Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[sauropod]

I've done my best to explain this on the other thread:
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8370

I'd already read that post, and I think you did a very good job of explaining it, but I still find it hard to believe that an expert, with his reputation riding on these results, would make such a simple error.

Still, I agree with Theagenes that the longer the good doctor remains silent, the worse it looks for him. I don't care how "busy" he is; if he can clear this up, he should take the time to do so. Otherwise it just looks like stonewalling.

[Theagenes]

No, I think one would need to be much more than that - one would need to be capable of performing the impossible.

What needs to be explained is how the following can be reconciled:
(1) The claim in the book that 314.1C is extremely rare.
(2) The fact that 314.1C is equivalent to 315.1C.
(3) The fact that 315.1C is extremely common.

I've done my best to explain this on the other thread:
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8370

Chris, I think the most plausible alternative explanation to Louhelainen making a major mistake can found in your item no. 1. That is, Edwards making a mistake in reporting the information.

I'm not saying that is what happened, but given what a mess the rest of the book is, that is a reasonable possibility.

But the longer Louhelainen takes to respond -- even if it's just to say Edwards misunderstood -- the worse it looks.

[RockySullivan]

I think the claim that jari wasn't paid for his work is telling. He was likely paid...very well and he's likely in on the con. He is in a way more to blame than Edwards because he has a scientific responsibility. I'm sure hair was paid very well to lie about the results but to admit so would make him look suspicious. All just my opinion of course

[Chris]

True, but who here is a specialist in the field? To suggest an alternative, we would need to be highly knowledgeable about mtDNA - at least as knowledgeable as Dr. Louhelainen.

No, I think one would need to be much more than that - one would need to be capable of performing the impossible.

What needs to be explained is how the following can be reconciled:
(1) The claim in the book that 314.1C is extremely rare.
(2) The fact that 314.1C is equivalent to 315.1C.
(3) The fact that 315.1C is extremely common.

I've done my best to explain this on the other thread:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8370

[sauropod]

Chris wrote, "I think in order to say that an error is unlikely, you need to have an alternative, likelier, explanation in mind. I haven't yet seen anyone suggest one that's feasible at all."

True, but who here is a specialist in the field? To suggest an alternative, we would need to be highly knowledgeable about mtDNA - at least as knowledgeable as Dr. Louhelainen.

Of course, if he never responds to queries or if he confesses an error, the game is up.

[Hercule Poirot]

I must admit I'm a little nonplussed at all the hostility toward Edwards. I realize he comes across as rather full of himself, and I know that ripperologists have been burned before (Maybrick diary, "Case Closed," etc.). Still, to dismiss his book so cavalierly strikes me as a bit peculiar. After all, the guy ...

a) paid a lot of money for a relic possibly associated with a Ripper murder
b) found a leading DNA expert to examine it
c) also obtained the services of a top expert in "sperm head" analysis (surely one of the most arcane specialties on earth)
d) went to great lengths to have the experts salvage and analyze mitochondrial DNA from the shawl
e) tracked down a matrilineal descendent of Eddowes and got her permission to take samples of her DNA
f) found a matrilineal descendent of Kosminksi and obtained her DNA also; and
g) obtained access to the records of Kosminski's institutionalization.

I've read a number of Ripper books, though fewer (I'm sure) than many of the posters here. I can't think of too many that involve this degree of detailed scientific investigation. Even if Edwards is wrong, he ought to be congratulated for his sustained efforts, which required considerable perseverance.

And I'm not sure he is wrong. To believe he is, we have to assume that Dr. Louhelainen made a bush-league error regarding mutation 314.1C, which hardly seems likely. We also have to assume that blurry, low-resolution photos give us a better idea of the floral print on the shawl than direct visual inspection of the garment itself.

Time will tell, but it's just possible that Edwards and Louhelainen have cracked the case. Even if they haven't, they've put a lot of serious and thoughtful work into it, and it seems unnecessary to lambaste them as chumps and fools.

Just my two cents ...

