Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[mickreed]

From what I recall chris was quite convincing with his conviction that Edwards had already proved Eddowes DNA was on the shawl..

Well Rocky, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I happen to know from private discussions, from a couple of weeks back, that Chris was not as convinced as you seem to suggest. Without, I hope, disclosing too much from private contacts, he felt, at that time, that the Eddowes stuff was 'just about adequate for a popular book' which is a long way from accepting it as 'proof'. I should say that the 'convincing' part of the book appears to be in Louhelainen's own words, rather than Edwards's. The latter goes on to reach any number of unjustified conclusions from Louhelainen's words, but that's a different story.

That was before the discovery that 314.1c is not necessarily the extremely rare thing Edward's (and Louhelainen apparently) claimed it to be, but rather an 'error in nomenclature'. Based on the scientists own words, I also thought that there might be something in this - but maybe not. Since then, Chris has been exemplary in trying to get to the bottom of this.

[RockySullivan]

Come on, Rocky. If Edwards is a snake oil man, and I suspect he is, it doesn't follow that those who helped, perhaps not even knowing the first thing about him, are somehow suspect as well.

After all, the stats that Chris et al are pursuing will, if proven correct, be a huge nail in RE's coffin.

From what I recall chris was quite convincing with his conviction that Edwards had already proved Eddowes DNA was on the shawl...or atleast he believed the statistics did in fact indicate the DNA was eddowes

[mickreed]

I admit I find it a bit less than thrilling that the "persuasive" "statactics" were coming from someone involved with with snake oil salesman and thanked in the book.....

Come on, Rocky. If Edwards is a snake oil man, and I suspect he is, it doesn't follow that those who helped, perhaps not even knowing the first thing about him, are somehow suspect as well.

After all, the stats that Chris et al are pursuing will, if proven correct, be a huge nail in RE's coffin.

[RockySullivan]

I admit I find it a bit less than thrilling that the "persuasive" "statactics" were coming from someone involved with with snake oil salesman and thanked in the book.....

[mickreed]

Did you have any inkling, Chris, that Mr. Edwards would use the contacts you provided to test their DNA against "the Eddowes shawl?"

This probably doesn't apply to you Roy, but I have noticed (and received by pm) some suspicious remarks about those named in the acknowledgements in the book.

I don't share these suspicions. I'll help anybody (and have many times over the years) with a research query and hope, sometimes vainly, that they will acknowledge that help.

But what they do with that help is nothing to do with me, and I wouldn't expect to be held in any way responsible for what conclusions they may draw.

Of course, if they claim my help as their own work, then I do get pissed off.

[mickreed]

And, lo, for all eternity man shalt continue to baffle brains by talking BS unto his fellow man.

And that, Simon, I won't disagree with.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening Chris,

In response to Simon's question

As you were included in the acknowledgements of Russell Edwards' book, perhaps you would care to detail the extent of your cooperation

you said

He contacted me through a third party last year for help in tracing descendants of Aaron Kozminski's family. I was reluctant to involve any of those we had traced previously, but with the help of others I traced some fresh ones - one in the UK and others in the USA - and suggested he should try them.

Did you have any inkling, Chris, that Mr. Edwards would use the contacts you provided to test their DNA against "the Eddowes shawl?"

In other words, did you know you were providing him with subjects for DNA testing against the item he owns, the shawl, or you were not aware of that aspect, and were simply providing him contacts with family members whom he might be able to discuss things with.

And as a follow up, if you were reluctant to involve any of those descendants you traced previously, what was it about Mr. Edwards query that persuaded you to nonetheless find him some new contacts. Why Edwards. Were you functioning in a capacity of agent.

What was the impetus to find descendants of Aaron Kosminski's family you didn't know of before, if you had no urge to find them previously for your own research purposes.

Roy

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mick,

You could be right.

And, lo, for all eternity man shalt continue to baffle brains by talking BS unto his fellow man.

I'm not exactly sure who's letters to whom it's from, but it sure does neatly sum up the gentle art of Ripperology.

Regards,

Simon

[RockySullivan]

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

Too busy to address a possible major scientific error that lead to millions of people being told inaccurately the ripper case was "solved"....Hm...very....what's the word I'm looking for....scientific?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

Thank you.

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

As you were included in the acknowledgements of Russell Edwards' book, perhaps you would care to detail the extent of your cooperation.

There's no secret about it. He contacted me through a third party last year for help in tracing descendants of Aaron Kozminski's family. I was reluctant to involve any of those we had traced previously, but with the help of others I traced some fresh ones - one in the UK and others in the USA - and suggested he should try them. That was the extent of our contribution.

[Mabuse]

You also miss my point. Let another expert tell him if he's made a mistake.

No I don't miss your point, I just don't think it is logical. Other experts pointing out his mistakes won't happen without peer review or at the very least a more detailed write up of the testing methodology. There's gonna be a long wait for that, by the looks of things.

If you're suggesting that someone outside Dr Louhelainen's field isn't qualified to critique his work, that sounds a bit like the appeal to authority fallacy. Not a reliable method for determining facts.

If a layperson can spot a mistake in the work of a professional, let them point it out, I say. Perfectly legitimate process.

[Chris]

Chris, you mentioned in the other thread that Jari had been made aware of the issue. Was there any indication of what his reaction might have been, if any?

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

[tji]

I think you'd need to take the best of three. Or maybe the best of five. Is five enough, though?

We'd need a Professor of Statistics to tell us that, wouldn't we? Or maybe three, just to be on the safe side. Or maybe five ...

Hmmmm maybe should get two so the first can get expert advice from the second.....

[Theagenes]

I think you'd need to take the best of three. Or maybe the best of five. Is five enough, though?

We'd need a Professor of Statistics to tell us that, wouldn't we? Or maybe three, just to be on the safe side. Or maybe five ...

Chris, you mentioned in the other thread that Jari had been made aware of the issue. Was there any indication of what his reaction might have been, if any?