A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Chris]

But even if Jari has checked and double checked his data and is able to rebut his detractors, there is the question of where a rebuttal could be made. Not Casebook for sure, and probably not the newspapers. A slanging match is to be avoided at all costs. So maybe a journal, possibly peer reviewed, and that, of course, takes time. The silence therefore looks damning, but on the other hand may mean quite the opposite.

If the criticisms were incorrect, he could put a rebuttal online immediately. Or at the very least he could indicate that he is able to rebut the criticisms.

[Robert]

Paul, your JTR teapot - has the spout dropped off?

[PaulB]

I think there's a difference, Paul. And sure, nothing is new.

Some aspects of RE's activities may well fit into the 'unreal Jack' theme that you refer to. But RE's site contains numerous references to the 'real Jack, that is AK. He even has a page

http://www.thejacktheripperexperience.co.uk/dont-think-time-knew-name/

In which the 'real Jack' confesses all and then asks us to find out more from RE - the keeper of the truth.

I'm sorry, Paul, but the only aspect of the book that pointed (possibly) to AK was the DNA, and that is wanting. I prefer to respect the opinions of four leading and international DNA experts to that of one whose expertise, while surely considerable, could be unmasked by a few amateurs on Casebook.

It's a case of integrity which should always trump business. The silence since 19 October has been deafening. Until that silence is broken, then I can find nothing to say in RE's support.

And is it acceptable to claim a million sales of the book if it's not right? It may be right, but it seems very unlikely.

I wasn't talking about the book but the selling of merchandise like Jack the Ripper chocolate bars, and I was sayng that whilst some merchandising might be on the gross side or be absurd (I have a Jack the Ripper teapot), it was nevertheless inspired by the fictionalised/mythological Jack. He may be rubbing shoulders with the real one at times, but they are two distinct beings.

As for your question about Russell Edwards' book, surely integrity has never trumped business. If it had then the world might not be in the financial mess its in. 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 agree that the silence is deafening, but many book contracts have a clause to the effect that authors are not permitted to do or say nothing that could damage sales of the book or to bring out a compeing volume within a specified time. A response is probably down to the publisher. But even if Jari has checked and double checked his data and is able to rebut his detractors, there is the question of where a rebuttal could be made. Not Casebook for sure, and probably not the newspapers. A slanging match is to be avoided at all costs. So maybe a journal, possibly peer reviewed, and that, of course, takes time. The silence therefore looks damning, but on the other hand may mean quite the opposite.

[mickreed]

The longer time goes on, the more it looks to me as though Russell Edwards and Jari Louhelainen are just going to keep their heads down and ignore the criticism. If that's the case, I find it difficult to believe they will attend the conference next month (though by now I'm starting to feel that nothing would surprise me).

I certainly don't intend to let this rest, and I get the impression a lot of other people feel the same way. There are quite a lot of avenues that can be explored, but in the short term I doubt that journalists are going to be interested without some new information. Probably we're going to have to think in terms of weeks and months rather than days. (Of course, there is a sense in which a university lecturer refusing to acknowledge and correct a clear error in his work should be a story in itself. But sadly our universities aren't what they used to be.)

Hello Chris,

Since I'm a bit of a stirrer, they haven't heard the last of me, either.

My review should be out in the next few days if I understand correctly. I'll post details when I have them.

I also have an article due out in the next couple of days (I think) on an international news analysis site (contributors are all academics) with outlets in Australia, the UK, and the US.

Again, I'll post links when I have them.

As you say Chris, unis ain't what they once were, especially some of the smaller ones.

However, they hate bad publicity, and there's plenty of scope to get them plenty of that. Most of us will have contacts somewhere useful, and I intend to use mine as appropriate.

This might sound spiteful, but it's not. They have made a major stuff up and, seemingly, not only won't accept it, but try to expand on the 'sins'. Anyone can make an error but the way to deal with it is not to claim a million sales.

And, as you say Chris, there's a story in the academic who doesn't fess up. I'm sure there are journalists who'd be interested in that. Indeed, I may know a couple.

Finally, if they don't go to Salisbury, then there will a story there. And if they do go, there will be a story. A good journo or a good stirrer would be able to make one from either scenario.

So, chaps, just fess up and admit you've stuffed up. It ain't that hard. Then we can all get on with our lives

[Chris]

Puzzle

Here's a puzzle for those who have been following the news coverage closely.

The strongest (in fact the only) statistical evidence presented in the book for the significance of either of the DNA matches is the figure of 1 in 290,000 associated with "314.1C".

Has Dr Louhelainen ever referred to this in any of his media utterances, right from the start? If not, can anyone imagine why not?

[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.

