A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Mick, I've been quietly following on some of the nonsense on the jtrforums. And enjoyed your last post there:

If, as you seem to imply, they are toying with the notion that 314.1C was an error, as everyone knows it was, then the one claim to extreme rarity falls by the wayside. The way you put it, they are now not even sure they have an Eddowes match. They are merely 'confident' they will get one.

Bothered with 'confident' - does that mean they go in looking for something that will support them and ignore evidence that does not?

I find it hard to see how they could have singled this one marker out as the case 'clincher' unless they thought it was the killer bit. Now that it's gone, they will almost certainly struggle some to get anything remotely conclusive.

A good observation, Mick. But I'm afraid Russell "100% case closed" Edwards might still claim support for his theories - with his "dating" of the shawl he chose what he wanted to after all.

cheers, gryff

[GUT]

G'day gryff

A good observation, Mick. But I'm afraid Russell "100% case closed" Edwards might still claim support for his theories - with his "dating" of the shawl he chose what he wanted to after all.

cheers, gryff

And in choosing to believe the table cloth was anywhere near the murder scene he did exactly the same thing, lets not get me started on Daisies.

[mickreed]

A good observation, Mick. But I'm afraid Russell "100% case closed" Edwards might still claim support for his theories - with his "dating" of the shawl he chose what he wanted to after all.

Hey Gryff,

RE is a Ripper nobody. He may believe his own publicity, but that says more about his lack of critical faculties than anything else.

For me, the key issue is that the book has zero credibility and, I'm sure, will never feature as a 'source' for future studies. Of course it hasn't sold a million copies, but even if it makes the author a few quid, it won't be on the essential reading list for Ripper Studies 101, unless as an example of how not to do it. I think that's all we can hope for.

Many books that have not stood the test of critical scrutiny have still added something. Whether it be Leonard Matters, Stephen Knight, even Cornwell, many books have brought something in the form of new information, even though their theories were rubbish. This book brings nothing once the DNA is shown to be nonsense.

The feeble suggestions that there may be something in the pipeline, cuts little ice with me. After the 314.1C/315.1C debacle, anything that is produced without the fullest release of data will have no credibility.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

G'day gryff
And in choosing to believe the table cloth was anywhere near the murder scene he did exactly the same thing, lets not get me started on Daisies.

Morning GUT

A few comments:

1. "the table cloth" Personally I have no opinion in what the "shawl' is. The other day I looked at a sewing pattern for a shawl 15" x 70" - not that different in size from the RE's "shawl". But I have seen images of table runners on the casebook that look similar. Where is the expert opinion - and not not from photographs!

2. "lets not get me started on Daisies" Purely RE fantasy - not based on science or expert observation.

3. "anywhere near the murder scene" Well again we have RE claiming certain circumstances but actually providing absolutely no evidence. But if the DNA evidence can be shown to be concrete, and I'm sceptical, then maybe we will will need a reevaluation of the provenance of the "shawl".

cheers, gryff

[GUT]

Evening Gryff

1. "the table cloth" Personally I have no opinion in what the "shawl' is. The other day I looked at a sewing pattern for a shawl 15" x 70" - not that different in size from the RE's shawl. But I have seen images of table runners on the casebook that look similar. Where is the expert opinion - and not not from photographs!

I actually might agree but refuse to accept anything Mr Edwards says.

[mickreed]

I actually might agree but refuse to accept anything Mr Edwards says.

G'day GUT

There plenty of shawls this size and shape, so it could be a shawl. Equally, it could be a table cloth.

I don't think it matters what it is. If the DNA stacked up, then there might have been a case to for us to answer. Since it doesn't, there isn't.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Evening Gryff
I actually might agree but refuse to accept anything Mr Edwards says.

Evening Gryff- must be an Eastern Australia time zone. I did some work for UWA - and it's afternoon there

but refuse to accept anything Mr Edwards says. I might agree, except ... I'm going to enjoy the "explanations" to come

cheers, gryff

[Chris]

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.

It may well be that Edward Stow's speculation is wrong, and that the privacy issue is the legal reason.

But of course it would only be a problem if Karen Miller were blocking the release of information, and I'd be amazed if that were the case.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Hi Simon
You are so right, first there was Russell Edwards, and through the power of the press, the public were misled into believing the case had been solved and the identity of the Ripper known. Not mention his book

Now we have another documentary coming out which will mislead them yet again.

