A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Evening Gryff
I actually might agree but refuse to accept anything Mr Edwards says.

Evening Gryff- must be an Eastern Australia time zone. I did some work for UWA - and it's afternoon there

but refuse to accept anything Mr Edwards says. I might agree, except ... I'm going to enjoy the "explanations" to come

cheers, gryff

[mickreed]

I actually might agree but refuse to accept anything Mr Edwards says.

G'day GUT

There plenty of shawls this size and shape, so it could be a shawl. Equally, it could be a table cloth.

I don't think it matters what it is. If the DNA stacked up, then there might have been a case to for us to answer. Since it doesn't, there isn't.

[GUT]

Evening Gryff

1. "the table cloth" Personally I have no opinion in what the "shawl' is. The other day I looked at a sewing pattern for a shawl 15" x 70" - not that different in size from the RE's shawl. But I have seen images of table runners on the casebook that look similar. Where is the expert opinion - and not not from photographs!

I actually might agree but refuse to accept anything Mr Edwards says.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

G'day gryff
And in choosing to believe the table cloth was anywhere near the murder scene he did exactly the same thing, lets not get me started on Daisies.

Morning GUT

A few comments:

1. "the table cloth" Personally I have no opinion in what the "shawl' is. The other day I looked at a sewing pattern for a shawl 15" x 70" - not that different in size from the RE's "shawl". But I have seen images of table runners on the casebook that look similar. Where is the expert opinion - and not not from photographs!

2. "lets not get me started on Daisies" Purely RE fantasy - not based on science or expert observation.

3. "anywhere near the murder scene" Well again we have RE claiming certain circumstances but actually providing absolutely no evidence. But if the DNA evidence can be shown to be concrete, and I'm sceptical, then maybe we will will need a reevaluation of the provenance of the "shawl".

cheers, gryff

[mickreed]

A good observation, Mick. But I'm afraid Russell "100% case closed" Edwards might still claim support for his theories - with his "dating" of the shawl he chose what he wanted to after all.

Hey Gryff,

RE is a Ripper nobody. He may believe his own publicity, but that says more about his lack of critical faculties than anything else.

For me, the key issue is that the book has zero credibility and, I'm sure, will never feature as a 'source' for future studies. Of course it hasn't sold a million copies, but even if it makes the author a few quid, it won't be on the essential reading list for Ripper Studies 101, unless as an example of how not to do it. I think that's all we can hope for.

Many books that have not stood the test of critical scrutiny have still added something. Whether it be Leonard Matters, Stephen Knight, even Cornwell, many books have brought something in the form of new information, even though their theories were rubbish. This book brings nothing once the DNA is shown to be nonsense.

The feeble suggestions that there may be something in the pipeline, cuts little ice with me. After the 314.1C/315.1C debacle, anything that is produced without the fullest release of data will have no credibility.

[GUT]

G'day gryff

A good observation, Mick. But I'm afraid Russell "100% case closed" Edwards might still claim support for his theories - with his "dating" of the shawl he chose what he wanted to after all.

cheers, gryff

And in choosing to believe the table cloth was anywhere near the murder scene he did exactly the same thing, lets not get me started on Daisies.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Mick, I've been quietly following on some of the nonsense on the jtrforums. And enjoyed your last post there:

If, as you seem to imply, they are toying with the notion that 314.1C was an error, as everyone knows it was, then the one claim to extreme rarity falls by the wayside. The way you put it, they are now not even sure they have an Eddowes match. They are merely 'confident' they will get one.

Bothered with 'confident' - does that mean they go in looking for something that will support them and ignore evidence that does not?

I find it hard to see how they could have singled this one marker out as the case 'clincher' unless they thought it was the killer bit. Now that it's gone, they will almost certainly struggle some to get anything remotely conclusive.

A good observation, Mick. But I'm afraid Russell "100% case closed" Edwards might still claim support for his theories - with his "dating" of the shawl he chose what he wanted to after all.

cheers, gryff

[mickreed]

Colour me cynical where Russell "One Milllion Copies Sold" Edwards is concerned.

cheers, gryff

Hey Gryff,

I think cynicism is the only sane response.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

I see Edward Stow has posted some information from Dr Louhelainen:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=251676&postcount=263

If accurate, this would be significant information, but it has to be said that the statement about 314.1C/315.1C being found late in the process and included in the book at the last minute is completely at odds with what the book says. That implies the "Eddowes" DNA analysis was done in early 2013, and the report by Dr Louhelainen quoted at length mentions only 314.1C and no other "point of comparison".

Chris, yes it is curious that they seem to be suggesting that the 314.1c was a late in the game discovery. I too was under the impression that the Kosminski data was the information being gathered around the book deadline.

Hey Chris,
The way Ed Stow tells it in the other place is interesting, but a bit vague. Hardly surprising of course. He's trying to piece together info from various sources. It's not clear what he heard himself, and what he had from others.

If Ed is reporting accurately, it all seems like the desperate flailing of desperate men seeking to rescue something from the wreckage.

Or, Mick, a message deliberately leaked, and possibly deniable at some later date, to calm the furor.

Me, I'm still waiting to see the end result of the dash to London for BBC and CNN interviews.

Colour me cynical where Russell "One Milllion Copies Sold" Edwards is concerned.

cheers, gryff

[mickreed]

It's difficult to know what the explanation is. Of course, this is coming to us second-hand, so it may be garbled. Possibly there is some confusion with the "Kozminski" match (which was done close to the publisher's deadline).

Obviously it would be better for all concerned if an accurate statement could be released to clarify the situation.

Hey Chris,

The way Ed Stow tells it in the other place is interesting, but a bit vague. Hardly surprising of course. He's trying to piece together info from various sources. It's not clear what he heard himself, and what he had from others.

It does suggest what we already know. The book is a c0ck-up really. The science is being claimed as all last-minute, and, in my view, the non-science has fewer legs than an earthworm.

If Ed is reporting accurately, it all seems like the desperate flailing of desperate men seeking to rescue something from the wreckage.

And I do not buy this legal stuff. JL never claimed this as a reason for not discussing it earlier, merely questions of privacy, and not liking the tone of Casebook, plus disapproval of one of the contributors.

[drstrange169]

Don't worry Chris, you're in good company, Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys.

Ironically, Edwards cites the Colin Pitchfork landmark case in his book to legitimize forensic dna.

Guess who was the dna expert in that case?

Couple that with the criticism from Professor Walther Parson and Hansi Weissensteiner of the Institute of Legal Medicine in Innsbruck, where Louhelainen got his stats from and ...

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Thanks in part to the opportunistic, money-grubbing RE/JL double-act it's no small wonder that the gentle art of Ripperology has absolutely sub-zero credibility in the real world.

Sad.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

I take it that the RE/JL interview and Q&A session wasn't recorded after all.

I doubt this was said publicly. Stow mentioned he wasn't sure what was said in public and what was said in private.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Robert]

I take it that the RE/JL interview and Q&A session wasn't recorded after all.

[Chris]

Thanks for the post about Dr Louhelainen at least acknowledging some type of error, though it seems that he might still be trying to cover his a$$ with the bit about last minute or is it just another example of Edwards being a bit loose with the truth?

It's difficult to know what the explanation is. Of course, this is coming to us second-hand, so it may be garbled. Possibly there is some confusion with the "Kozminski" match (which was done close to the publisher's deadline).

Obviously it would be better for all concerned if an accurate statement could be released to clarify the situation.