Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Chris]

At the moment we are reliant on 100 different versions of what various scientific Wikipedia articles say.

Not at all. The same database that Dr Louhelainen is quoted as saying that he used to evaluate the frequency of 314.1C, is freely available here:

http://empop.org/modules/haplotype/

If you run a search for 314.1C (under Profile) and specify the range as 314-316 (because the search engine is clever enough, in effect, to correct 314.1C to 315.1C before it does the search), then you'll see that nearly all the sequences in the database have this mutation.

[Rob Clack]

I personally think £130 is a steep price - but the list of speakers (including Sarah Wise and Paul Begg) is very good this year and with Russell Edwards' and Dr Jari Louhelainen's (as I must henceforth cut and past every time) involvement it is not to be missed - in my opinion.

Some lucksters (who must be called Robert) even got their tickets early apparently - before all this hoo-ha.

Can't be me, as I won't be there.

Robert

[Fantasio]

3. As Fantastic proposed...

FantasiO, not FantastiC (it's a french comics character, not mr. Fantastic of the american F4).

[Observer]

You beat me to it Debs. You're both spot on.

I don't understand this unquestioning worship of people with academic qualifications.
Even the real experts (of which JL probably is one) aren't always infallible. And when what tiny aspect of their work we have is only available through a popular book, and a couple of brief interviews, then we can't accept anything.

You're missing my point.

Worship doesn’t enter into it Mick. The thing is I'm told that the "mistake" made by Dr Louhelainen is so basic, so simple that even I would be able to see where he went astray. For the third time, (I'm beginning to sound like Pinkflume) I find it remarkable that a scientist of his standing should make such a basic error.

From page one of this thread, just after I read the link to the Daily Mail article I realised that Mr Edwards book was aimed at the general public. Some of the things he's suggesting are downright silly. In the grand scheme of things is he doing any harm? Hell no. He is not the first to court controversy in writing a suspect based Ripper book, and he'll not be the last. Good luck to him I say. Oh I know the nutcases in here will disagree with me, the knives are out you see, "he's conning the public", will be the call. All I can say is this. Lord forbid if any of their theories make it into book form. As an example, can you imagine the furore should “Sheepgate” hit the bookstores?

Observer

[Patrick S]

You're missing my point.

Worship doesn’t enter into it Mick. The thing is I'm told that the "mistake" made by Dr Louhelainen is so basic, so simple that even I would be able to see where he went astray. For the third time, (I'm beginning to sound like Pinkflume) I find it remarkable that a scientist of his standing should make such a basic error.

From page one of this thread, just after I read the link to the Daily Mail article I realised that Mr Edwards book was aimed at the general public. Some of the things he's suggesting are downright silly. In the grand scheme of things is he doing any harm? Hell no. He is not the first to court controversy in writing a suspect based Ripper book, and he'll not be the last. Good luck to him I say. Oh I know the nutcases in here will disagree with me, the knives are out you see, "he's conning the public", will be the call. All I can say is this. Lord forbid if any of their theories make it into book form. As an example, can you imagine the furore should “Sheepgate” hit the bookstores?

Observer

I agree with all of your points, Observer. I don't think you are in danger of sounding like "Pinkmoon", though. I have a vision of a person sitting alone in a dark room, muttering over and over, "None of this is true because the shawl could not have been at any of the murder sites....."

In any event, I'm sorry if I missed it, but what's the error by Louhelainen you mentioned? I'm not sure I've heard it.

[Observer]

Chris pointed out in the other thread, that Jari has apparently been made aware of this issue. I would think his reaction at being told about it would be very telling. If he seemed non-plussed as though he was well aware of it then it's probably a case of Edwards misreporting the results. If, on the other hand, he seemed surprised, then we probably have a real problem.

Hi Theagenes. It doesn't seem to have deterred him to any extent in appearing alongside Mr Edwards. This to me suggests all is well between the two men. Good post by the way.

[Phil Carter]

That's not going to happen.

Russell Edwards' book is selling like hotcakes and you think he's gonna have a peer review done, or allow any further testing on his property, the shawl?

Where have people dreamed up this idea of review. (not just you Observ)

A White Paper

Get real folks, the horse has left the barn.

