A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[GUT]

G'day Amanda

Ah Mick, you've rumbled me!

Guess I'll have to join the escape committee now

Come on you know you want to.

[Amanda]

Mmmm, but can't seem to find any teaspoons...

I am quite good at digging myself into a hole though..

[mickreed]

Come on you know you want to.

G'day Brian

I know I want to.

[John G]

John

We've already heard that RE and his 'forensic team' are going into the cold case business - is Amanda really Detective Chief Superintendent Sandra Pullman of UCOS?

I fully expect the cases of every Ripper suspect ever to be re-opened by the team but finally the team will operate by stealth and establish beyond doubt that, had Mr Spock not got there in time, the Klingons would have ripped every woman in London. Something I've argued for years but, without a DNA expert, could never make stick.

Hollywood will thrive for generations on the output.

It seems as though this might be a good time for me to introduce my theory concerning Dr Rees Llewellyn as a possible/probable/almost certain/case closed suspect to the UCAS team! Then again, maybe not, they seem to have a lot on at the moment!

[Amanda]

Bring it on..

It seems as though this might be a good time for me to introduce my theory concerning Dr Rees Llewellyn as a possible/probable/almost certain/case closed suspect to the UCAS team! Then again, maybe not, they seem to have a lot on at the moment!

UCOS, UCAS....? Whichever, bring it on.

We specialise in sticky shawls, rancid table runners and black jelly beans.

[mickreed]

The beginning of the end?

Or just the end of the beginning?

Check this out.

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?origin=internalSearch

[Chris]

Thank you, Mick.

The article says that Dr Louhelainen declined to answer questions, but quotes the publishers, Sidgwick and Jackson, as saying:
"The author stands by his conclusions. We are investigating the reported error in scientific nomenclature. However, this does not change the DNA profiling match and the probability of the match calculated from the rest of the haplotype data. The conclusion reached in the book, that Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper, relies on much more than this one figure."

In that case, they surely need to say what "the probability of the match calculated from the rest of the haplotype data" is. There is no information whatsoever on that in the book.

[mickreed]

Thank you, Mick.

The article says that Dr Louhelainen declined to answer questions, but quotes the publishers, Sidgwick and Jackson, as saying:
"The author stands by his conclusions. We are investigating the reported error in scientific nomenclature. However, this does not change the DNA profiling match and the probability of the match calculated from the rest of the haplotype data. The conclusion reached in the book, that Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper, relies on much more than this one figure."

In that case, they surely need to say what "the probability of the match calculated from the rest of the haplotype data" is. There is no information whatsoever on that in the book.

Yes indeed, Chris.

I suspect they are running around like headless chooks at the moment. One imagines that JL is going to be asked a number of searching questions, on the quiet, from any number of people. He will surely have to go public soon.

Given such a fundamental error in the only part of the book that appeared to have any legs at all, then we can reverse RE's claim on a BBC radio programme to the effect that only real unbelievers could doubt his claims to 'only the most unsceptical of believers could give the claims house room'.

I suspect the wheels are wobbling so violently that they will fall of very soon.

Well done all those Casebook sceptics who investigated this matter.

[Amanda]

At last...

Glad to see all the hard work done by the brilliant guys on here has finally seen light of day.
Hopefully it won't be long before there is an official statement from Dr.Louhelainen & then the whole 'Shawlgate' scenario can be put to bed.

I'm sure it won't be long until another diary, piece of cloth or obscure suspect comes along for us to get our teeth into.....

Amanda

[RockySullivan]

Thanks for posting. Good to see these idiots exposed for what they are.

[drstrange169]

Yes, well done indeed to everybody.
Nice to see common-sense starting to triumph.
It's interesting that, there was denial.

[mickreed]

Yes, well done indeed to everybody.
Nice to see common-sense starting to triumph.
It's interesting that, there was denial.

If, Dusty, you're referring to the publisher's comments, I imagine that to do otherwise would kill sales stone dead.

Of course, as Chris has pointed out, so far as what's in the book, this is the only substantive link between the shawl and Eddowes, and it's kaput. Anything outside of the book is irrelevant to the book.

If the Independent were to get onto the Kosminski DNA link, then an even shorter article would suffice.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Or just the end of the beginning?

Check this out.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...internalSearch

Hi Mickreed, Chris, et al . .

Looks like the research and hard work you've done has paid off and put the whole story to rest.
I hope it sleeps soundly.

I do wonder how The Independent got interested in looking at the case anew. Not, perhaps that it matters - its to be hoped that other newspapers will follow suit and in the future be more wary of blindly publishing claims like those they did just 6 short weeks ago.

Anyway, congratulations and much thanks to those who worked hard at uncovering the flaws in this theory.

Yours, Caligo.

[mickreed]

Hi Mickreed, Chris, et al . .

Looks like the research and hard work you've done has paid off and put the whole story to rest.
I hope it sleeps soundly.

I do wonder how The Independent got interested in looking at the case anew. Not, perhaps that it matters - its to be hoped that other newspapers will follow suit and in the future be more wary of blindly publishing claims like those they did just 6 short weeks ago.

Anyway, congratulations and much thanks to those who worked hard at uncovering the flaws in this theory.

Yours, Caligo.

Thanks Caligo. I assume there are still a few investigative journalists about who trawl for ideas, or follow up leads. After all, these forums are a public source.

I imagine this story will flow more slowly than the original - not so much sex appeal in a correction as in 'finding the Ripper'.

Nevertheless, given that it's in a 'quality' newspaper, I would assume that the story will be read at Liverpool John Moores University, and surely some sort of comment must emanate from there soon. I can well understand why JL declined to comment in the short term - he'll need to check his work, and then work out what to do. But something will have to be said soon, surely.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Thanks Caligo. I assume there are still a few investigative journalists about who trawl for ideas, or follow up leads. After all, these forums are a public source.

I imagine this story will flow more slowly than the original - not so much sex appeal in a correction as in 'finding the Ripper'.

Hi, Mickreed,

As you say, there is less sex appeal in a retraction.
However, I would imagine that many of the Sunday and daily papers will be pleased with the opportunity this story now offers them to take a swipe at the MoS, much as the article in The Independent rather subtly does. That alone might be reason for them to follow up on this.

Of some small concern is the publishers statement - "this does not change the DNA profiling match and the probability of the match calculated from the rest of the haplotype data. The conclusion reached in the book, that Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper, relies on much more than this one figure."
I'm not sure if you purchased the book but many of us did fork over $24+ for it. Having done so I would be very unhappy to discover that there was information pertinent to the claims that was held back, as the publishers statement seems to indicate.

Were the publishers uncertain of the science? Or is there a darker reason?
Did they perhaps suspect that moves would be taken to discredit the book and the science behind it and so they took measures to counter that by keeping back some of the research information for a 'reveal' at a later stage?
Yours, Caligo.