I'm not scientifically savvy enough to explain the whole circumstances to them but coming from you, it would make a professional and noteworthy story.

Thanks. I just feel that the newspapers that chose not to pick up the Independent story are going to want something new, especially now that story is five days old. We do have other indications that the analysis is questionable (the statement that T1a1 is "very typical" of Russian Jews, for example). But I suspect that kind of technical detail won't be very interesting to a paper like the Sun.

But at least the story was picked up by one large-circulation British tabloid, the Mail (though I'm not actually sure whether it went into the printed edition).

[Amanda]

Just an idea....

The longer time goes on, the more it looks to me as though Russell Edwards and Jari Louhelainen are just going to keep their heads down and ignore the criticism. If that's the case, I find it difficult to believe they will attend the conference next month (though by now I'm starting to feel that nothing would surprise me).

I certainly don't intend to let this rest, and I get the impression a lot of other people feel the same way. There are quite a lot of avenues that can be explored, but in the short term I doubt that journalists are going to be interested without some new information. Probably we're going to have to think in terms of weeks and months rather than days. (Of course, there is a sense in which a university lecturer refusing to acknowledge and correct a clear error in his work should be a story in itself. But sadly our universities aren't what they used to be.)

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.

I'm not scientifically savvy enough to explain the whole circumstances to them but coming from you, it would make a professional and noteworthy story.
Maybe worth a shot?
Amanda

[Chris]

Well the story about the errors is not quite viral on the web yet. There needs to be more pressure

I keep thinking that maybe Chris should write an article and try submitting it to The Guardian (perhaps for the Comment section) or another newspaper in the UK.

Then perhaps the Ripper conference in November - get the press there in some way to push the issue of 314.1c/315.1c

The longer time goes on, the more it looks to me as though Russell Edwards and Jari Louhelainen are just going to keep their heads down and ignore the criticism. If that's the case, I find it difficult to believe they will attend the conference next month (though by now I'm starting to feel that nothing would surprise me).

I certainly don't intend to let this rest, and I get the impression a lot of other people feel the same way. There are quite a lot of avenues that can be explored, but in the short term I doubt that journalists are going to be interested without some new information. Probably we're going to have to think in terms of weeks and months rather than days. (Of course, there is a sense in which a university lecturer refusing to acknowledge and correct a clear error in his work should be a story in itself. But sadly our universities aren't what they used to be.)

[GUT]

Perhaps this spectacular fail of science towards solving the ripper case means we should settle on whatever suspect, no matter if we cant ‘see’ it, that has the most circumstantial evidence surrounding them?

And if we could get any sort of consensus on that .....

[Richard Patterson]

The limits of science, limited by man.

Perhaps this spectacular fail of science towards solving the ripper case means we should settle on whatever suspect, no matter if we cant ‘see’ it, that has the most circumstantial evidence surrounding them?

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

More pressure

Surely the pressure on RE and JL must be mounting to give some sort of reply. Or will they just hope we all go away and leave them alone.

Well the story about the errors is not quite viral on the web yet. There needs to be more pressure

I keep thinking that maybe Chris should write an article and try submitting it to The Guardian (perhaps for the Comment section) or another newspaper in the UK.

Then perhaps the Ripper conference in November - get the press there in some way to push the issue of 314.1c/315.1c

And hopefully mick's book review will appear somewhere soon.

cheers, gryff

[drstrange169]

"So he's outsold every Ripper book ever written and yet can't outsell me on Kindle?"

To be fair Tom, people here have been looking at the "non-fiction" sales figures;-)

[GUT]

Good luck with that Dusty - but don't hold your breath.

Today, the Huffington Post (US Edition) finally caught up with the Independent article:

Scientists Say Proof Of Jack The Ripper's Identity Is Fatally Flawed

If you scroll down to "Around the Web" there are some links to other articles by people who seem to be unconvinced.

cheers, gryff

Surely the pressure on RE and JL must be mounting to give some sort of reply. Or will they just hope we all go away and leave them alone.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

I've left the following comment on the page titled, "Don't you think it's time you knew my name?

...

Thanks in advance,
dusty miller"[/I]

My comment is pending moderator approval ... mmm.

Good luck with that Dusty - but don't hold your breath.

Today, the Huffington Post (US Edition) finally caught up with the Independent article:

Scientists Say Proof Of Jack The Ripper's Identity Is Fatally Flawed

If you scroll down to "Around the Web" there are some links to other articles by people who seem to be unconvinced.

cheers, gryff

[GUT]

A million sold? Really? So he's outsold every Ripper book ever written and yet can't outsell me on Kindle? Maybe he managed to break into that elusive market in India. I've still yet to sell one there.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

G'day Tom

I've said it before but maybe the million includes 999,999 he bought himself.