A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Lechmere]

Luckily I am not one of those who pontificates on the misuse of English (or typos) - but I meant to say 'shout' and not 'should'.

[mickreed]

"If, as the book is claiming, Catherine Eddowes was one of approximately twenty Londoners living in 1888, that could have deposited the strand of mtDNA that was extracted from a presumably apparent blood stain on the 'shawl'; then there is a distinct possibility that the garment was in Mitre Square on the morning of 30 September, 1888, regardless of its exclusion from the historical record."

I think that was a fair call Colin. I, and others, made a similar albeit less definite argument, namely that if the Eddowes match was confirmed, then that would be interesting. I must say, that I didn't really expect it to be confirmed, but that was more hunch than science.

A renowned expert has apparently made a sophomoric error. That shouldn't give rise to feelings of vindication or inclinations to chortle.

You're probably right, but given RE's implacable certainty, and JL's apparent willingness to ride that certainty, a little schadenfreude is entirely understandable, if a little childish.

My celebrations are always less than exuberant whenever the other side scores an own goal.

It took Chris Phillips, in the main, to prove that an own goal had been scored by 'the other side'. Without his input, the referee wouldn't even have noticed a goal had been scored. I think that's worth some quiet satisfaction at least.

[Debra A]

I am not sure who, if anyone, actually said that. Perhaps you can post some quotes.

I may have said something like "provenance means nothing since IF her DNA is on the shawl"... which I still stand by.

RH

Yes, I said exactly the same-that the supposed rarity of the practically Eddowes' family specific mutation meant it added weight to the Simpson family story despite the historical record not supporting it. I still stand by that too but as has been shown by Chris-there is no rare mutation.
Chris researched this objectively until he found an answer. Others sought to show lack of substance to the family story but that could never over-ride the science as it stood.
Some people plain refused to entertain that the science or experts involved could have made a mistake and suggested we non experts should stop trying to find fault with the claims and I think maybe it is those people Mick was originally referring to?

[Robert]

"Luckily I am not one of those who pontificates on the misuse of English (or typos) - but I meant to say 'shout' and not 'should'."

Tut, tut! Should have been 'those who pontificate.'

[mickreed]

Some people plain refused to entertain that the science or experts involved could have made a mistake and suggested we non experts should stop trying to find fault with the claims and I think maybe it is those people Mick was originally referring to?

That's exactly the people I was referring to, Debs. Thanks.

One example was a lady who expounded at huge length how outrageous we all were for doubting JL. She was not alone.

[Chris]

The Washington Post has now picked up on the Independent's story.

Report: How the scientist who ‘unmasked’ Jack the Ripper made a ‘serious’ error

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/20/report-how-the-scientist-who-unmasked-jack-the-ripper-made-a-serious-error/

[mickreed]

The Washington Post has now picked up on the Independent's story.

Report: How the scientist who ‘unmasked’ Jack the Ripper made a ‘serious’ error
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...serious-error/

And it's in their own words.

[robhouse]

The Washington Post has now picked up on the Independent's story.

Report: How the scientist who ‘unmasked’ Jack the Ripper made a ‘serious’ error
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...serious-error/

I love how this article claims the debunking was largely the work of the Independent!

RH

[mickreed]

I love how this article claims the debunking was largely the work of the Independent!

RH

I suppose technically, it's right Rob. Casebook 'bloggers' get the credit for noticing it first, but it's true that nobody was listening until the Independent got on the case.

Without them, the debunking wouldn't have been heard beyond our forums.

Having said that, I'm sure that's not what the writer meant.

[Colin Roberts]

It took Chris Phillips, in the main, to prove that an own goal had been scored by 'the other side'. Without his input, the referee wouldn't even have noticed a goal had been scored. I think that's worth some quiet satisfaction at least.

"I think that's worth some quiet satisfaction"

I agree.

Chris provided the goal-line technology.

But the spectators that refused to entertain any suggestion that perhaps the shawl had been in Mitre Square on the morning of 30 September, 1888, have not been vindicated. They have not been proven to have been correct, in any way, shape or form.

[lynn cates]

trump card

Hello Colin. Thanks.

My remarks were not directed to you. But logic trumps science--always.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

vindication

Hello (again) Colin.

"But the spectators that refused to entertain any suggestion that perhaps the shawl had been in Mitre Square on the morning of 30 September, 1888, have not been vindicated."

Not sure they need to be vindicated.

Cheers.
LC

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Around the World - in 24 hours

The Washington Post has now picked up on the Independent's story.

Report: How the scientist who ‘unmasked’ Jack the Ripper made a ‘serious’ error
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...serious-error/

TY for the link Chris. From the UK to NZ to the US in 24 hours. The age of the Internet and news.

I wonder how the publisher's PR machine will respond?

And well done Chris and Co.

cheers, gryff

[Chris]

But logic trumps science--always.

Well, this thread is specifically about the science, so such silliness is off-topic here.

[Colin Roberts]

logic trumps science--always.

Should one trump the other, or should each compliment the other?

Did Aristotle sneer at Science?

I trust you don't believe, Lynn, that the 'science' of DNA analysis has somehow been trumped?

One 'scientist' has seemingly made a very careless error.

Do such things never occur in the field of Philosophy?