A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Monty]

The bodyguards were needed,

Liza Hopkinson and Sue Parry pack a mean punch*

Monty


*Im joking. We all know they prefer the flick knife.

[Monty]

I presume the only way you sleep with a clear conscience is because you completely lack one. Anyone who can steal work from a dozen authors, publish it in a book as their own and reap the financial benefits cannot possibly have a conscience.

Do not attempt to put yourself in ethical category against Paul Begg. Begg and I have had serious difficulties in the past, there is no question, but that is an insult that is intolerable coming from you.

And don't bother reporting me on this one, I'll report myself and give myself the damn infraction, it needed to be said.

You got an infraction for that? Stating the truth? Geeze, I did the same and got banned for a month. Totally worth it mind.

Trev thinks ethics is a county in England which boarders 'Suffix' and Cambridgeshire.


Monty

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Ahh the flick knife

*Im joking. We all know they prefer the flick knife.

Ahh yes the flick knife ...

It's not safe anymore, when you walk through your door,
Well someone could kick in your brains,
When we were your young we had flair, we always fought fair,
With flick knives and bicycle chains

From : "When I was a lad" ... Oldham Tinkers

cheers, gryff

[Chris]

In response to the latest bit of nonsense posted on jtrforums by someone who has been banned from Casebook, of course I have not accused Dr Louhelainen of lying, but of making a basic error. And of course, that has been amply confirmed by others, including the scientists responsible for the software and databases which Dr Louhelainen used, and Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys himself. Anyone who is still trying to deny that is in a very poor position to call other people "nutters".

[Chris]

In response to the latest bit of nonsense posted on jtrforums by someone who has been banned from Casebook, of course I have not accused Dr Louhelainen of lying, but of making a basic error. And of course, that has been amply confirmed by others, including the scientists responsible for the software and databases which Dr Louhelainen used, and Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys himself. Anyone who is still trying to deny that is in a very poor position to call other people "nutters".

As this still seems to be going on and on at jtrforums, let's try and make things even clearer. Not only have I not accused Dr Louhelainen of lying. I haven't insinuated or hinted that he has lied either. In fact I can't fathom what statement of Dr Louhelainen's people are thinking of which could plausibly be a lie.

The whole point is that because he had made a mistake, he believed the 315.1C feature of the matching "Eddowes" sequence was rare. It wasn't - it was extremely common. But he didn't know that at the time, so he wasn't lying.

[Chris]

I see Edward Stow has posted some information from Dr Louhelainen:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=251676&postcount=263

If accurate, it suggests for the first time that he has acknowledged an error was made over the rarity of 314.1C/315.1C, and that he is not now claiming that the mtDNA found on the shawl is specific to Catherine Eddowes:
"He also said there are 12 points of comparison (markers?) to determine a match.
The one they mentioned by name (315.1C or whatever) was just one of the twelve, which was presented as an example, was found late in the process and included in the book at the last minute.
This is one that they seem to have mistakenly thought was more rare than it was. I believe they are looking at the others.
Whether the others narrow the field down to Eddowes remains to be seen but they seem confident that it will."

If accurate, this would be significant information, but it has to be said that the statement about 314.1C/315.1C being found late in the process and included in the book at the last minute is completely at odds with what the book says. That implies the "Eddowes" DNA analysis was done in early 2013, and the report by Dr Louhelainen quoted at length mentions only 314.1C and no other "point of comparison".

[GUT]

G'day Chris

Sorry to hear you are getting so much flack in the other place.

Thanks for the post about Dr Louhelainen at least acknowledging some type of error, though it seems that he might still be trying to cover his a$$ with the bit about last minute or is it just another example of Edwards being a bit loose with the truth?

[Chris]

Thanks for the post about Dr Louhelainen at least acknowledging some type of error, though it seems that he might still be trying to cover his a$$ with the bit about last minute or is it just another example of Edwards being a bit loose with the truth?

It's difficult to know what the explanation is. Of course, this is coming to us second-hand, so it may be garbled. Possibly there is some confusion with the "Kozminski" match (which was done close to the publisher's deadline).

Obviously it would be better for all concerned if an accurate statement could be released to clarify the situation.

[Robert]

I take it that the RE/JL interview and Q&A session wasn't recorded after all.

[Tom_Wescott]

I take it that the RE/JL interview and Q&A session wasn't recorded after all.

I doubt this was said publicly. Stow mentioned he wasn't sure what was said in public and what was said in private.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Thanks in part to the opportunistic, money-grubbing RE/JL double-act it's no small wonder that the gentle art of Ripperology has absolutely sub-zero credibility in the real world.

Sad.

Regards,

Simon

[drstrange169]

Don't worry Chris, you're in good company, Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys.

Ironically, Edwards cites the Colin Pitchfork landmark case in his book to legitimize forensic dna.

Guess who was the dna expert in that case?

Couple that with the criticism from Professor Walther Parson and Hansi Weissensteiner of the Institute of Legal Medicine in Innsbruck, where Louhelainen got his stats from and ...

[mickreed]

It's difficult to know what the explanation is. Of course, this is coming to us second-hand, so it may be garbled. Possibly there is some confusion with the "Kozminski" match (which was done close to the publisher's deadline).

Obviously it would be better for all concerned if an accurate statement could be released to clarify the situation.

Hey Chris,

The way Ed Stow tells it in the other place is interesting, but a bit vague. Hardly surprising of course. He's trying to piece together info from various sources. It's not clear what he heard himself, and what he had from others.

It does suggest what we already know. The book is a c0ck-up really. The science is being claimed as all last-minute, and, in my view, the non-science has fewer legs than an earthworm.

If Ed is reporting accurately, it all seems like the desperate flailing of desperate men seeking to rescue something from the wreckage.

And I do not buy this legal stuff. JL never claimed this as a reason for not discussing it earlier, merely questions of privacy, and not liking the tone of Casebook, plus disapproval of one of the contributors.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

I see Edward Stow has posted some information from Dr Louhelainen:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=251676&postcount=263

If accurate, this would be significant information, but it has to be said that the statement about 314.1C/315.1C being found late in the process and included in the book at the last minute is completely at odds with what the book says. That implies the "Eddowes" DNA analysis was done in early 2013, and the report by Dr Louhelainen quoted at length mentions only 314.1C and no other "point of comparison".

Chris, yes it is curious that they seem to be suggesting that the 314.1c was a late in the game discovery. I too was under the impression that the Kosminski data was the information being gathered around the book deadline.

Hey Chris,
The way Ed Stow tells it in the other place is interesting, but a bit vague. Hardly surprising of course. He's trying to piece together info from various sources. It's not clear what he heard himself, and what he had from others.

If Ed is reporting accurately, it all seems like the desperate flailing of desperate men seeking to rescue something from the wreckage.

Or, Mick, a message deliberately leaked, and possibly deniable at some later date, to calm the furor.

Me, I'm still waiting to see the end result of the dash to London for BBC and CNN interviews.

Colour me cynical where Russell "One Milllion Copies Sold" Edwards is concerned.

cheers, gryff

[mickreed]

Colour me cynical where Russell "One Milllion Copies Sold" Edwards is concerned.

cheers, gryff

Hey Gryff,

I think cynicism is the only sane response.