Hi all,
Well, no surprise here really. Looks like there was a major error made in the DNA probability calculations. Basically, it claims he misidentified a mutation as 314.1C rather than 315.1C, which was the basis for the identification with Eddowes, and rather than being rare it turns out to be shared by 99% of people of European descent.
Anyway, here's a link to the article. I realize people here probably already know this as the article points out that the error was first noted by some Australian researchers posting here on casebook!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news...ectid=11345140
Well, no surprise here really. Looks like there was a major error made in the DNA probability calculations. Basically, it claims he misidentified a mutation as 314.1C rather than 315.1C, which was the basis for the identification with Eddowes, and rather than being rare it turns out to be shared by 99% of people of European descent.
Anyway, here's a link to the article. I realize people here probably already know this as the article points out that the error was first noted by some Australian researchers posting here on casebook!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news...ectid=11345140


Comment