A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Archaic]

The trouble is that the "Eddowes" match is the part of the work that wasn't rushed ...

Oi vey.



Archaic

[Chris]

Perhaps this whole incident can be a valuable lesson to authors and publishers not to rush scientific research and writing in order to meet some "deadline" for a new book.

It seems wiser to move that deadline back a bit if necessary to produce a higher quality, more accurate, more enduring work.

The trouble is that the "Eddowes" match is the part of the work that wasn't rushed ...

[pinkmoon]

Perhaps this whole incident can be a valuable lesson to authors and publishers not to rush scientific research and writing in order to meet some "deadline" for a new book.

It seems wiser to move that deadline back a bit if necessary to produce a higher quality, more accurate, more enduring work.

Best regards,
Archaic

We are all human and we all make mistakes but for a scientist to get the basic maths totally wrong especially when we have modern things called calculators Its just beyond believe but it dosnt really matter because the book sold well so it's job done from Dr Jan and Mr Edwards point of view.Then again it didn't really matter about the maths because the shawl couldn't have been anywhere near any of the victims or Kosminski in the first place the end result was always going to be wrong if the starting point was wrong in the first place.

[Archaic]

Perhaps this whole incident can be a valuable lesson to authors and publishers not to rush scientific research and writing in order to meet some "deadline" for a new book.

It seems wiser to move that deadline back a bit if necessary to produce a higher quality, more accurate, more enduring work.

Best regards,
Archaic

[pinkmoon]

For some one to make such a basic mistake with the maths is just unbelievable.

[PaulB]

I agree there's no shame in making a mistake. But if it's a very elementary mistake, and it's explained to you clearly, and if for good measure experts in your field confirm it's a mistake - then if after all that you don't correct it, there's something very badly wrong.

Yes, there is.

[RockySullivan]

Ah, yes, the Michaelmas Daisies. Maybe they deserve their own thread too ...

But to forestall a wider discussion, I should say I meant specifically the identification of the sequence variation as 314.1C, and the estimate of its frequency as 1 in 290,000.

Ha ha just teasing chris

What I wonder is if the "error in nomenclature" is a well known mistake among geneticist and if it could be used as a false match in order to buy time.

[Chris]

I didn't say otherwise.

I read the following on a blog recently: “The only people who don’t make mistakes are the people who don’t try.” That's so true. There is no shame in being wrong. But there are people who convince themselves they are right even when the evidence against them is overwhelming.

I agree there's no shame in making a mistake. But if it's a very elementary mistake, and it's explained to you clearly, and if for good measure experts in your field confirm it's a mistake - then if after all that you don't correct it, there's something very badly wrong.

[PaulB]

But the fact is that the findings clearly aren't correct.

I didn't say otherwise.

I read the following on a blog recently: “The only people who don’t make mistakes are the people who don’t try.” That's so true. There is no shame in being wrong. But there are people who convince themselves they are right even when the evidence against them is overwhelming.

[Chris]

Well I beg to differ! Now that I've read my copy of "framing Jack the Ripper" I agree with Edwards conclusion...the Michaelmas daisy evidence is far too compelling to ignore. Koz is obviously the ripper CASE CLOSED please move along

Ah, yes, the Michaelmas Daisies. Maybe they deserve their own thread too ...

But to forestall a wider discussion, I should say I meant specifically the identification of the sequence variation as 314.1C, and the estimate of its frequency as 1 in 290,000.

[RockySullivan]

But the fact is that the findings clearly aren't correct.

Well I beg to differ! Now that I've read my copy of "framing Jack the Ripper" I agree with Edwards conclusion...the Michaelmas daisy evidence is far too compelling to ignore. Koz is obviously the ripper CASE CLOSED please move along

[Chris]

... perhaps the descendantsin have been reassured by Russell and Jari that their findings are correct and that their critics can be answered.

But the fact is that the findings clearly aren't correct.

[PaulB]

Frankly Gryff, I very much doubt that JL is under any contractual inhibitions over this. In all of the communications from him that I know of, he has pleaded privacy firstly, and then later that he didn't accept the information provided.

Now these could be a form of words used to deflect questions, but somehow I doubt it.

And, I keep saying this, he is still out there with RE promoting. If he knew he was wrong, but couldn't say so (not the case I'm sure) then the least he could do would be to shut up on the promotion front.

I'd just quickly point out that I wholeheartedly agree with you that "if he knew he was wrong....[he could] shut up on the promotion front". But what if he doesn't accept that he's wrong?

[PaulB]

G'day Paul,

I take your point about the meaning of a book to a publisher. But, and this isn't really a good analogy, if your packet of soapflakes was found to make clothes dirtier, they would soon pull it from the shelves, because the furore would continue. They may be misjudging the critics here. This won't go away until either someone proves the science right, or fesses up that it's wrong.

There is a moral issue here. We understood that the Kosminski relatives were not really keen on being connected with JtR and the 'M' retained anonymity for that reason. Aren't they owed the truth?

Of course the Kosminski descendants deserve the truth (and I have always given the descendants of victims, suspects and so on the highest priority), but perhaps the descendantsin have been reassured by Russell and Jari that their findings are correct and that their critics can be answered.

My point is that IF Russell and Jari continue to believe that their findings are correct, they can sincerely reassure everyone who needs to be reassured and then play the game as they see fit.

Jari's treatment of your "lengthy" email is wrong, of course, although a clue to his reaction might be found in the word "lengthy", and a knee to the groin seems the initial suitable response to the "nutter" remark. Talk about digging holes!

[Chris]

Agreed Chris. But the BBC and CNN - weird there is no TV, radio or internet video. Could RE and Dr. JL have walked away from them - perhaps after being told that they would be talking about the Independent article?

But wouldn't it have been obvious that's what they wanted to talk about, after a month and a half of media silence?

Stephen Ryder did kindly pass on to me an email enquiry from an NBC journalist earlier in the week. She was preparing a report based on the Independent story, but her editor decided to "hold off on writing this, for a few reasons".