it could be thousands of people. So I suppose we'll need to wait for something more scientific.

Maciamo
08-09-14, 12:31
The article seems to imply that it is mtDNA T1a1 rather than Y-DNA. Am I missing something? It also doesn't call Kosminski a Russian Jew, it just says that Russian Jews often carry T1a1.

Hopefully a scientific publication comes out of this. The Daily Mail fluff just obscures the story. But it is a very believable result--Kosminski is a very possible culprit.

Actually according to my data (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_mtdna_haplogroups_frequency.shtml) on Ashkenazi Jewish mtDNA (n=836), Ashkenazi Jews have 0% of mtDNA T1. That's odd that the article should say that this haplogroup is common among Russian Jews.

hope
08-09-14, 14:56
Actually according to my data (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_mtdna_haplogroups_frequency.shtml) on Ashkenazi Jewish mtDNA (n=836), Ashkenazi Jews have 0% of mtDNA T1. That's odd that the article should say that this haplogroup is common among Russian Jews.
Hence my comment regarding cross contamination.
I think something is amiss.

Angela
08-09-14, 16:13
Even if they got an exact dna match, this would be a highly circumstantial case where conviction would be far from certain. As someone pointed out above, even if the prosecution could present evidence of an exact dna match (at a very high level of resolution) to the shawl, all that it would prove is that he was one of her clients. The only other facts in evidence would be that he was seen in the area, which wouldn't be unusual in that he lived nearby and obviously frequented prostitutes, and that he had a mental disorder.

I also find her possession of such an expensive scarf rather unusual. A gift from a more well to do client than the suspect? Also, how many other separate dna "profiles" were present on the scarf? A decent defense attorney would find out.

Ed. Labeling this mtDNA Ashkenazi is odd, but all that would be sufficient in a criminal trial would be to show that the specific mtDNA of someone in the same maternal line as the suspect matches that of the sample on the scarf. (of course, at a very high level of resoltution)

In the real world it would be up to a jury to make the ultimate determination.

hope
08-09-14, 16:55
Even if they got an exact dna match, this would be a highly circumstantial case where conviction would be far from certain. As someone pointed out above, even if the prosecution could present evidence of an exact dna match (at a very high level of resolution) to the shawl, all that it would prove is that he was one of her clients. The only other facts in evidence would be that he was seen in the area, which wouldn't be unusual in that he lived nearby and obviously frequented prostitutes, and that he had a mental disorder.
Agreed.

I also find her possession of such an expensive scarf rather unusual. A gift from a more well to do client than the suspect? Also, how many other separate dna "profiles" were present on the scarf? A decent defense attorney would find out..
As far as I am aware, no such shawl was mentioned in the original investigation. There was mention of a scarf, tied round her neck, but no shawl. It seems very odd that constables searching the area and finding a piece of Eddowes apron in the alley with the infamous "the juwes are not .."quote, would keep this and yet give away her blood stained shawl ? But, who knows....

Ed. Labeling this mtDNA Ashkenazi is odd, but all that would be sufficient in a criminal trial would be to show that the specific mtDNA of someone in the same maternal line as the suspect matches that of the sample on the scarf. (of course, at a very high level of resoltution)

Regardless, I would still like to see the shawl examined and retested by a second, independent source.

oriental
08-09-14, 23:00
I reasoned that it made no sense for Eddowes to have owned the expensive shawl herself; this was a woman so poor she had pawned her shoes the day before her murder. But could the Ripper have brought the shawl with him

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746321/Jack-Ripper-unmasked-How-amateur-sleuth-used-DNA-breakthrough-identify-Britains-notorious-criminal-126-years-string-terrible-murders.html#ixzz3ClAfPtsV
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=MailOnline) | DailyMail on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=DailyMail)



He used the shawl to masturbate. He looked like a very virile man and his profession as a hairdresser must have built up a lot of anger as he tried to satisfy his clients' whims. He felt emasculated. Just my simple explanation, not really the best.