Roy

Hello Roy,

I would believe and agree with you entirely...except... I have the odd feeling that the horse is coming back for more... except this time as a milkmaid and milking this "golden cow" for all it is worth. A conference or two, a radio plug or two, a newspaper quote or two... this guy is going to flog this one to death.

I just hope someone can stand up to the man and tell him the facts of the presentations (plural) he has presented thusfar..including the book. Because Edwards is changing his mind and story pretty often.. (from the original book story).. and as for the good Finnish Doctor... I would like to know if HE is going to stand up to scrutiny of his work that shows basic technique flaws in gathering data. (methodology).

So yup... would love to agree with you Roy... but fear that the milkmaid will be calling again pretty soon.... never mind the horse. :-)

regards


Phil

[Mabuse]

I find it remarkable that a scientist of his standing should make such a basic error.

Distinguished scientists are capable of making mistakes. History is replete with examples of very experienced scientists making errors.

Linus Pauling got his model for DNA structure wrong in an effort to make a publication deadline.

Einstein thought the universe existed in a steady state.

And so on.

Dr Louhelainen is still human.

[Observer]

I agree with all of your points, Observer. I don't think you are in danger of sounding like "Pinkmoon", though. I have a vision of a person sitting alone in a dark room, muttering over and over, "None of this is true because the shawl could not have been at any of the murder sites....."

In any event, I'm sorry if I missed it, but what's the error by Louhelainen you mentioned? I'm not sure I've heard it.

Hahaha. If he's sitting in a darkened room, then somebody should let him out. The error made by Dr Louhelainen? I haven't a clue, but it's a very basic error apparently, it involves mutants I believe. Take note, leave it to the experts to thrash out.

[Phil Carter]

The evidence suggests that if he was on late duty on this evening in 1888, then he was around 30 miles away from Mitre Square.

Monty

Hello Monty,

Thank you. Surely then, that evidence, in looking back on 1888, family lore included, must have a greater say than an UNPROVABLE claim MADE in 2014 to tie in with the lore of the family story, no?

regards

Phil

[Theagenes]

FantasiO, not FantastiC (it's a french comics character, not mr. Fantastic of the american F4).

And as a comics fan, I appreciate the distinction and the references.

[Theagenes]

Essentially just that he was very busy at the moment, but would respond later.

Thanks. I have no doubt he's busy. Hopefully, we'll have a response soon though.

[Phil Carter]

I rarely deal with family lore, I prefer facts.

And so far, the facts lead away from family lore, and Edwards/Andy Parlours suggestion of Fenian duty.

As for the science bit...peer review is the only route, however there is a fear by Edwards to permit that.

That leads to a telling conclusion.

I've been told the science is not conclusive. The stats are irrelevant, as David Brent stated, stats are akin to a lamp post for a drunk...more to lean on than for illumination.

Monty

Hello Monty,

I prefer the George Formby variant for lamposts. At least he watches the ladies go by and not interfere with their scarfs/shawls/etc etc etc

As far as Edwards/Parlour is concerned... I fear the worst and that this might drag out a long, long time.

Conclusion:- parlour games, anyone? LOL ;-)
(thats a play on words just before anyone wets themselves over it..humour it is called.. note the wink and the LOL)



regards

Phil

[Jon Guy]

Lord forbid if any of their theories make it into book form. As an example, can you imagine the furore should “Sheepgate” hit the bookstores?

Indeed Mr O. If anything, this latest offering has shown that Ripperologists won`t have the wool pulled down over their eyes.

Distancing myself from wacko theories you may be interested to know that I have in my possession the green velvet that Liz Stride gave to Catherine Lane on the night she died. The velvet was passed down the family and in 1966 was fashioned into a jacket and worn by Catherine Lane`s great -grand child, The Small Faces bass player Ronnie Lane. Anyway, that`s what the chap at the market told me. Tests are been carried out by my mate at Crewe sixth form college, and I can confirm that cat DNA has been identified. More details to follow.

[Simon Wood]

Hi John Guy,

I can imagine far more semen and blood stains at a Small Faces concert than I ever could in Mitre Square or Berners Street.

Catherine Lane . . . Ronnie Lane. Come on, it's perfect. The provenance is impeccable.

Waste no time. Call Sotheby's immediately. You wouldn't want to miss out on a possible book and TV documentary deal.

Regards,

Simon