A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[PaulB]

I am curious what you meant by this statement, as it seems to suggest that you believe that Jari and Russell still believe the science is right, despite these discussions about 314.1C. I am not sure I am reading you right. I inferred from what you wrote that... well it almost seems that you know something the rest of us do not.

Rob H

Hi Rob
I wish. No, far from it. Quite the contrary in fact. I was emphasising my ignorance of any reason to suppose that Russell and Jari doubted the science.

I was saying that if Russell and Jari believe the science is right then there is no moral conflict with their continuing to promote the book. If, however, I had thought they doubted the science then there would be a moral conflict.

How they perceived the morality of selling the book in light of not addressing the criticism is another matter.

[robhouse]

But the question is whether or not Russell, Jari and the publishers believe the science is right. If they do, and I actually have every reason to suppose they do, then I can't see any significant moral reason why they shouldn't continue selling the book.

I am curious what you meant by this statement, as it seems to suggest that you believe that Jari and Russell still believe the science is right, despite these discussions about 314.1C. I am not sure I am reading you right. I inferred from what you wrote that... well it almost seems that you know something the rest of us do not.

Rob H

[PaulB]

Paul

I can understand the point about the publisher - in fact if what I've been told is true, the conditions of secrecy imposed by the publisher would have made it impossible for Dr Louhelainen to seek any advice or informal review from colleagues before the publication of the book.

What I don't understand is your reference to a "slanging match". Some of the reactions to the book have been unreasonable. (I defended Dr Louhelainen on the other thread against some of the wilder criticism.) But that doesn't alter his obligation to correct the error.

No, it doesn't alter his obligations. But he hasn't satisfied those obigations either way, which opens the possibility that he is not able to do so. "Slanging match" is probably inappropriate, but I was trying to indicate that the publisher (if, indeed, te publisher has anything to do with it) may have wanted to avoid any further argument over Jari's conclusions, right or wrong.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

And now we have a poem about RE solving the Ripper case on RE's Facebook page.

Ripper Edwards Poem

Scroll down to the grave yard image

cheers, gryff

[Robert]

If there are conditions of silence, can't JL simply say that he cannot comment owing to contractual obligations? Or is it a contractual obligation to not mention the very existence of the contractual obligation - like those super-injunctions we hear about?

[Chris]

Paul

I can understand the point about the publisher - in fact if what I've been told is true, the conditions of secrecy imposed by the publisher would have made it impossible for Dr Louhelainen to seek any advice or informal review from colleagues before the publication of the book.

What I don't understand is your reference to a "slanging match". Some of the reactions to the book have been unreasonable. (I defended Dr Louhelainen on the other thread against some of the wilder criticism.) But that doesn't alter his obligation to correct the error.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Hi Chris,

Just an idea, but you could try calling 'The Sun' newspaper (0845 086 3000).

I know it's a more sensationalist publication but at least it would get the DNA 'mistake' out there as the Sun is bought by millions.
...
Amanda

Amanda, I'm not sure the Sun would be interested. It got itself into a lot of trouble with the reporting of the Hillsborough Disaster - blaming Liverpool football fans. Since Dr. JL teaches at a Liverpool University and RE was born in Birkenhead - just across the Mersey River from Liverpool - it might look like another attack on the Merseyside area.

That is why I suggested that Chris could write an article for the Guardian "Comment Is Free" pages of its website.

cheers, gryff

[PaulB]

Then I don't understand the point you are making at all.

We have the clearest possible evidence that Dr Louhelainen has made a mistake, and it's up to him to put it right. The fact that he may be criticised further as a result does nothing at all to change that.

Please remember that some of us went out of our way to help Russell Edwards in his research, because we were assured that the DNA analysis would be done by reputable academic scientists. No doubt the relations of Catherine Eddowes and Aaron Kozminski who helped him by giving samples were given the same assurance. We also told Dr Louhelainen about this problem privately before raising it publicly, because we thought that was the correct way to behave. As far as I'm concerned, we've had scant consideration or even courtesy in return. These problems are certainly not of our making, and they need to be resolved.

The point I am making is that whether a reply is forthcoming or not MAY not be in their hands and I wondered whether it was right to criticise Russell Edwards when the silence may not have been his fault. That's all.

I wholeheartedly agree that things need to be sorted out. Of course they do. I just happen to be able to see how the publisher may be thinking. I hope they're not, but assuming all concerned as kosher, it is difficult to otherwise understand the silence.

That you and others generously assisted Russell Edwards shuld have been taken into consideration.

[Panderoona]

Please remember that some of us went out of our way to help Russell Edwards in his research, because we were assured that the DNA analysis would be done by reputable academic scientists. No doubt the relations of Catherine Eddowes and Aaron Kozminski who helped him by giving samples were given the same assurance. We also told Dr Louhelainen about this problem privately before raising it publicly, because we thought that was the correct way to behave. As far as I'm concerned, we've had scant consideration or even courtesy in return. These problems are certainly not of our making, and they need to be resolved.

If that's the case, and I've no reason to doubt it, then he/they deserve everything they get.

[Chris]

Yes, I'm afraid I did. And I rather regret having done so. But I did qualifymy question by saying that it needed to be somewhere where a slanging match wouldn't result. I think Edwards' web site and the university's web site would consequently be unsuiable. A press release would be down to the publisher and probably be just as bad.

Then I don't understand the point you are making at all.

We have the clearest possible evidence that Dr Louhelainen has made a mistake, and it's up to him to put it right. The fact that he may be criticised further as a result does nothing at all to change that.

Please remember that some of us went out of our way to help Russell Edwards in his research, because we were assured that the DNA analysis would be done by reputable academic scientists. No doubt the relations of Catherine Eddowes and Aaron Kozminski who helped him by giving samples were given the same assurance. We also told Dr Louhelainen about this problem privately before raising it publicly, because we thought that was the correct way to behave. As far as I'm concerned, we've had scant consideration or even courtesy in return. These problems are certainly not of our making, and they need to be resolved.

[PaulB]

You asked where he could post a rebuttal. We're not talking about a simple assertion that he's right (though even that would be an improvement on the current situation).

Yes, I'm afraid I did. And I rather regret having done so. But I did qualifymy question by saying that it needed to be somewhere where a slanging match wouldn't result. I think Edwards' web site and the university's web site would consequently be unsuiable. A press release would be down to the publisher and probably be just as bad.

[Robert]

Russell Edwards : A Man And His Music.

[alkuluku]

LOL. Looks like he now has two "official websites" alkuluku.

Official Website 1

Official Website 2

I think website 2 is newer as it is the one with the"one million copies sold" claim

RE, if nothing else, is prolific. We may have a book sequel by next month

cheers, gryff

WTF LOL

'The Man... The Book... The Experience'

This guy really loves himself.

[Chris]

I regret that it is not for me to attempt to fathom the iscrutable workings of a publisher's mind, and God knows I have spent what seems like a lifetime trying todo so, but I doubt that anyone would find a simple "I'm right and you lot are wrong" very satisfactory and to say more might, if it isn't accepted, generate more argument and adverse criticism. But I am only speculating.

You asked where he could post a rebuttal. We're not talking about a simple assertion that he's right (though even that would be an improvement on the current situation).

[PaulB]

The university's, publishers or Edwards website springs to mind Paul.

A simple acknowledgement, a "yes I am aware, but cannot comment just yet", would suffice.

Monty

I think the publisher has already kind of said that.