A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[mickreed]

What does "interest from local papers" mean?

Interest from local London, England papers??

Liverpool, I think he meant.

JL is either very ill-informed, or a little disingenuous

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Hi gryff, thanks for the info.

What does "interest from local papers" mean?

Interest from local London, England papers??

It's been awhile since London was a one-horse town.

Even if one had little prior personal interest in 'Jack the Ripper', surely it would be apparent that the "local papers" would be LONDON papers with some of the highest readership in the world?

Best regards,
Archaic

Archaic, I can only guess at what Dr. JL meant, but a local paper for someone working in Liverpool would be The Liverpool Echo with sales in Liverpool, Birkenhead (across the river Mersey from Liverpool) and the Wirral. Not a national newspaper like The Times, Telegraph, Mail etc. While it does feature some wider news it covers a lot of local city politics and local sport (Everton and Liverpool football teams)

Dr. JL works in Liverpool and RE was born and lived in Birkenhead so The Liverpool Echo would likely cover two "local boys making good".

I live in a city of 300,000+ in Canada. We have a local paper - covers a bit of world and national news, but has a lot about local city politics, local sports teams and local crime and assorted local issues. Not a national newspaper by any means.

Dr. JL gives the impression that the coverage by BBC, CNN and all the UK national daily papers surprised him.

cheers, gryff

[drstrange169]

It wasn't meant 1 million books sold, he misplaced the decimal point;-)




And I'm assuming this is a journalistic error;

"Jack the Ripper's true identity was plunged back into darkness this week after an amateur sleuth admitted he'd made grave error in assessing DNA evidence ..."

http://www.newsmax.com/thewire/jack-the-ripper-id-dna/2014/10/22/id/602298/

[GUT]

It wasn't meant 1 million books sold, he misplaced the decimal point;-)




And I'm assuming this is a journalistic error;

"Jack the Ripper's true identity was plunged back into darkness this week after an amateur sleuth admitted he'd made grave error in assessing DNA evidence ..."

http://www.newsmax.com/thewire/jack-.../22/id/602298/

G'day Dusty

The knife alone would make me question anything this report says.

[mickreed]

"Jack the Ripper's true identity was plunged back into darkness this week after an amateur sleuth admitted he'd made grave error in assessing DNA evidence ..."

http://www.newsmax.com/thewire/jack-.../22/id/602298/

Perhaps it's time to bombard the publisher

[GUT]

It wasn't meant 1 million books sold, he misplaced the decimal point;-)




And I'm assuming this is a journalistic error;

"Jack the Ripper's true identity was plunged back into darkness this week after an amateur sleuth admitted he'd made grave error in assessing DNA evidence ..."

http://www.newsmax.com/thewire/jack-.../22/id/602298/

I'll believe the "amateur sleuth admitted he'd made grave error in assessing DNA evidence" when I hear Mr Ed admit it.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

This is all pointless discussion.

No matter how hard you try, you can't polish a turd.

Let's get on with our lives.

Regards,

Simon

[mickreed]

I'm wasting my time of course but I just sent this to the publisher


About six weeks ago, you published Naming Jack the Ripper by Russell Edwards, to a fanfare of publicity. Doubtless many have bought it. I did for one, but only to review it. As I expected, it was poorly written with no historical knowledge, or understanding of how to handle historical evidence.
It was, in short, very ordinary.

However, there was one, superficially interesting aspect. The DNA testing done by Edward’s collaborator, Jari Louhelanin. Following analyses by many people, the poor quality to that research was finally shown in the Independent last Sunday which brought in four DNA heavyweights to refute it.. In that report you were cited as undertaking an investigation into the mistakes made.

Since they are undoubtedly mistakes of the most elementary kind, it should not have taken long to examine them.

There has been no response from either the author or his collaborator, but I would have expected a publisher of integrity to make a public response. When charging people a significant sum for a book that is found, so quickly, to be fundamentally flawed, one would hope that your marketing team would be anxious not to deprive other innocent souls from their hard-earneds. To say, as you did in the Independent, that the author ‘stands by’ his conclusions tells us nothing new.

My question is - do you?

Best wishes

Mick Reed

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mick,

Don't hold your breath whilst awaiting a reply.

Regards,

Simon

[GUT]

Hi Mick,

Don't hold your breath whilst awaiting a reply.

Regards,

Simon

ditto

[mickreed]

ditto

No I'm not, Simon and GUT.

Still it's all grist to the mill for the next chapter - whatever that is.

[Chris]

I'm wasting my time of course but I just sent this to the publisher

It occurred to me too. But we do have the precedent of the "Uncle Jack" case, where Jenni Shelden uncovered clear evidence of fraud on the part of someone connected with the authors. The only result was that when the paperback edition came out the evidence of fraud was omitted.

[GUT]

G'day Chris

The only result was that when the paperback edition came out the evidence of fraud was omitted.

Well they couldn't recall the book and pulp it, or admit a problem could they.

[Chris]

Well they couldn't recall the book and pulp it, or admit a problem could they.

It's a shame that just because there was no legal remedy against them, they seemed to take that as carte blanche to behave as badly as possible.

Having said that, there would certainly have been a (criminal) legal remedy available against the person who defaced the document at the National Library of Wales, but for whatever reason it was never pursued.

[GUT]

It's a shame that just because there was no legal remedy against them, they seemed to take that as carte blanche to behave as badly as possible.

Having said that, there would certainly have been a (criminal) legal remedy available against the person who defaced the document at the National Library of Wales, but for whatever reason it was never pursued.

Yep sure would have, there may [but it's a bg May] have been a case under false advertising legislation, but who'd throw the money at it.