Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl - Part 2

[Observer]

Admin Note:
This thread is a continuation of another thread. To view the original thread, please click here.

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.

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

[Phil Carter]

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

Hello Observer,

So what is wrong with other people, other than qualified experts, telling him?... Ummm.. if most of the people telling David Moyes had been listened too last year by David Moyes, Man Utd may have had a better season... and they weren't other managers.. but people who know football. To them they SAW the mistakes as clear as daylight. Moyes did not. But they tried to tell him. They weren't experts... but they were right... and had the right to point out his errors too.


regards

Phil

[tji]

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

So if another expert says there has been a mistake made - then what? It is suddenly ok to accept what Chris is saying all along?

Tracy

[Chris]

So if another expert says there has been a mistake made - then what? It is suddenly ok to accept what Chris is saying all along?

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 ...

[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

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

[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?

[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.....

[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.

[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]

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.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

Thank you.

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 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

[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

[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.