A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Krinoid]

Hello Colin. Thanks.

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

Cheers.
LC

We are living in the dark ages,God almighty, the intelligence of this board just dropped into a pit.
I guess then the Earth is flat, the earth is the center of the universe, not the sun etc..

[GUT]

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

I certainly didn't mean that I thought anyone here was a "nutter" but it was how casebook was referred to by someone related to the book. And let's be frank it can get a bit robust at times. More to the point while ever the criticism was limited to casebook it really wouldn't have worried them. I'm not sure it will even now, if sales are going swimmingly and it is bringing business to Mr Edwards' shop, why would he care.

[GUT]

We are living in the dark ages,God almighty, the intelligence of this board just dropped into a pit.
I guess then the Earth is flat, the earth is the center of the universe, not the sun etc..

Boy oh boy that's a bit nasty isn't it.

Last time I looked science was based on logic.

A true scientific result must be logical.

[RockySullivan]

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.

thanks gut, i'm probably the only one who didnt notice.

[Fisherman]

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

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Wolf is ALWAYS worth reading. More so than most authors, I find.

The best,
Fisherman

[mickreed]

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.

Hey GUT

I agree. We've been here before. Let's be clear that fraud means something very specific. You'd know that better than me. There isn't anything to suggest fraud. Having said that, I will no longer defend this pair against anything really, unless they actually front up and explain what is going on.

I would expect JL at least to front up just to defend his academic reputation. He may yet, but time is running dangerously short for any credible answer to be made. I think lack of response reflects badly on the parties. That's their choice. Since this news broke on Sunday, he's put a link to that stupid article in the Liverpool Echo which talked about the film. I don't think that indicates much wish to engage.

But we shouldn’t bandy claims of fraud, or owt else, without evidence. Without that it's just abuse. Without evidence it's no better than the book we are criticising.

Similarly stupid inputs like those that talk about flat earths etc add stuff all to anything. What the hell is the point?

Now this my point. I've said previously that someone very close to the book broke off discussion with me regarding 314.1C. One of the reasons given was that Casebook comments were 'uncivilised and unprofessional'. Usually it's not but sometimes it is.

I don't know whether things would have been different had some of the more extreme posts had not been there, but it does create perceptions that put people off.

After all, if a visitor is walking down the street and people say 'G'day, how's it going? Let me carry that for you.' and then a couple of blokes yell 'you effing moron, get out the effing way', who are they going to remember?

Belt up lads. Let's be robust on occasion, but don't let's play silly buggers.

[GUT]

Hey GUT

I agree. We've been here before. Let's be clear that fraud means something very specific. You'd know that better than me. There isn't anything to suggest fraud. Having said that, I will no longer defend this pair against anything really, unless they actually front up and explain what is going on.

I would expect JL at least to front up just to defend his academic reputation. He may yet, but time is running dangerously short for any credible answer to be made. I think lack of response reflects badly on the parties. That's their choice. Since this news broke on Sunday, he's put a link to that stupid article in the Liverpool Echo which talked about the film. I don't think that indicates much wish to engage.

But we shouldn’t bandy claims of fraud, or owt else, without evidence. Without that it's just abuse. Without evidence it's no better than the book we are criticising.

Similarly stupid inputs like those that talk about flat earths etc add stuff all to anything. What the hell is the point?

Now this my point. I've said previously that someone very close to the book broke off discussion with me regarding 314.1C. One of the reasons given was that Casebook comments were 'uncivilised and unprofessional'. Usually it's not but sometimes it is.

I don't know whether things would have been different had some of the more extreme posts had not been there, but it does create perceptions that put people off.

After all, if a visitor is walking down the street and people say 'G'day, how's it going? Let me carry that for you.' and then a couple of blokes yell 'you effing moron, get out the effing way', who are they going to remember?

Belt up lads. Let's be robust on occasion, but don't let's play silly buggers.

Like!

[Monty]

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.

When it was just?....

All about context.

Monty

[Chris]

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.

Yes. Some of us (naively, with the benefit of hindsight) helped Russell Edwards. So we can confirm that he was given the details of a descendant (one we hadn't previously been in contact with) in October 2013.

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.

As I read it, the epithelial cell that was used for the comparison was one of the ones that had been obtained from the shawl by December 2012 (Chapter 9). At a later stage they thought all the material had been lost and took new samples, but were able to recover some of the original epithelial cells from microscope slides instead.

[GUT]

When it was just?....

All about context.

Monty

G'day Monty

Yep "just nutters" from casebook.

[RockySullivan]

We are living in the dark ages,God almighty, the intelligence of this board just dropped into a pit.
I guess then the Earth is flat, the earth is the center of the universe, not the sun etc..

Lynn is right krinoid. As infallible as science is purported to be my modern society, this case is a perfect example of how misleading science can be. Whether by miscalculation, error or design scientific data can be incredibly misleading. Science is also always changing and developing. Think of how far science has come in the past 200 years. In another 200 years scientist will laugh at how incorrect and incomplete science of our time is

[Chris]

Lynn is right krinoid. As infallible as science is purported to be my modern society, this case is a perfect example of how misleading science can be.

Surely the point is that good evidence trumps bad evidence, regardless of its nature.

In this case we have strong documentary evidence about the crime scene, and what looks at the moment like weak scientific evidence, containing errors, very inadequately presented.

It's quite possible to imagine a situation in which there could be strong scientific evidence about a historical case, which would be adequate to overcome weak documentary evidence. But obviously this isn't it.

[Monty]

G'day Monty

Yep "just nutters" from casebook.

The emphasis was on the 'when'.

Monty

[RockySullivan]

Surely the point is that good evidence trumps bad evidence, regardless of its nature.

In this case we have strong documentary evidence about the crime scene, and what looks at the moment like weak scientific evidence, containing errors, very inadequately presented.

It's quite possible to imagine a situation in which there could be strong scientific evidence about a historical case, which would be adequate to overcome weak documentary evidence. But obviously this isn't it.

Think of how often bad evidence is misrepresented as good evidence. Surely this isn't the first decimal in the wrong place with DNA I'm sure. I think the point is how easy it is to mis-use "cutting edge" technology which isn't fully understood by the public. Thankfully there are people like you guys who are willing to analyze scientific results, break them down for everyone to understand and point out where they are inaccurate.

[GUT]

The emphasis was on the 'when'.

Monty

OK Monty before the main stream media started reporting what we already knew.