A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[mickreed]

Well Archaic, according to the interview Dr JL did for the BBC Radio 4 InScience program some of the information (hair and eye colour) was delivered to RE 3 days before the book deadline. He also would have liked to do more but the book deadline over rode further investigation (as well as the fact that the RE's budget for the research was blown)

However, Gryff, the furore at the moment is about the Eddowes 'match' whereas JL, in that interview was talking about the AK 'match'.

The latter, as described in the book, has no legs at all. The Eddowes 'match' did seem to have legs for a week or two.

JL has got himself cornered. Making erroneous claims (probably unintentionally) has put him in the spotlight. He augmented this attention by appearing on every publicity-seeking thing he (or RE) could think of.

Nothing other than full disclosure can get him out of it - and maybe not even then.

[RockySullivan]

The final words in the book 'Aaron Kosminski is Jack the Ripper' remain just HIS opinion. There is NO proof. He has not provided ANY proof. He's simply told us he has proof and he expects us to believe him.

He had a preconceived suspect and a preconceived agenda which instantly negates ANY of his 'proven' claims. A vested interest and proper scientific analysis are not good bed-fellows if you want to get at the truth.

I really don't like Russell Edwards & Jari and the way they've conducted themselves. Russell Edwards comes off as the most un-amiable egotistical liar and jari is hardly better abusing his title which is a disgrace to scientists around the world.

[RockySullivan]

G'day Archaic.

I still don't quite go with RockyS and his thoughts about deliberate fraud - but I ain't springing to anyone's defence any more either.

My conspiratorial mind works like this.

Publisher: This book is not very good but will it sell?

Author and Friend: It will if we tell the Mail on Sunday about it and spruik it up properly.

Publisher: Okay, I reckon we'll have six week to maximise sales before anyone starts questioning. So what to do after that.

Author and Friend: If we prevaricate for a bit longer we might sell a few more.

Publisher: Yep. Then, by year's end, it'll be the remainder table for this nonsense.

Haha this is what I've been saying all along mick. They ride into town and sell as much snake oil as they can. By the time the honest hardworking townspeople realize the snake oil is just plain water the fraudsters have already sold out and moved on to the next town. The funny part about this is I imagine the only people reading this book are casebookers, none of who are dumb enough to believe the ridiculous premise of the book, but simply want something new to read. Anybody know how many books they've sold so far. Would be interesting to see if everyone could get there money back since the book uses false advertising. There is no DNA match and I'm sure thats plastered all over the cover as a proven fact

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

I think the "Eddowes" DNA analysis that's specifically under question now was done early last year. Certainly it was over a year ago. But as you say the "Kozminski" DNA analysis continued up to about May this year.

Thanks Chris, and Mick, for pointing that out. I sometimes forget that this thread is specifically about "the Eddowes Shawl DNA match". My apologies to all.

cheers, gryff

[mickreed]

for example my copy arrived with a couple of "ink-blobbed" pages as an unadvertised additional feature...

I hope the blobs didn't fluoresce Dave.

[mickreed]

Thanks Chris, and Mick, for pointing that out. I sometimes forget that this thread is specifically about "the Eddowes Shawl DNA match". My apologies to all.

cheers, gryff

No need, Gryff. The AK match is starting to go under the microscope as well from what Caligo and Chris have posted above.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Mick

hope the blobs didn't fluoresce Dave.

They haven't so far Mick...just medium sized black blobs on a few of the pages - nonetheless, something I've not had to put up with in any other WCM or JtR book...

I've incidentally lent said publication to one of my senior managers...second choice to chucking it in the recycling, (it seemed a reasonable course of action...to be fair this particular one has more than half a brain...if I'm fair he's a smart cookie...a rarity in my thirty nine years in the firm so far...)...

All the best

Dave

[c.d.]

My apologies for jumping in here at this juncture but I just can't read the preceding 637 posts.

I am aware of the problems with Eddowes' DNA but what is the latest on the Kosminski DNA? Is it for real or does it have problems as well?

c.d.

[GUT]

My apologies for jumping in here at this juncture but I just can't read the preceding 637 posts.

I am aware of the problems with Eddowes' DNA but what is the latest on the Kosminski DNA? Is it for real or does it have problems as well?

c.d.

G'day c.d.

I certainly has its fair share of problems too.

[Henry Flower]

Dave:

let's be honest, they're a Polytechnic-turned-University, they're named for a Mail Order Catalogue distributor, and as if that weren't enough of a disadvantage, suddenly this hithertofore trusted and respected employee suddenly invites controversy upon their heads...

Beautiful!

[richardh]

The main problem (for me) is that we don't know who the donor is. We have to go on the author's word again which is just not gonna cut it. PLUS.... it's been touched by hundreds of people over the years. PLUS we don't know the provenance. PLUS we don't know HOW the DNA test was conducted. PLUS we have a scientist who apparently is crap at maths. Not a good sign.

My apologies for jumping in here at this juncture but I just can't read the preceding 637 posts.

I am aware of the problems with Eddowes' DNA but what is the latest on the Kosminski DNA? Is it for real or does it have problems as well?

c.d.

[jmenges]

Is there some PR person at the publisher who decides on whom RE and Dr. JL can talk to on the record and what to say?

Their PR person does not work for the publisher, but does to some extent coordinate who they talk to, as they both have such busy schedules, especially with Jari's very pressing university commitments.



He's Chris Baker at Four Coleman Getty.

JM

[GUT]

The main problem (for me) is that we don't know who the donor is. We have to go on the author's word again which is just not gonna cut it. PLUS.... it's been touched by hundreds of people over the years. PLUS we don't know the provenance. PLUS we don't know HOW the DNA test was conducted. PLUS we have a scientist who apparently is crap at maths. Not a good sign.

Come on Richard. They're all minor issues aren't they.

[RockySullivan]

Dave:





Beautiful!

Haha I wonder if The university will try to "distance itself" from Dr louhelian after all this. Can't say id blame them.

Here's one of DR L's recent tweets:
"Badge for CNN studios. They did not trust me too much did they - "Must be escorted"."
Can't blame CNN either rofl

[Cogidubnus]

My apologies for jumping in here at this juncture but I just can't read the preceding 637 posts.

I am aware of the problems with Eddowes' DNA but what is the latest on the Kosminski DNA? Is it for real or does it have problems as well?

c.d.

OK fine...at this stage I hardly know what to say in response to such a post..so I'll give you two equally valid amateur responses

1) Eddowes DNA identification totally f***ed...99% likelihood of sample matching anyone's...

2) Kosminski relationship admitted to be unlikely (no more than 3%) vis a vis Ashkenaz Jews...

Goodnight