2014 Ripper Conference In The U.K.

[Tracy Ianson]

Hi all


It may have already been asked but can I just ask if the 13 markers mentioned are the one used with CODIS?


Also I believe Deb's is correct as far as I am aware you cannot define the ancestors to a specific time period more a cluster of time periods, unless the mutation happened within that specific generation.

[Tracy Ianson]

Hi Debs

That was the implication about 314.1c in the book wasn't it?

If it is admitted that 314.1c is incorrect, it would become 315.1c, a marker so common that it is often left out when determining haplogroup designation from a profile.

I think this is the confusing part, why harp on about the relevance of it in the book to then say it doesn't matter when the mistake was pointed out.

[Lynn Cates]

yes

Hello Tracy.

"why harp on about the relevance of it in the book to then say it doesn't matter when the mistake was pointed out."

Bingo.

Cheers.
LC

[Edward Stow]

Debra
I think the significance of 314.1c in the book is that it was put forward as the feature that established the relative uniqueness of the mDNA match, and as it was a mutation it was presumed to be not very old, hence limiting the number of bearers of it in 1888.
If the counter claim is correct and it is not a very unique mutation, then the 13 matching markers instead provides the supposed uniqueness, whereas the presence of the mutation (which may not be that unique) would still have the same implication as to the age that this mutation came into being and hence limit the number of bearers in 1888 to effectively the same group.

Tracy
It is a given that the science in the book was simplified and dumbed down.
This isn't about obsessing over whether or not Russell Edwards or Dr Jari or the publisher will admit, should admit or need to admit if something is wrong, it's about trying to work out what the situation is with the available information - and extra information (that was not in the book) became available at the Conference.

[Tracy Ianson]

Tracy
It is a given that the science in the book was simplified and dumbed down.
This isn't about obsessing over whether or not Russell Edwards or Dr Jari or the publisher will admit, should admit or need to admit if something is wrong, it's about trying to work out what the situation is with the available information - and extra information (that was not in the book) became available at the Conference.

[/QUOTE]

I figured that was what I was doing with my first question.

Also as I think it is a pertinent question I think it deserves to be keep getting asked.

[Tracy Ianson]

I think the significance of 314.1c in the book is that it was put forward as the feature that established the relative uniqueness of the mDNA match, and as it was a mutation it was presumed to be not very old, hence limiting the number of bearers of it in 1888.
If the counter claim is correct and it is not a very unique mutation, then the 13 matching markers instead provides the supposed uniqueness, whereas the presence of the mutation (which may not be that unique) would still have the same implication as to the age that this mutation came into being and hence limit the number of bearers in 1888 to effectively the same group.

Mutations occurring in the last 60,000 years -

A750G 315.1C A4769G A1438G
A15326G A8860G 309.1C A263G


However if you look at the results of Nicholas Copernicus he had the 315.1C mutation so it was about at least 400 years before Eddowes

[Debra Arif]

Also I believe Deb's is correct as far as I am aware you cannot define the ancestors to a specific time period more a cluster of time periods, unless the mutation happened within that specific generation.

Thanks Tracy.
I agree. I also doubt that commercial labs would leave thousands of people with mtDNA perfect matches searching for when their common female ancestor may have lived if there was a simple way to determine that.

[Debra Arif]

Debra
I think the significance of 314.1c in the book is that it was put forward as the feature that established the relative uniqueness of the mDNA match, and as it was a mutation it was presumed to be not very old, hence limiting the number of bearers of it in 1888.
If the counter claim is correct and it is not a very unique mutation, then the 13 matching markers instead provides the supposed uniqueness, whereas the presence of the mutation (which may not be that unique) would still have the same implication as to the age that this mutation came into being and hence limit the number of bearers in 1888 to effectively the same group.

I was just reminded of something that I think is worth mentioning here as it is relevant. If the mistake with 314.1c was admitted and was from now on classed correctly as 315.1c, in reality, although this is described as a mutation it isn't really a mutation as such. In the Cambridge reference sample that all profiles are compared to for differences, which is the full mtDNA sequence developed from one woman in the 1980s, there was a deletion of a cytosine in the cytosine rich stretch in the HVR2 between positions 310 and 316. It was the 1980s woman's DNA at this position that was the rarity, most of us have an extra cytosine (sometimes more) than the Cambridge Reference but it is classed as a mutation and numbered 315.1c because it is a noted difference to the reference sample.

315.1c cannot be used to determine the time that a common female ancestor lived in the same way that 314.1c was said to do because 314.1c didn't show up in comparison databases as a mutation because it was a mistake in nomenclature and so only appeared rare.

[Lynn Cates]

answer

Hello Tracy.

