A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Tom_Wescott]

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

[drstrange169]

Thanks for the upated site link Gryff.

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

"Don't you think it's time we had an answer to alleged the errors in the book?

Significant and well respected names, including Professor Jeffreys (Father of Genetic Fingerprinting), Mannis van Oven, professor of forensic molecular biology at Rotterdam's Erasmus University, Professor Walther Parson of the Institute of Legal Medicine in Innsbruck, and Hansi Weissensteiner, also at Innsbruck and one of the scientists behind the computer algorithm used by Dr Louhelainen to search the mtDNA database, in the established world of DNA research have now disputed the evidence cited in your book.

Thanks in advance,
dusty miller"

My comment is pending moderator approval ... mmm.

[GUT]

I don't think that's quite fair. I certainly don't remember it like that. We had plenty here on Casebook saying things like "IF the science is confirmed and independently verified, we can't ignore it simply because of the lack of provenance" etc. I remember saying about a thousand posts ago that we were divided between the unconvinced and the unconvinceable. There were never many out-and-out believers here.

G'day Henry

Maybe semantics between [not] many and plenty but there were certainly comments that the science settled it.

[Henry Flower]

G'day Mick

We had plenty here on Casebook saying things like "you can't argue with the science".

I don't think that's quite fair. I certainly don't remember it like that. We had plenty here on Casebook saying things like "IF the science is confirmed and independently verified, we can't ignore it simply because of the lack of provenance" etc. I remember saying about a thousand posts ago that we were divided between the unconvinced and the unconvinceable. There were never many out-and-out believers here.

[GUT]

Hey Dave,

There are plenty of believers out there - well 26 - if you are to believe Amazon UK's 5-star reviews. I liked this one:

Reading some of the other reviews here I wonder how carefully they read the book. To say there is still doubt as to who Jack The Ripper was seems a bit ridiculous to me, as DNA never lies.

As we know this is very true.

G'day Mick

We had plenty here on Casebook saying things like "you can't argue with the science".

[Cogidubnus]

It would seem to indicate "One born every minute" Mick...but let's be honest, whenever we buy a book, sight unseen, we do so assuming both good faith and due care from both an author and his/her publisher...the due care being, I believe, critical to the integrity of the transaction...

It is the apparent lack of post-publishing care, the unwillingness to address reasonably raised issues, that bothers me here...it could all too easily be construed as a "let's keep quiet and get a few more quid in" attitude...I don't actually think that's what's intended...I think they've just got a bit carried away...but the longer this goes on, unanswered, the less creditable they appear...I seriously feel they ought to address the issues face-on rather than hoping they'll go away...

All the best

Dave

[mickreed]

Hi GUT

I've no way of telling at present as reviews always, initially, show up on the screens of those that post them...so they can be edited...However, if you or someone else were to access amazon.uk and check the reviews section you could advise whether it'd appeared yet....

Cheers

Dave

Hey Dave,

There are plenty of believers out there - well 26 - if you are to believe Amazon UK's 5-star reviews. I liked this one:

Reading some of the other reviews here I wonder how carefully they read the book. To say there is still doubt as to who Jack The Ripper was seems a bit ridiculous to me, as DNA never lies.

As we know this is very true.

[GUT]

It's there Dave, well done.

Must gone up in the last few minutes. Good on Amazon more morals than some others related to this book.

[mickreed]

Hi GUT

I've no way of telling at present as reviews always, initially, show up on the screens of those that post them...so they can be edited...However, if you or someone else were to access amazon.uk and check the reviews section you could advise whether it'd appeared yet....

Cheers

Dave

It's there Dave, well done.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi GUT

I've no way of telling at present as reviews always, initially, show up on the screens of those that post them...so they can be edited...However, if you or someone else were to access amazon.uk and check the reviews section you could advise whether it'd appeared yet....

Cheers

Dave

[GUT]

All the best

Dave

I note that your review is pending approval. I'll be interested to see if they publish it.

[GUT]

Thanks Dave a very truthfull and honest review however I think you could have condensed the review into one word all the best Jason p.s I love you xxxxxxxxxxxx

What word would that be?

[pinkmoon]

All the best

Dave

Thanks Dave a very truthfull and honest review however I think you could have condensed the review into one word all the best Jason p.s I love you xxxxxxxxxxxx

[mickreed]

All the best

Dave

Go Bognor!

[Cogidubnus]

Amazon.UK Review pending approval

If I could I'd give this book a minus five rating; I really would do just that...

The account of how the author acquired the "shawl" is plainly and entertainingly written, (the fact that it is a supposedly long-discredited artifact being quite skillfully glossed over by the author)...the reading is easy throughout...alas the evidence is not so...

I bought the book on the basis of the alleged DNA evidence which supposedly proved that Catherine Eddowes (the unfortunate victim of one of Jack the Ripper's attacks), was linked via the shawl to Aaron Kosminski...

However, I'd contend the author has been, to say the least, over-optimistic in his claims, and the publisher, far less than responsible in verifying their likelihood prior to publishing...

A bunch of amateurs on the "Casebook Jack the Ripper" site have drawn attention to significant shortcomings in the DNA evidence linking Eddowes (the victim) to the garment...and their misgivings have been confirmed by four leading DNA experts...including a couple of those who devised the software alleged to prove the claim...this gives rise to serious doubts over the competency of the allegedly expert scientist quoted by the author (a) on the grounds of DNA nonclemature, and (b) on the grounds of mathematical ineptitude...any would-be author should have had the decency to confirm such controversial findings; any would-be publisher should have undertaken some elementary research, prior to depriving a gullible public of it's money.

Furthermore, with respect to the alleged evidence linking the Shawl to Aaron Kosminski, the mininimal evidence presented, so far, marginally favours an MtDNA link with a non-Jewish suspect, rather than a Jewish one...hence no evidence vis a vis Kosminski...

This evidence of rebuttal has apparently been presented to both the author, and the scientist quoted, and so far has not been even acknowledged, other than a reference to "nutters"...with respect to which I have to express serious doubts at to whether the scientist concerned is fit to serve in his current position with an allegedly respectable university, or to present allegedly expert opinion in court...

I'd hesitate to label this book a conscious fraud, (I don't think that was at all either party's original intention), but I don't think their continuing silence does either of them any credit, and until they make their position clear, I'd seriously suggest hanging on to your money...indeed I'm seriously considering asking for my money back...

All the best

Dave