A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Debra A]

Are you seriously trying to tell me that if the "mistake" had not been pointed out on this thread other infinitely more knowledgeable experts in the field would not have passed comment?

I'm saying that Dr Louhelainen has been specifically asked about this by someone involved here and he has given the impression he would be interested in discussion about it.
Are you seriously suggesting Chris has no right to ask about it?

[Observer]

What would he need to explain if Chris hadn't brought this up?

Furthermore. Has he any explaining to do? Mr Lucky thinks not.

[mickreed]

Furthermore. Has he any explaining to do? Mr Lucky thinks not.

Oh, well that's settled it, then.

[Observer]

I'm saying that Dr Louhelainen has been specifically asked about this by someone involved here and he has given the impression he would be interested in discussion about it.
Are you seriously suggesting Chris has no right to ask about it?

Given the impression? Bit vague. is it not? The impression you gave was that no one else spotted this "mistake". That's what I was commenting on.

[Observer]

Oh, well that's settled it, then.

Not at all. There's only one man who can settle it.

[Debra A]

There are people discussing the findings on the other thread who don't appear to have understood the significance of the rare mutation in the first place-calling it secondary DNA and matching however many hundreds of thousands of people.

On trying to get a better understanding of what is claimed exactly in the book and by Dr Louhelainen, Chris noticed that the description of the mutation as 314.1c didn't make sense and has asked specifically about it. What's wrong with that?

[Chris]

Precisely what I have been saying for some time now. Leave it to the experts to thrash out.

Why not take your own advice?

[Debra A]

Furthermore. Has he any explaining to do? Mr Lucky thinks not.

That's Mr Lucky's opinion.

[Debra A]

Given the impression? Bit vague. is it not? The impression you gave was that no one else spotted this "mistake". That's what I was commenting on.

No I did not. I was being thread topic specific when I said I could wait for Jari to answer as I have been told he has been contacted about it and you stuck your beak in to say we should leave it to the experts. If that's what you want to do-go ahead, See ya!

[Observer]

There are people discussing the findings on the other thread who don't appear to have understood the significance of the rare mutation in the first place-calling it secondary DNA and matching however many hundreds of thousands of people.

On trying to get a better understanding of what is claimed exactly in the book and by Dr Louhelainen, Chris noticed that the description of the mutation as 314.1c didn't make sense and has asked specifically about it. What's wrong with that?

What's wrong with me suggesting that I've took on board what you have "found" and have suggested you leave it to the experts to sort out?

[Observer]

No I did not. I was being thread topic specific when I said I could wait for Jari to answer as I have been told he has been contacted about it and you stuck your beak in to say we should leave it to the experts. If that's what you want to do-go ahead, See ya!

I stuck my beak in? It's a public forum is it not? It's exactly what I want to do, and I have every right to advise you to leave it to the experts. By the way, are you aware that it against forum policy to address a poster as "you"?

[Observer]

Why not take your own advice?

Explain? Which experts do you refer to?

[Chris]

Explain? Which experts do you refer to?

Eh? You were the one who referred to them - how should I know who you meant?

[Observer]

Forgive me if I am mistaken. Are you suggesting that I, as an armchair detective so to speak, an "amateur", should leave all discussion in the forum to the so called "experts" in the field?

[Chris]

Forgive me if I am mistaken. Are you suggesting that I, as an armchair detective so to speak, an "amateur", should leave all discussion in the forum to the so called "experts" in the field?

I thought that's what you were suggesting.

Look - the last thing I said before your intervention, was that I thought we should wait for more information from Dr Louhelainen about this. Debs and Fantasio agreed. Apparently you agree too.

Let's all do that, then, and not waste any more time arguing.