"Also as I think it is a pertinent question I think it deserves to keep getting asked."

Until it gets answered. Which, according to my calculations, might be in saecula saeculorum--unless my calculations are off by a decimal.

Cheers.
LC

[Lynn Cates]

Then saith exeunt . . .

Hello Debs.

"although this is described as a mutation it isn't really a mutation as such."

Indeed. That is why I counted this a THIRD error. The programme was saying, "You made an error." The distinguished scientist thought it was a rare mutation. That is why I compared it to saying Shakespeare had written a part for Exeunt.

Cheers.
LC

[Caroline Brown]

Hello Robert. Thanks.

Very well, the truncated version will do.

Does Mr. Skinner endorse Mr. Feldman's work?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

As your question has not yet received a reply, permit me to have a stab at it...

For me it's a bit like asking if Fuller's Brewery endorses the carnage left by a drink driver with ten pints of ESB inside him.

Keith merely sold his produce to Feldy. The produce - his research - was of the finest quality (as always), but he was not - and should not be held - in any way responsible for the use to which Feldy put it, in this case the personal - arguably unique - interpretations and conclusions he came up with in his book. Feldy was the sole author on the cover and also of his own misfortunes, not forgetting the misfortunes of all those who bought and read it and may have felt cheated.

In short, I can't see how Keith was ever obliged to 'endorse' what Feldy wrote, or distance himself from it, or even to pass comment. However, if there had been any glaring mistakes in the book of Keith's making, I would expect Keith to have bust a gut to acknowledge and correct them, while thrashing himself with birch twigs.

Please note that I don't make any observation regarding the shawl saga or those most closely involved as I'm not sure how comparable your specific beef is with the Keith and Feldy situation.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris G.]

Hi Lynn

To follow up on Caz's remarks and at the risk of venturing too far into Maybrick territory, I am not sure that Paul Feldman based any shaky ideas on Keith Skinner's research. Mr. Feldman's rather tenuous leaps of logic were entirely his own. Also to clear up one other matter, following up a post by Robert Anderson in the matter of Keith's statement at the Maybrick trial at the Liverpool Cricket Ground in May 2007 that a jury would conclude that the Diary came out of Battlecrease, it's not clear which research Keith was conducting and for whom that led him to come to that conclusion. To my knowledge, and I stand to be corrected on this, I believe Keith did Maybrick-related research for Paul Feldman, Patricia Cornwell, and Bruce Robinson, and possibly other writers as well.

Best regards

Chris

[Lynn Cates]

On chalk and cheese.

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

"As your question has not yet received a reply, permit me to have a stab at it..."

Oh, dear. Am I to receive some pointed remarks then? (heh-heh)

". . . if there had been any glaring mistakes in the book of Keith's making, I would expect Keith to have bust a gut to acknowledge and correct them, while thrashing himself with birch twigs."

This is PRECISELY what I would have expected. I appreciate Mr. Skinner's intellectual integrity.

"Please note that I don't make any observation regarding the shawl saga or those most closely involved as I'm not sure how comparable your specific beef is with the Keith and Feldy situation."

Oh, it was just offered as an analogy. Frankly, I do not think Professor Louhelainen remotely comparable to Mr. Skinner.

Cheers.
LC

[Lynn Cates]

analogy

Hello Chris. Thanks.

OK, as you can see, I have no interest in "The Diary" or anything of that nature. I was merely offered an analogy and--although any two things can be compared--this is looking like not the best one, given what needed comparison.

Cheers.
LC

[Mr. Poster]

You are a very befuddled man Lynn Cates.

". . . if there had been any glaring mistakes in the book of Keith's making, I would expect Keith to have bust a gut to acknowledge and correct them, while thrashing himself with birch twigs."

This is PRECISELY what I would have expected. I appreciate Mr. Skinner's intellectual integrity.

"Please note that I don't make any observation regarding the shawl saga or those most closely involved as I'm not sure how comparable your specific beef is with the Keith and Feldy situation."

Oh, it was just offered as an analogy. Frankly, I do not think Professor Louhelainen remotely comparable to Mr. Skinner.

So you agree that if Keith Skinner had written a book ("of his making") with mistakes he should correct them.

You agree presumably that if Feldman made mistakes based on Skinners research in a book of Feldmans making, then Skinner is not compelled to answer for them.

So then why would Dr. L. feel compelled to bust a gut to address something in a book not written by him but which based itself on his research?

Why would he do that? If Skinner doesnt have to.

Quite frankly I consider your viewing of Dr. L compared to K.Skinner as being more a product of your own notion of yourself and the value of your opinions than anything else.

P