A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Abby Normal]

And thus the eddowes shawl gets tossed in the dust bin of ripperology along with the royal conspiracy, maybrick diary and sickert envelopes.

Good riddance.

[Caligo Umbrator]

The main problem (for me) is that we don't know who the donor is. We have to go on the author's word again which is just not gonna cut it. PLUS.... it's been touched by hundreds of people over the years. PLUS we don't know the provenance. PLUS we don't know HOW the DNA test was conducted. PLUS we have a scientist who apparently is crap at maths. Not a good sign.

Hi, richardh,

I understand from a previous thread (now closed) that the female donor for the "AK" DNA match is known to be a direct matrilineal descendant of 'AK's sister Matilda.
In the book the donor is described using only the initial 'M', as she wishes, perhaps unsurprisingly, to remain anonymous.

We don't know the full provenance of the shawl but there is plenty of information about the last 15 years or so of its existence within the public domain.
I think that the precise provenance may be irrelevant, if we are able to demonstrate that the DNA and mDNA claims made for it are incorrect.

From my reading of the book, the 'CE' mDNA was extracted before the sample from Karen Miller (CE's great-granddaughter x3) was obtained.

However it seems clear to me, from the later parts of the book, that 'M's sample was already in hand when the supposed 'AK' DNA information from the shawl was tested to see if it matched.

It does seem, as you say, that perhaps JL is incorrect in his summing up of the statistical probabilities involved in the match to Eddowes descendant. However, for all we know, it could be that the information he provided to the author was correct and was simply misquoted or mis-transcribed during the publishing process.


Yours, Caligo

[RockySullivan]

Hi, richardh,

I understand from a previous thread (now closed) that the female donor for the "AK" DNA match is known to be a direct matrilineal descendant of 'AK's sister Matilda.
In the book the donor is described using only the initial 'M', as she wishes, perhaps unsurprisingly, to remain anonymous.

We don't know the full provenance of the shawl but there is plenty of information about the last 15 years or so of its existence within the public domain.
I think that the precise provenance may be irrelevant, if we are able to demonstrate that the DNA and mDNA claims made for it are incorrect.

From my reading of the book, the 'CE' mDNA was extracted before the sample from Karen Miller (CE's great-granddaughter x3) was obtained.

However it seems clear to me, from the later parts of the book, that 'M's sample was already in hand when the supposed 'AK' DNA information from the shawl was tested to see if it matched.

It does seem, as you say, that perhaps JL is incorrect in his summing up of the statistical probabilities involved in the match to Eddowes descendant. However, for all we know, it could be that the information he provided to the author was correct and was simply misquoted or mis-transcribed during the publishing process.


Yours, Caligo

If dr Louhelian was misquoted of his scientific misrepresented in Edwards book, the current press parade the two are on together gives Dr L the chance to correct that...and it appears he's not.

[Caligo Umbrator]

If dr Louhelian was misquoted of his scientific misrepresented in Edwards book, the current press parade the two are on together gives Dr L the chance to correct that...and it appears he's not.

Hi, Rocky,

I agree.
If any of us here had been so egregiously misquoted, we'd fight tooth and nail to set the record straight. So it certainly is of some concern that JL doesn't seem to have addressed this issue head on.
I'm not saying he was misquoted, I was merely suggesting, in the good Doctors defence, that a misquote/mis-transribation might have taken place and that until the recent article in The Independent, JL may not have been fully aware of it.
(It should be stated that persons on this forum have directly contacted him with questions specifically regarding this information and it seems he was unwilling to adequately respond. This was some time before the article in The Independent was published. So, if we believe he read the communications sent to him, we can say he was probably aware of some concerns regarding the published data.)
I'm certainly not defending the claims made in the book - many of them have already fallen under scrutiny.
As for JL, he may feel he is under some obligation to defend his published position and may still be gathering his thoughts on this matter and constructing a sensible response.

Your, Caligo.

[Archaic]

I hope the blobs didn't fluoresce Dave.

I hope they aren't kidney shaped.

Archaic

[mickreed]

If dr Louhelian was misquoted of his scientific misrepresented in Edwards book, the current press parade the two are on together gives Dr L the chance to correct that...and it appears he's not.

