A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Theagenes]

I think there are two issues here. There's the book overall, and my views on that are clear. I don't think it stacks up. I also think that the author takes liberties with the available information and that his conclusions don't follow from his 'facts' most of the time and his arguments are very weak. In fact, as I've said, I don't think the book is at all good.

And then there's the science conducted by JL. Some harsh things have been said about him, and I don't think they are fair. There is no evidence that he has done anything except to try and help RE, and Robin Napper before him. All we have to go on regarding that help, and the results obtained, are the book and various interviews in the media. From these sources we are entitled to try and clarify our understanding of what the science means. Chris Phillips, in particular, has produced what seems to me to be a plausible critique of the work as published in the book and those questions should be resolved. We are absolutely entitled to question and to wonder how to get answers.

I'm not sure that shooting JL is going to achieve such a resolution. It would be ironic if we lost our chances of such a clarification by spouting off willy-nilly.

The nature of these forums is to be informal. We all express ourselves a bit loosely at times, and that's fine, but really we ought to play the ball and not the bloke.

When I've been guilty of playing the bloke rather than the ball, then I shouldn't have done. We might get better information if we all strive to do better.

This. I completely agree with everything in this post. Well said, Mick.

[MrBarnett]

This. I completely agree with everything in this post. Well said, Mick.

JL tried to help RE? Why? What was his motivation? I honestly don't get it.

If I turn up at his lab tomorrow with a stale meat pie and tell him it came from the larder of a family named Todd, will he drop everything and test for human DNA?

MrB

[mickreed]

JL tried to help RE? Why? What was his motivation? I honestly don't get it.

If I turn up at his lab tomorrow with a stale meat pie and tell him it came from the larder of a family named Todd, will he drop everything and test for human DNA?

MrB

Well, Mr B

As has been said several times in these forums, the shawl was analysed, after RE bought it, for a TV programme with Robin Napper in connection with Frederick Deeming. Presumably the TV programme makers approached JL's university to do the work, and it would be reasonable to assume they paid for the service.

If the programme is to be believed, RE had to be persuaded to allow the tests.

That seems to explain how he met JL. I don't, and neither do you, have any idea what happened after that, but RE turned up at JL's door in the first instance, not with a meat pie, but as part of an hour-long TV programme production team.

I see no reason to read anything more than that into it. It's none of our business but no doubt the problem intrigued JL and, who knows, he may even have got on all right with RE.

All I'm saying is that, from what we know, no meat pies, stale or otherwise, were involved. There is a perfectly reasonable explanation from what we already know.

[Caligo Umbrator]

JL tried to help RE? Why? What was his motivation? I honestly don't get it.

If I turn up at his lab tomorrow with a stale meat pie and tell him it came from the larder of a family named Todd, will he drop everything and test for human DNA?

MrB

Hi MrBarnett,

I rather imagine that if you were to visit JL's laboratory asking for assistance with a suspect meat pie, you'd find yourself being referred to the University's Psychology department.
That said, didn't Mr. Haining make the claim that S. Todd once worked in Stepney, engaged in the manufacture of silk? The same type of material the questioned shawl is created from. If you really have that meat pie it could prove to be an interesting new avenue for investigation.


Yours, Caligo

[Rosella]

Edwards writes (Yes, I did unfortunately buy the book) that he met Jari, as he calls him when the shawl was 'superficially' tested for the TV programme.

A few days later Edwards rang him up and asked him if he would do more thorough tests on the shawl. JL quoted a subatantial sum for doing these, which Edwards balked at. He wrote that a few days later JL rang him and suggested that he would do the tests for free in his spare time, on the condition that he could write a paper on it afterwards. Russell Edwards agreed.

[MrBarnett]

Edwards writes (Yes, I did unfortunately buy the book) that he met Jari, as he calls him when the shawl was 'superficially' tested for the TV programme.

A few days later Edwards rang him up and asked him if he would do more thorough tests on the shawl. JL quoted a subatantial sum for doing these, which Edwards balked at. He wrote that a few days later JL rang him and suggested that he would do the tests for free in his spare time, on the condition that he could write a paper on it afterwards. Russell Edwards agreed.

So from the outset JL was aware of Edwards' intentions re the shawl. Bang goes naïvete, and we are left with self-interest.

Although perhaps naïveté creeps back in because he presumably had no idea that RE would make such a pig's ear out of the silk shawl. By which I mean stamping CASE CLOSED over the file when the science isn't anywhere near so conclusive.

