A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Hi Chris,

Just an idea, but you could try calling 'The Sun' newspaper (0845 086 3000).

I know it's a more sensationalist publication but at least it would get the DNA 'mistake' out there as the Sun is bought by millions.
...
Amanda

Amanda, I'm not sure the Sun would be interested. It got itself into a lot of trouble with the reporting of the Hillsborough Disaster - blaming Liverpool football fans. Since Dr. JL teaches at a Liverpool University and RE was born in Birkenhead - just across the Mersey River from Liverpool - it might look like another attack on the Merseyside area.

That is why I suggested that Chris could write an article for the Guardian "Comment Is Free" pages of its website.

cheers, gryff

[Chris]

Paul

I can understand the point about the publisher - in fact if what I've been told is true, the conditions of secrecy imposed by the publisher would have made it impossible for Dr Louhelainen to seek any advice or informal review from colleagues before the publication of the book.

What I don't understand is your reference to a "slanging match". Some of the reactions to the book have been unreasonable. (I defended Dr Louhelainen on the other thread against some of the wilder criticism.) But that doesn't alter his obligation to correct the error.

[Robert]

If there are conditions of silence, can't JL simply say that he cannot comment owing to contractual obligations? Or is it a contractual obligation to not mention the very existence of the contractual obligation - like those super-injunctions we hear about?

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

And now we have a poem about RE solving the Ripper case on RE's Facebook page.

Ripper Edwards Poem

Scroll down to the grave yard image

cheers, gryff

[PaulB]

Paul

I can understand the point about the publisher - in fact if what I've been told is true, the conditions of secrecy imposed by the publisher would have made it impossible for Dr Louhelainen to seek any advice or informal review from colleagues before the publication of the book.

What I don't understand is your reference to a "slanging match". Some of the reactions to the book have been unreasonable. (I defended Dr Louhelainen on the other thread against some of the wilder criticism.) But that doesn't alter his obligation to correct the error.

No, it doesn't alter his obligations. But he hasn't satisfied those obigations either way, which opens the possibility that he is not able to do so. "Slanging match" is probably inappropriate, but I was trying to indicate that the publisher (if, indeed, te publisher has anything to do with it) may have wanted to avoid any further argument over Jari's conclusions, right or wrong.

[robhouse]

But the question is whether or not Russell, Jari and the publishers believe the science is right. If they do, and I actually have every reason to suppose they do, then I can't see any significant moral reason why they shouldn't continue selling the book.

I am curious what you meant by this statement, as it seems to suggest that you believe that Jari and Russell still believe the science is right, despite these discussions about 314.1C. I am not sure I am reading you right. I inferred from what you wrote that... well it almost seems that you know something the rest of us do not.

Rob H

[PaulB]

I am curious what you meant by this statement, as it seems to suggest that you believe that Jari and Russell still believe the science is right, despite these discussions about 314.1C. I am not sure I am reading you right. I inferred from what you wrote that... well it almost seems that you know something the rest of us do not.

Rob H

Hi Rob
I wish. No, far from it. Quite the contrary in fact. I was emphasising my ignorance of any reason to suppose that Russell and Jari doubted the science.

I was saying that if Russell and Jari believe the science is right then there is no moral conflict with their continuing to promote the book. If, however, I had thought they doubted the science then there would be a moral conflict.

How they perceived the morality of selling the book in light of not addressing the criticism is another matter.

[robhouse]

How they perceived the morality of selling the book in light of not addressing the criticism is another matter.

Things are certainly getting into murky waters on that front. I had been (in a sense) defending them to an extent, saying I thought it was an honest oversight, which puts them in a difficult position over how to respond. I still do suspect it was an honest mistake on Jari's part, combined with an over-exuberant and unfounded rush to conclusions on Russell's part (which is evident in other places in the book as well.) At this point, it does seem that their plan is to just wait it out, until things die down. But I feel the longer they fail to respond to the criticism, the more indefensible their position becomes.

RH

[Amanda]

Things are certainly getting into murky waters on that front. I had been (in a sense) defending them to an extent, saying I thought it was an honest oversight, which puts them in a difficult position over how to respond. I still do suspect it was an honest mistake on Jari's part, combined with an over-exuberant and unfounded rush to conclusions on Russell's part (which is evident in other places in the book as well.) At this point, it does seem that their plan is to just wait it out, until things die down. But I feel the longer they fail to respond to the criticism, the more indefensible their position becomes.

RH

Hi Rob,
I think there were quite a few people on the forum who were trying not to direct any blame at Jari in the beginning and, to a point, I would still give him the benefit of the doubt. For all we know, he could be frantically rechecking his calculations and wondering what the hell went wrong ( or he might be posing for more media photos..)