I tend to agree with what you said regarding Russels' efforts and time invested except for your 'And I'm not sure he is wrong...' paragraph. I must however say that he has connected to much loose ends together which demonstrates his lack of rigorousness. For the past 4-5 years I have been working on a novel related to the JTR events and although it's a fiction, let me repeat that, a fiction, you can't imagine the research it required of me to come up with a plausible story line. Failing short in doing that (and I still have to revise many aspects), would result in me delivering a 'Jack the Ripper against Godzilla" story, a fantasy which would insult the intelligence of those who are seriously interested in this case. This is what seems to be happening with RE's book.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[Fisherman]

I must admit I'm a little nonplussed at all the hostility toward Edwards. I realize he comes across as rather full of himself, and I know that ripperologists have been burned before (Maybrick diary, "Case Closed," etc.). Still, to dismiss his book so cavalierly strikes me as a bit peculiar. After all, the guy ...

a) paid a lot of money for a relic possibly associated with a Ripper murder
b) found a leading DNA expert to examine it
c) also obtained the services of a top expert in "sperm head" analysis (surely one of the most arcane specialties on earth)
d) went to great lengths to have the experts salvage and analyze mitochondrial DNA from the shawl
e) tracked down a matrilineal descendent of Eddowes and got her permission to take samples of her DNA
f) found a matrilineal descendent of Kosminksi and obtained her DNA also; and
g) obtained access to the records of Kosminski's institutionalization.

I've read a number of Ripper books, though fewer (I'm sure) than many of the posters here. I can't think of too many that involve this degree of detailed scientific investigation. Even if Edwards is wrong, he ought to be congratulated for his sustained efforts, which required considerable perseverance.

And I'm not sure he is wrong. To believe he is, we have to assume that Dr. Louhelainen made a bush-league error regarding mutation 314.1C, which hardly seems likely. We also have to assume that blurry, low-resolution photos give us a better idea of the floral print on the shawl than direct visual inspection of the garment itself.

Time will tell, but it's just possible that Edwards and Louhelainen have cracked the case. Even if they haven't, they've put a lot of serious and thoughtful work into it, and it seems unnecessary to lambaste them as chumps and fools.

Just my two cents ...

It was the "I did it!" approach that did for Russell Edwards. If he had written "I think I may have done it!", he would not have been taken apart the way that has happened.
Ripperologists are a tough and unforgiving breed. Try and take their chewing toys away from them, and you will get bitten.

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

And I'm not sure he is wrong. To believe he is, we have to assume that Dr. Louhelainen made a bush-league error regarding mutation 314.1C, which hardly seems likely.

I think in order to say that an error is unlikely, you need to have an alternative, likelier, explanation in mind.

I haven't yet seen anyone suggest one that's feasible at all.

[sauropod]

I must admit I'm a little nonplussed at all the hostility toward Edwards. I realize he comes across as rather full of himself, and I know that ripperologists have been burned before (Maybrick diary, "Case Closed," etc.). Still, to dismiss his book so cavalierly strikes me as a bit peculiar. After all, the guy ...

a) paid a lot of money for a relic possibly associated with a Ripper murder
b) found a leading DNA expert to examine it
c) also obtained the services of a top expert in "sperm head" analysis (surely one of the most arcane specialties on earth)
d) went to great lengths to have the experts salvage and analyze mitochondrial DNA from the shawl
e) tracked down a matrilineal descendent of Eddowes and got her permission to take samples of her DNA
f) found a matrilineal descendent of Kosminksi and obtained her DNA also; and
g) obtained access to the records of Kosminski's institutionalization.

I've read a number of Ripper books, though fewer (I'm sure) than many of the posters here. I can't think of too many that involve this degree of detailed scientific investigation. Even if Edwards is wrong, he ought to be congratulated for his sustained efforts, which required considerable perseverance.

And I'm not sure he is wrong. To believe he is, we have to assume that Dr. Louhelainen made a bush-league error regarding mutation 314.1C, which hardly seems likely. We also have to assume that blurry, low-resolution photos give us a better idea of the floral print on the shawl than direct visual inspection of the garment itself.