We did discuss this possibility a while back. There is no realistic chance that he was misquoted for the following reasons:

1. The section about 314.1C is apparently in his own words. Probably copied and pasted from an email.

2. If he had originally written 315.1C then he couldn't have made the claims of rarity that he does, and there would have been no book.

3. As Caligo says, some people asked him about it (I did for one) and he didn't respond.

Cheers

[mickreed]

Quite sad really. My first copy of the journal of the Whitechapel Society has just arrived - 10 minutes since. Front cover and a long inside article is all about RE, JL, and their exposure of AK as the Ripper.

Hard to imagine worse timing.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Quite sad really. My first copy of the journal of the Whitechapel Society has just arrived - 10 minutes since. Front cover and a long inside article is all about RE, JL, and their exposure of AK as the Ripper.

Hard to imagine worse timing.

There is an article up on his website under title "Whitechapel Society Article". It seems like he wrote it and it has a copyright notice at the end. Possibly posted a week ago..

So it is "about RE, JL" according to RE.

By the way, RE and JL were at the BBC and CNN yesterday, any news about interviews they may have done?

cheers, gryff

[Tom_Wescott]

Quite sad really. My first copy of the journal of the Whitechapel Society has just arrived - 10 minutes since. Front cover and a long inside article is all about RE, JL, and their exposure of AK as the Ripper.

Hard to imagine worse timing.

The thing worth reading in each issue of WS journal now is the Wolf Vanderlinden piece.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[RockySullivan]

We did discuss this possibility a while back. There is no realistic chance that he was misquoted for the following reasons:

1. The section about 314.1C is apparently in his own words. Probably copied and pasted from an email.

2. If he had originally written 315.1C then he couldn't have made the claims of rarity that he does, and there would have been no book.

3. As Caligo says, some people asked him about it (I did for one) and he didn't respond.

Cheers

Right this is why it looks more and mo like outright fraud

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi Rocky,

I don't see anything that looks like fraud.
I see exuberance on the part of the author.
I see what is perhaps an expanding and difficult situation for JL.

I feel it is very unlikely that a scientist who has spent the last 20 years working in this particularly narrow field would find it necessary to engage themselves in any deliberately and intentionally fraudulent or deceitful activity, in regard to the results that have been recently published.
It is to be expected that, in any investigation, mistakes and miscalculations are made from time to time.

Such is in the nature of investigative undertakings, particularly when involved in a relatively new science - and especially when one is working at the very edge of a new science and attempting to expand the limits set by previous knowledge.
Mistakes can be made, miscalculations and mis-reportings might occur.

Any scientist would be aware that intentionally dishonest behavior on their part, if discovered or suspected, would be as good as a permanent ostracisation from their previously professional good standing within the scientific community and probably bring to a close the position they hold within their chosen career.

As I have stated before; I don't consider it at all helpful to claim that any person engaged in this publication was being fraudulent.

Yours, Caligo.

[GUT]

I don't cry fraud, but I am worried by the lack of a response, now the main stream media has got onto it.

When it was just "nutters" on casebook I can actually understand them ignoring it but not any longer.

[RockySullivan]

Caligo, i'm not claiming or crying anything. Russell Edwards is the one claiming he has "definitively solved the mystery of who Jack the Ripper was". We know this is not the truth. How did no one notice that Edwards wrote the daily mail article when it first appeared LOL

[GUT]

Caligo, i'm not claiming or crying anything. Russell Edwards is the one claiming he has "definitively solved the mystery of who Jack the Ripper was". We know this is not the truth. How did no one notice that Edwards wrote the daily mail article when it first appeared LOL

G'day Rocky

I noticed it, but I guess I didn't mention it as it was right there in front of us and I thought everyone knew. SORRY.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

I don't cry fraud, but I am worried by the lack of a response, now the main stream media has got onto it.

When it was just "nutters" on casebook I can actually understand them ignoring it but not any longer.

I have to agree with you GUT. And while there may be posters at the casebook who could be described as "nutters", I find the Chris & Co research and analysis to be careful, measured and thorough.

Dr. JL's post on his Facebook page about the "rumour", I find more than worrying - unexplainable and very disconcerting is more my thinking.

cheers, gryff