Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[pinkmoon]

In a way your right it is similar but Edwards uses the false ascertain that he's solved the case by proving Koz & Kate's DNA is on the shawl. In this age where CSI & Forensic Tv Shows are so popular with the public, Edwards claiming he proved JTR with DNA was certain to capture the public's attention more than an ordinary suspect book that relies on theory.

That's right Rocky on his website he leaves no doubt it's case solved when it quite simply can't be unless we can have some proof that the shawl is the real thing and not a family story.

[RockySullivan]

That's right Rocky on his website he leaves no doubt it's case solved when it quite simply can't be unless we can have some proof that the shawl is the real thing and not a family story.

not only is there no evidence that the shawl is the real thing....but there's no real DNA match on the shawl to Kate or Koz.

[pinkmoon]

not only is there no evidence that the shawl is the real thing....but there's no real DNA match on the shawl to Kate or Koz.

Mr Edwards shouldn't be shouting solved its just not on

[Hatchett]

Hi Pinkmoon,

But if he believes that it is solved, then surelly he has a right to say it? Free speech and all that.

[pinkmoon]

Hi Pinkmoon,

But if he believes that it is solved, then surelly he has a right to say it? Free speech and all that.

Nothing at all wrong with free speech but people are buying this book because of the case closed aspect which isn't right.

[Hatchett]

Hi,

Well whats wrong with it? If the guy believes it then that is ok. People who buy the book can make up their own mind.

DNA results are not always accepted. Just look at the A6 thread. The DNA evidence has done nothing to convince everyone that Hanratty was guilty.

[lynn cates]

correction

Hello All. We have a case of science correcting "science." Time to move on.

Cheers.
LC

[Hercule Poirot]

Hello All. We have a case of science correcting "science." Time to move on.

Cheers.
LC

I agree. We're in an almost square circle situation here. Kos pronounced guilty of being ... hmm... innocent!

[Chris]

But if he believes that it is solved, then surelly he has a right to say it? Free speech and all that.

You can't libel the dead, so in that sense there is a legal right to accuse anyone of the Whitechapel Murders. But that's obviously not the same as saying that it's right to make accusations.

Questions have been asked about the scientific evidence. The longer they go unanswered, the more problematic this looks.

[Hatchett]

Hi Chris,

I agree with that. But what I am saying is it any different to what Knight, Cornwell, Stewart et all have done?

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Questions have been asked about the scientific evidence. The longer they go unanswered, the more problematic this looks.

I agree Chris.

I have to wonder what kind of legal agreement may exist between Dr. JL and RE. I know that Dr. JL provided his services for free, but in one of the interviews Dr. JL gave he talks about no more money left in the "budget"

A budget provided by RE? And if so, was there some kind of contract which included clauses about how/when/by whom the data could be released?

As an aside, TY for all your patient efforts on this thread and the "Eddowes" thread

cheers, gryff

[Chris]

I have to wonder what kind of legal agreement may exist between Dr. JL and RE. I know that Dr. JL provided his services for free, but in one of the interviews Dr. JL gave he talks about no more money left in the "budget"

A budget provided by RE? And if so, was there some kind of contract which included clauses about how/when/by whom the data could be released?

Presumably that was a research budget provided by the publishers. The book says that Dr Louhelainen provided his services free in return for being able to publish a scientific paper, so one would certainly hope that no restrictions have been placed on him.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Presumably that was a research budget provided by the publishers. The book says that Dr Louhelainen provided his services free in return for being able to publish a scientific paper, so one would certainly hope that no restrictions have been placed on him.

So who owns the data? RE and/or the publishers?

And I have suggested before that "being able to publish a scientific paper" may apply to aspects of the improved methodology/technology used to extract epithelial cells and not to an analysis and meaning of the actual results.

cheers, gryff

[mickreed]

So who owns the data? RE and/or the publishers?

And I have suggested before that "being able to publish a scientific paper" may apply to aspects of the improved methodology/technology used to extract epithelial cells and not to an analysis and meaning of the actual results.

cheers, gryff

And I'm thinking, Gryff, that you may be right. So far as I know, the only 'explanatory' stuff that JL has posted has been a silly little video showing how the cells were extracted.

If, and it is still a very big if, JL has let himself be tied down by RE and/or the publishers, then so far as I am concerned, his reputation will be shot.

JL is still, reportedly, appearing with RE in what, I would argue, are promotional appearances for the book.

Frankly I am getting a bit peed off with it.

[mickreed]

Hi Chris,

I agree with that. But what I am saying is it any different to what Knight, Cornwell, Stewart et all have done?

Hi Hatchett. My beef is not with Edwards really because I have such a low regard for the overall evidence he gives in his book that I can't see how anyone who reads it can take it seriously. I thought the same about Cornwell's book as well.

I do think JL has a responsibility to come out and explain it properly. At the moment my main beef is with him. In a Finnish press interview, he said that the criticisms were of RE and not of JL. That may be changing.