DNA error

[mickreed]

I'm not disputing this Dave..I'm simply a commentator.

However I'm going to require a little more than this before claiming Dr J is Wrong?

So what you all got? Names and specifics help

Yours Jeff

Names are all here, Jeff.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/jack-the-ripper-id-hinges-on-a-decimal-point-as-scientists-flag-up-dna-error-in-book-that-claims-to-identify-the-whitechapel-killer-9804325.html

[mickreed]

G'day Chris

Not something anyone in their right mind would admit to.

Now you know why I always admit to being a Pom, Gut.

[mickreed]

Hi Guys

While I understand that given developments a number of you might feel able to qualify the above statement

I trust that those of us who 'speculate'.. might be a little cynical of your claims.. given that Dr J's is a recognised expert..and however you dress it up..well you guys just are not?

Is this basic error a matter of fact? or of opinion?

and if so.. can i address your claims claim directly to Dr J and why (Specifically)

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff

Yes, JL is said to be a recognised expert, but his expertise isn't really in this field. Check it out.

The facts are that four genuine experts in exactly this field say he's wrong - and in a most elementary way. Three of these experts, by the way, are behind, the very programmes and databases that he used to make his mistake.

If you can get something from him about this then please do. I tried before the story broke, and he brushed me off.

Sine the story broke, all anyone has publicly heard from him - via Facebook - is that it's a conspiracy. The independent has it in for the publisher.

Puhleeeze, give us break - and an explanation would help.

[GUT]

G'day Harriett

Welcome to casebook.

As I read it without the DNA Mr E presents nothing new but some wild speculation.

Even with the DNA there's not much, I think I've seen at least 5 explanations that could make it all mean nothing even if the DNA was 110%.

[Harriet the Student]

I thought the circumstances surrounding the shawl's provenance made the DNA identification shaky to begin with, but that's a pretty serious mistake to make. Was the bulk of Edward's case against Kosminski hanging on the DNA, or was there any other supporting evidence?

[pinkmoon]

Hi Jeff



As I understand it, no fewer than four emminent DNA experts have now looked at JLs claims and are expressing concern...it's gone way beyond "Casebook Amateurs" - take a look at the Independent article....

JL has already been approached, brushed off or ignored said approaches, and declined (so far) to comment...

Thereagain I'm only sitting on the sidelines here and others may know far more

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave,I've read the independent article and I'm absolutely appalled this book has been published stating case closed when Mr Edwards and Doc Jan should have checked the results of the d.n.a before publishing book.Of course none of this matters now because lots of books and yoyos have been sold so it's job done.

[Westbourne Wink]

Well all I can say is this is HILARIOUS.

Anyone who doesn't think Russell Edwards has got everything he deserved for smug 'categorical' declaration is a far better person than I will ever be.

Jeff,

In light of the knowledge that the DNA on the shawl is not Eddowes or Kosminskis, I'm sure you'll agree that there's no way Kosminski could have been the Ripper and can once and for all be struck from the suspect list.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Jeff,

In light of the knowledge that the DNA on the shawl is not Eddowes or Kosminskis, I'm sure you'll agree that there's no way Kosminski could have been the Ripper and can once and for all be struck from the suspect list.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[drstrange169]

"I trust that those of us who 'speculate'.. might be a little cynical of your claims.. given that Dr J's is a recognised expert..and however you dress it up..well you guys just are not?

Is this basic error a matter of fact? or of opinion?"


Hello Jeff,

All this has been detailed in ... err ... great detail, in the thread labelled,
A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match



"... and if so.. can i address your claims claim directly to Dr J and why (Specifically)"


Please, please, please do so if you are in a position of influence.
So far, the good doctor has ignored all requests from here and elsewhere to answer the allegations.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

Your determination to defend Anderson and Swanson to the hilt, and without one iota of proof condemn the wholly innocent Aaron Kosminski to eternal damnation is interesting, to put it mildly.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff

As I understand it, no fewer than four emminent DNA experts have now looked at JLs claims and are expressing concern...it's gone way beyond "Casebook Amateurs" - take a look at the Independent article....

Dave

I'm not disputing this Dave..I'm simply a commentator.

However I'm going to require a little more than this before claiming Dr J is Wrong?

So what you all got? Names and specifics help

Yours Jeff

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Jeff

While I understand that given developments a number of you might feel able to qualify the above statement

I trust that those of us who 'speculate'.. might be a little cynical of your claims.. given that Dr J's is a recognised expert..and however you dress it up..well you guys just are not?

Is this basic error a matter of fact? or of opinion?

and if so.. can i address your claims claim directly to Dr J and why (Specifically)

As I understand it, no fewer than four emminent DNA experts have now looked at JLs claims and are expressing concern...it's gone way beyond "Casebook Amateurs" - take a look at the Independent article....

JL has already been approached, brushed off or ignored said approaches, and declined (so far) to comment...

Thereagain I'm only sitting on the sidelines here and others may know far more

All the best

Dave

[Jeff Leahy]

DNA error?

Hi Guys

While I understand that given developments a number of you might feel able to qualify the above statement

I trust that those of us who 'speculate'.. might be a little cynical of your claims.. given that Dr J's is a recognised expert..and however you dress it up..well you guys just are not?

Is this basic error a matter of fact? or of opinion?

and if so.. can i address your claims claim directly to Dr J and why (Specifically)

Yours Jeff

[GUT]

Well, you wouldn't expect me to make a thing like that obvious, would you?

[ATTACH]16372[/ATTACH]

G'day Chris

Not something anyone in their right mind would admit to.

[Chris]

Chris, We have known each other for a while now, and I had no idea you were Australian!

Well, you wouldn't expect me to make a thing like that obvious, would you?