Not to mention all the other books which keep being churned out.

There should be a new Ripper website opened called www.confused.com

[Monty]

Hey Gryff,

RE is a Ripper nobody. He may believe his own publicity, but that says more about his lack of critical faculties than anything else.

For me, the key issue is that the book has zero credibility and, I'm sure, will never feature as a 'source' for future studies. Of course it hasn't sold a million copies, but even if it makes the author a few quid, it won't be on the essential reading list for Ripper Studies 101, unless as an example of how not to do it. I think that's all we can hope for.

Many books that have not stood the test of critical scrutiny have still added something. Whether it be Leonard Matters, Stephen Knight, even Cornwell, many books have brought something in the form of new information, even though their theories were rubbish. This book brings nothing once the DNA is shown to be nonsense.

The feeble suggestions that there may be something in the pipeline, cuts little ice with me. After the 314.1C/315.1C debacle, anything that is produced without the fullest release of data will have no credibility.

Its pulp Ripperology Mick,

Akin to Ball, Trenouth, Marriott, Williams et al. I expected something with a touch of gravitas, instead of a mixture of autobiography and hard sell. As interesting a man the non egotistical Edwards may be, he doesn't interest me, the shawl did. Therefore, deadline or not, one assumes all issues would be addressed OR, acknowledged at least.

It has become clear that either this has hit them off guard, or someone has dressed a pig in a frock and called it a beauty queen, which I suspect does not sit well with one of the three parties involved, at least it shouldn't.

I await the release of the apparently completed paper in to the process with interest, and its peer review.

Monty

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

Hey Gryff,

This book brings nothing once the DNA is shown to be nonsense.

Ohh but Mick we have the Michaelmas Daisy theory - how can you not believe? Oh the dates are not right ... dear me

The feeble suggestions that there may be something in the pipeline, cuts little ice with me. After the 314.1C/315.1C debacle, anything that is produced without the fullest release of data will have no credibility.

Totally agree. I'm inclined to quote er ... Lewis Carroll:

Well, I never heard it before, but it sounds uncommon nonsense.

But then of course Carroll is a suspect

cheers, gryff

PS When I read your review, I saw University of New England - thought that must be in YankeeLand. Made me think someone had sense - named the State New South Wales

[mickreed]

Its pulp Ripperology Mick,

Akin to Ball, Trenouth, Marriott, Williams et al. I expected something with a touch of gravitas, instead of a mixture of autobiography and hard sell. As interesting a man the non egotistical Edwards may be, he doesn't interest me, the shawl did. Therefore, deadline or not, one assumes all issues would be addressed OR, acknowledged at least.

It has become clear that either this has hit them off guard, or someone has dressed a pig in a frock and called it a beauty queen, which I suspect does not sit well with one of the three parties involved, at least it shouldn't.

I await the release of the apparently completed paper in to the process with interest, and its peer review.

Monty

Spot on, Monty. It's what happens when you put together a load of loosely-written thought bubbles and some half-baked science and call it 'Case Closed'.

I'm no doubt much less well-read on Ripper stuff than you are, but this one is probably the worst I've ever read, and I've read a few dogs.

I hope the process article comes out. Problem is, with all the adverse publicity on 314.1C, you can probably bet the peer-review will be even more searching than usual, so I'm not holding my breath.

Like you, I suspect one of the parties isn't feeling real flash right now.

[Chris]

I await the release of the apparently completed paper in to the process with interest, and its peer review.

I think that's a side-issue really, but if I were refereeing that paper I'd want to see some evidence about how useful the technique is in minimising the effects of surface contamination. Especially considering that for the "Eddowes" sample two of the six segments successfully sequenced were attributed by Dr Louhelainen to contamination.

The validity of the "Eddowes" and "Kozminski" matches is obviously central to the question of whether the technique has really enabled them to retrieve century-old DNA. So I doubt that he will find it as easy as he'd like to defer the difficult questions.

[tji]

I visited Edwards shop Tuesday and Wednesday on my visit to London, he was closed both times.

[GUT]

I visited Edwards shop Tuesday and Wednesday on my visit to London, he was closed both times.

He was probably on important ripper business, either that or no one wants to but lip balm, yo-yos and jelly beans any more.