Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DNA error

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DNA error

    Hi all,

    Well, no surprise here really. Looks like there was a major error made in the DNA probability calculations. Basically, it claims he misidentified a mutation as 314.1C rather than 315.1C, which was the basis for the identification with Eddowes, and rather than being rare it turns out to be shared by 99% of people of European descent.

    Anyway, here's a link to the article. I realize people here probably already know this as the article points out that the error was first noted by some Australian researchers posting here on casebook!

    The recent detailed analysis of DNA collected from a shawl, allegedly of one of Jack the Ripper's first victims, appears to carry a fundamental maths error.

  • #2
    Yeah but if Aussies spotted it, it could be all upside down!
    G U T

    There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
      Well, no surprise here really. Looks like there was a major error made in the DNA probability calculations. Basically, it claims he misidentified a mutation as 314.1C rather than 315.1C, which was the basis for the identification with Eddowes, and rather than being rare it turns out to be shared by 99% of people of European descent.

      Anyway, here's a link to the article. I realize people here probably already know this as the article points out that the error was first noted by some Australian researchers posting here on casebook!

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news...ectid=11345140
      You heard it here first:


      Click image for larger version

Name:	kangaroos.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	8.3 KB
ID:	665768

      Comment


      • #4
        Chris, We have known each other for a while now, and I had no idea you were Australian!

        RH

        Comment


        • #5
          Love the skippy's on their heads.
          G U T

          There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by robhouse View Post
            Chris, We have known each other for a while now, and I had no idea you were Australian!
            Well, you wouldn't expect me to make a thing like that obvious, would you?

            Click image for larger version

Name:	cork-hat.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	6.1 KB
ID:	665769

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Chris View Post
              Well, you wouldn't expect me to make a thing like that obvious, would you?

              [ATTACH]16372[/ATTACH]
              G'day Chris

              Not something anyone in their right mind would admit to.
              G U T

              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

              Comment


              • #8
                DNA error?

                Hi Guys

                While I understand that given developments a number of you might feel able to qualify the above statement

                I trust that those of us who 'speculate'.. might be a little cynical of your claims.. given that Dr J's is a recognised expert..and however you dress it up..well you guys just are not?

                Is this basic error a matter of fact? or of opinion?

                and if so.. can i address your claims claim directly to Dr J and why (Specifically)

                Yours Jeff

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hi Jeff

                  While I understand that given developments a number of you might feel able to qualify the above statement

                  I trust that those of us who 'speculate'.. might be a little cynical of your claims.. given that Dr J's is a recognised expert..and however you dress it up..well you guys just are not?

                  Is this basic error a matter of fact? or of opinion?

                  and if so.. can i address your claims claim directly to Dr J and why (Specifically)
                  As I understand it, no fewer than four emminent DNA experts have now looked at JLs claims and are expressing concern...it's gone way beyond "Casebook Amateurs" - take a look at the Independent article....

                  JL has already been approached, brushed off or ignored said approaches, and declined (so far) to comment...

                  Thereagain I'm only sitting on the sidelines here and others may know far more

                  All the best

                  Dave
                  Last edited by Cogidubnus; 10-20-2014, 03:58 PM. Reason: Quote added for clarity/relevance

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
                    Hi Jeff

                    As I understand it, no fewer than four emminent DNA experts have now looked at JLs claims and are expressing concern...it's gone way beyond "Casebook Amateurs" - take a look at the Independent article....

                    Dave
                    I'm not disputing this Dave..I'm simply a commentator.

                    However I'm going to require a little more than this before claiming Dr J is Wrong?

                    So what you all got? Names and specifics help

                    Yours Jeff

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hi Jeff,

                      Your determination to defend Anderson and Swanson to the hilt, and without one iota of proof condemn the wholly innocent Aaron Kosminski to eternal damnation is interesting, to put it mildly.

                      Regards,

                      Simon
                      Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        "I trust that those of us who 'speculate'.. might be a little cynical of your claims.. given that Dr J's is a recognised expert..and however you dress it up..well you guys just are not?

                        Is this basic error a matter of fact? or of opinion?"


                        Hello Jeff,

                        All this has been detailed in ... err ... great detail, in the thread labelled,
                        A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match



                        "... and if so.. can i address your claims claim directly to Dr J and why (Specifically)"


                        Please, please, please do so if you are in a position of influence.
                        So far, the good doctor has ignored all requests from here and elsewhere to answer the allegations.
                        dustymiller
                        aka drstrange

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Jeff,

                          In light of the knowledge that the DNA on the shawl is not Eddowes or Kosminskis, I'm sure you'll agree that there's no way Kosminski could have been the Ripper and can once and for all be struck from the suspect list.

                          Yours truly,

                          Tom Wescott

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Well all I can say is this is HILARIOUS.

                            Anyone who doesn't think Russell Edwards has got everything he deserved for smug 'categorical' declaration is a far better person than I will ever be.







                            Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                            Jeff,

                            In light of the knowledge that the DNA on the shawl is not Eddowes or Kosminskis, I'm sure you'll agree that there's no way Kosminski could have been the Ripper and can once and for all be struck from the suspect list.

                            Yours truly,

                            Tom Wescott

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
                              Hi Jeff



                              As I understand it, no fewer than four emminent DNA experts have now looked at JLs claims and are expressing concern...it's gone way beyond "Casebook Amateurs" - take a look at the Independent article....

                              JL has already been approached, brushed off or ignored said approaches, and declined (so far) to comment...

                              Thereagain I'm only sitting on the sidelines here and others may know far more

                              All the best

                              Dave
                              Hi Dave,I've read the independent article and I'm absolutely appalled this book has been published stating case closed when Mr Edwards and Doc Jan should have checked the results of the d.n.a before publishing book.Of course none of this matters now because lots of books and yoyos have been sold so it's job done.
                              Last edited by pinkmoon; 10-22-2014, 02:05 PM.
                              Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X