Time will tell, but it's just possible that Edwards and Louhelainen have cracked the case. Even if they haven't, they've put a lot of serious and thoughtful work into it, and it seems unnecessary to lambaste them as chumps and fools.

Just my two cents ...

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Check this out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/davian-hoffman/ripped-from-the-headlines_2_b_5920748.html

Here's a paragraph from it:

Finally, I spoke briefly with Eric Siegel, who is the Director and Chief Content Officer of the New York Hall of Science. In his opinion, it wasn't of much concern that Edwards and Louhelainen's findings haven't found their way into a peer-reviewed journal. He said, "A scientific journal is unlikely to take this case since it's merely an application of DNA identification, and that's a mature technology. There's nothing 'new' about the research process, it's simply an identification." He went on to comment about the role of using DNA identification in this case, "The real distinction is the fundamental role of DNA and how it is a fully developed science as opposed to other methods of collecting and analyzing forensic evidence."

Mick, as I have said before, Dr. JL will likely try to publish "on improved methodology/technology used to extract epithelial cells and not to an analysis and meaning of the actual results". There are scientific journals that take papers on evolving technology - sometimes just 1-2 page "notes".

Remember, this was the second attempt at getting DNA from the shawl owned by RE with Dr. JL being the analyst (see the TV movie with DCI Robert Napper and Deeming as suspect Link at ~30mins in).

Any such scientific paper may not even have JTR in the title, but rather be about the extraction process for older materials - with the shawl being just one of the samples tested - and possibly be with Dr Miller (the scientist who looked at the alleged semen stain). Add to that any possible tweaks to normal scientific procedures that may have been involved - a paper could be produced.

I remember the case of a graduate student I knew who told his research supervisor that the research for his thesis was not new. The response by the student's supervisor was - just change the size of the test tube!

cheers, gryff

[mickreed]

Worth a read

Check this out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/davian-hoffman/ripped-from-the-headlines_2_b_5920748.html

Here's a paragraph from it:

Finally, I spoke briefly with Eric Siegel, who is the Director and Chief Content Officer of the New York Hall of Science. In his opinion, it wasn't of much concern that Edwards and Louhelainen's findings haven't found their way into a peer-reviewed journal. He said, "A scientific journal is unlikely to take this case since it's merely an application of DNA identification, and that's a mature technology. There's nothing 'new' about the research process, it's simply an identification." He went on to comment about the role of using DNA identification in this case, "The real distinction is the fundamental role of DNA and how it is a fully developed science as opposed to other methods of collecting and analyzing forensic evidence."

[drstrange169]

Hello Gryff and Mick,

I'm trying hard not to be prejudiced about the whole Edwards thing until some more definate infomation comes out, but he is, rightly or wrongly, coming across as a unpleasantly dodgy charactor.

[mickreed]

So much for respecting the victims:-(

Choose from a range of distasteful "official" products here,
http://www.jacktherippertoursandstor.../2/PageIndex/6

Christ, Dusty, that's sick. Does anybody defend this?

[mickreed]

Reviewed the book the past weekend, and now sorry that I spent my hard earned cash.

I won't bother to discuss his so called revelations as the primary arguments have been discussed in detail on the boards.

The book has more padding than a push up bra.

It is poorly written and has a ridiculous amount of information about his personal life as if he is the hero of the hour to have finally unmasked Jack the Ripper.

Remember people,
If it looks like dog s...t
If it smells like dog s...t
If it tastes like dog s...t
It is dog s...t

Well done, Wolfie. A person of discernment.

I agree 100%

[wolfie1]

Review

Reviewed the book the past weekend, and now sorry that I spent my hard earned cash.

I won't bother to discuss his so called revelations as the primary arguments have been discussed in detail on the boards.

The book has more padding than a push up bra.

It is poorly written and has a ridiculous amount of information about his personal life as if he is the hero of the hour to have finally unmasked Jack the Ripper.

Remember people,
If it looks like dog s...t
If it smells like dog s...t
If it tastes like dog s...t
It is dog s...t