It would be interesting to see how much squirming there is when the two of them share a stage and are thrown awkward questions.

MrB

[Lechmere]

I think more people need to read the book before commenting in an ad hominem manner.

[mickreed]

So from the outset JL was aware of Edwards' intentions re the shawl. Bang goes naïvete, and we are left with self-interest.

MrB

I do find these claims a bit OTT, MrB. I don't see how you can deduce exactly what JL knew about RE's intentions, nor how you can claim that self-interest is all that motivated JL. Even if it was, so what?

The book says this:

But the following week Jari called me back, saying that he could do these tests in his own time for me, free, as long as he could write a paper on his findings when it was all over. I was delighted to accept: the very fact that he wanted to do this made me feel that, if a scientist of Jari’s standing was willing to do this work, there must be a real chance that we would find something. Suddenly, from that one phone call, my enthusiasm was back to full strength.

I realized this was probably just another research project to Jari, but we agreed that this was going to be our project, with no outside interference. Our partnership was established, informally, and from then on Jari joined me in the pursuit of the Ripper, even though he probably did not at this stage appreciate the full implications of what we were embarking on.

Now, it's reasonable to reckon that some discussion about RE's intentions were had - again, so what? Did JL know that RE was going to write a book that, he hoped, would id Kosminski as the Ripper? I don't know. But it would seem to me that JL found the task of trying to get DNA from the shawl scientifically intriguing, and so he'd do it for free if he could write a paper on it.

What's wrong with that? It's called research.

Now, it's been discussed previously that, from what we know, the process did not include blind testing and analysis, still less double-blind testing and analysis. That's a real problem from a scientific point of view, and there are others.

However, JL's motivation is irrelevant, unless of course it influences the actual findings of the science. We have no indication that it did.

[MrBarnett]

I think more people need to read the book before commenting in an ad hominem manner.

Ed,

I've read it. I've also seen the TV interview where RE says that AK is definitely (he rejected probably) the Ripper. When asked what made it definitely rather than probably he described the DNA work. Pushed to confirm that JL says it is 100% that it was AK, RE said yes.

Simples.

Question no 1 as far as I am concerned is to JL and it's ' what degree of certainty do you have that this material contains the DNA of AK and CE?'

MrB

[mickreed]

Question no 1 as far as I am concerned is to JL and it's ' what degree of certainty do you have that this material contains the DNA of AK and CE.

MrB

And that is the big one!

[Chris]

Question no 1 as far as I am concerned is to JL and it's ' what degree of certainty do you have that this material contains the DNA of AK and CE.

And that is the same point that was made in an article in the Independent more than a month ago:

Dr Louhelainen may be satisfied that he has found the culprit, but many other scientists are not, including Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, the man who invented the DNA fingerprint technique 30 years ago this week.
"An interesting but remarkable claim that needs to be subjected to peer review, with detailed analysis of the provenance of the shawl and the nature of the claimed DNA match with the perpetrator's descendants and its power of discrimination; no actual evidence has yet been provided,” Sir Alec told The Independent.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/has-jack-the-rippers-identity-really-been-revealed-using-dna-evidence-9717036.html

It is not acceptable to make an accusation of murder, even against a dead man, without answering these questions.

[robhouse]

If indeed a mistake has been made, (as it appears it has), I am of the opinion that it was a simple and honest mistake. I do not believe that either Jari or Russell did anything that was intentionally fraudulent or deceptive. Of course, they now find themselves in a tough position after the claims they have made in the book, the media etc. Especially since the Eddowes match, as far as I understood it, was said to be much more definitive than the Kozminski DNA match.

RH

[Chris]

If indeed a mistake has been made, (as it appears it has), I am of the opinion that it was a simple and honest mistake. I do not believe that either Jari or Russell did anything that was intentionally fraudulent or deceptive.

I don't think there is anything to indicate fraud or deceit.

But I think it's essential that they deal adequately with the questions that have been raised. Anything that looks like a cover-up will be extremely damaging.

[robhouse]

I don't think there is anything to indicate fraud or deceit.

But I think it's essential that they deal adequately with the questions that have been raised. Anything that looks like a cover-up will be extremely damaging.

Well, I agree with that. Although, if they have made an error, then I think they will be in a tough position either way. It would be hard to say "Whoops, we made a mistake."

RH

[Chris]

Although, if they have made an error, then I think they will be in a tough position either way. It would be hard to say "Whoops, we made a mistake."

Hard to admit a mistake, yes. But of course, deliberately covering up a mistake would be deceitful. And pointless, if the mistake is a clear one.