I went over some of the statements in 'Naming Jack the Ripper' earlier ( no didn't buy it, someone sent me a courtesy copy!!) and the more I look at the wording, the more I can detect how Edward's was in a hurry to get the information out to the public. I do feel he, and the publishers, may have been a tad unfair to Dr.Louhelainen in so far as pushing deadlines and misconstruing scientific data.
Amanda

[mickreed]

A publisher wouldn't have a contractual clause preventing Jari from stating that his information is correct, but it is best to remember that publishers are first and foremost businesses and they will do what's best for sales. I worked with them long enough! Cut through the idealism of publishing and books are just boxes of soapflakes and the salesfolk may be reckoning that the negative criticism will be over in a week, but that a response - any response - could generate further argument and further negative criticism. The thinking may be to keep one's head below the parapet and secure what rights deals are on the table, then take another look at the options.

G'day Paul,

I take your point about the meaning of a book to a publisher. But, and this isn't really a good analogy, if your packet of soapflakes was found to make clothes dirtier, they would soon pull it from the shelves, because the furore would continue. They may be misjudging the critics here. This won't go away until either someone proves the science right, or fesses up that it's wrong.

There is a moral issue here. We understood that the Kosminski relatives were not really keen on being connected with JtR and the 'M' retained anonymity for that reason. Aren't they owed the truth?

JL has not given private comments made to him a considered response. I have so far kept our exchanges confidential, but I sent him a long explanatory email, filled with references. An argument that developed from when Tracy and me independently discovered and posted an article which pointed out the error of nomenclature. It took me quite a while to write and was, I hope, well-structured to present a case.

Within minutes, I got the following:

Dear Mick,

Unfortunately that is not a peer-reviewed paper but 10 year old conference poster.

With best wishes,

Jari

Which, of course I knew, but, as I say, the article merely explained how we had got on to the problem. It was the first sentence in case building. He does't seem to have read further.

I asked him to read further and got this back:

I can have a look if I missed something but Promega is a chemical company, not an established journal

Sent from my iPhone

I thought, 'Yes, Jari, I know what Promega is. Read the wretched email'.

Fifteen minutes later, I got this:

To be perfectly honest, ... The discussion in that site [Casebook] has not been civilized and professional. I will rather concentrate on verification work.

Sorry about this,

Jari

I have removed some personal information. Also I had not mentioned Casebook.

The whole exchange lasted less than a half-hour. Shortly thereafter he posted on his Facebook page that he had only heard from 'nutters' about the science.

How to make friends and influence people.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mick,

Yet another triumph of commerce over integrity.

Regards,

Simon

[mickreed]

And now we have a poem about RE solving the Ripper case on RE's Facebook page.

Ripper Edwards Poem

Scroll down to the grave yard image

cheers, gryff

What a jerk the bloke is. Utterly shameless.

[Amanda]

Retract...

What a jerk the bloke is. Utterly shameless.

Hi Mick,

I retract my previous comment. Obviously Dr.Louhelainen hasn't bothered to read through your complete email & that in itself screams of 'man on the defensive'.
As for Russell Edwards, well, if he needs to organise a 'Curry and Ripper Night' his book sales can't really be doing as well as he's trying to make out.
Think he might just be attempting to rake in the coffers before his bubble bursts.

Hope you, Chris & the others keep on the trail, the sooner the mistakes are made public knowledge the better.

Amanda

[Chris]

There is a moral issue here. We understood that the Kosminski relatives were not really keen on being connected with JtR and the 'M' retained anonymity for that reason. Aren't they owed the truth?

Yes. 1888 may seem a long time ago, but there are still great-nephews and great-nieces of Aaron Kozminski living, and for some of the family it is still a very sensitive subject.

What really needs to be made clear is whether - setting aside the claimed rarity of "314.1C" - there is anything in these DNA matches to indicate they are not just the result of chance.

[mickreed]

No, it doesn't alter his obligations. But he hasn't satisfied those obigations either way, which opens the possibility that he is not able to do so. "Slanging match" is probably inappropriate, but I was trying to indicate that the publisher (if, indeed, te publisher has anything to do with it) may have wanted to avoid any further argument over Jari's conclusions, right or wrong.

Of course, Paul, we are all speculating here. The most significant thing for me is that since this story broke, almost a week ago, is that JL has posted on his Facebook page the silly story about the film, and the foolish comments about the Independent and someone from the 'Ripper industry'.

There have also been photos and stories about how good everything is on his Twitter account. https://twitter.com/JariLouhelainen

If your hypothesis is right, and he can't say anything, then surely the right thing to do would be to stop promoting the wretched book.