A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[GUT]

I'm wondering [and only wondering] if the mistake was made, even perhaps not by the Dr, but his contract has restricted what he can say, and that is then compounded by the Uni making sure to CYA.

f his contract prohibits hm from saying "That's not what I said [even meant]" he may be between a rock and a hard place.

[mickreed]

I think he just hasn't understood - or perhaps even considered properly - the explanations that have been put to him. Of course, that's disturbing enough in itself.

Based on my exchanges with him, I suspect he didn't read much beyond the first couple of lines.

Of course, if his research paper is, as someone reckoned earlier, confined to the extraction process - the vacuuming - and the results as such are not discussed, then perhaps the mistake might not be relevant, although I find that hard to believe.

Whatever though, it would be a risky strategy. Ripperologists might indeed be nutters in the eyes of many, but I wouldn't bet my life's savings in assuming some of them didn't have deep expertise in various fields, not to mention contacts.

[MrBarnett]

Gut,

You'll know this. Can a contract exist if Jari has received no payment ( I think you've legal guys call it consideration )?

MrB

[mickreed]

I'm wondering [and only wondering] if the mistake was made, even perhaps not by the Dr, but his contract has restricted what he can say, and that is then compounded by the Uni making sure to CYA.

f his contract prohibits hm from saying "That's not what I said [even meant]" he may be between a rock and a hard place.

The place is not rocky and hard enough to prevent him going to Salisbury at the invitation of RE.

[Chris]

Of course, if his research paper is, as someone reckoned earlier, confined to the extraction process - the vacuuming - and the results as such are not discussed, then perhaps the mistake might not be relevant, although I find that hard to believe.

Whether or not he considers it to be the most interesting or important part of the work, it's inevitably going to be extremely relevant to his reputation as a scientist that he has misidentified a sequence variation found in 99% of the population as an extremely rare mutation. Not only that, but he's hung the "validation" of the "shawl" on that rarity. And that's what all the press interviews and TV appearances are about - not about his novel method of sucking DNA out of fabric.

[GUT]

Gut,

You'll know this. Can a contract exist if Jari has received no payment ( I think you've legal guys call it consideration )?

MrB

Short answer, there needs to be consideration, but it doesn't need to be cash. He could also have entered into a deed which requires no consideration.

[mickreed]

Whether or not he considers it to be the most interesting or important part of the work, it's inevitably going to be extremely relevant to his reputation as a scientist that he has misidentified a sequence variation found in 99% of the population as an extremely rare mutation. Not only that, but he's hung the "validation" of the "shawl" on that rarity. And that's what all the press interviews and TV appearances are about - not about his novel method of sucking DNA out of fabric.

That's the rational way of looking at it, Chris. Obviously correct to me, but does that particular rationality penetrate the ivory tower?

[lynn cates]

specialty

Hello Mick.

"does that particular rationality penetrate the ivory tower?"

Sadly, perhaps not. Once you get a PhD talking about a "specialty," even the basics are put in brackets.

Ever wonder why "specialists" are a poor choice to teach introductory classes? It frequently ends in disaster.

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Gut,

You'll know this. Can a contract exist if Jari has received no payment ( I think you've legal guys call it consideration )?

MrB

Ha, I have a law degree so might be able to answer this! In English law for there to be a binding legal contract there has to be offer and acceptance as well as consideration, usually defined as an exchange of economic values, i.e gaming chips don't amount to good consideration because they have no intrinsic value in themselves only from their use in gambling: see Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd (1992)

[Caligo Umbrator]

Ha, I have a law degree so might be able to answer this! In English law for there to be a binding legal contract there has to be offer and acceptance as well as consideration, usually defined as an exchange of economic values, i.e gaming chips don't amount to good consideration because they have no intrinsic value in themselves only from their use in gambling: see Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd (1992)

Hi, John G.
I understand what you're saying.
Surely, though, a non-disclosure agreement would be legally binding, if signed by all parties.
And such an agreement doesn't require any economic exchange to take place - it can be used purely to ensure that intellectual property or personal confidential information is protected from dissemination.
What I'm saying here is that one could potentially sign a form of contract that might require silence regarding certain facts and not actually receive any financial or economic benefits in return.

Your, Caligo.

[John G]

Hi, John G.
I understand what you're saying.
Surely, though, a non-disclosure agreement would be legally binding, if signed by all parties.
And such an agreement doesn't require any economic exchange to take place - it can be used purely to ensure that intellectual property or personal confidential information is protected from dissemination.
What I'm saying here is that one could potentially sign a form of contract that might require silence regarding certain facts and not actually receive any financial or economic benefits in return.

Your, Caligo.

Oh dear I seem to have entered a legal minefield! I should perhaps point out that I graduated some time ago. Nonetheless, a basic principle of English Law is that you can't have a legally binding agreement without the element of consideration.

In respect of confidentiality agreements it does appear that you can address the problem of consideration if you draft a document in the form of a deed; include a token obligation, i.e an agreement by the other party to pay £1; or include mutuality in some other way, such as an exchange of mutually beneficial promises: see Thorpe et al. (1999), p52.

[Chris]

In respect of confidentiality agreements it does appear that you can address the problem of consideration if you draft a document in the form of a deed; include a token obligation, i.e an agreement by the other party to pay £1;...

You mean Russell Edwards should have PAID us?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJOjTNuuEVw

[mickreed]

You mean Russell Edwards should have PAID us?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJOjTNuuEVw

You mean he didn't, Chris? I am surprised.

Haven't seen Gold-diggers for a long time.

[mickreed]

You mean Russell Edwards should have PAID us?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJOjTNuuEVw

Does it mean the non-disclosure agreements are without legs?

[John G]

You mean Russell Edwards should have PAID us?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJOjTNuuEVw

I think considering all of your hard work he certainly owes you a moral obligation. Mind you, I'm not sure that your alternative conclusions, which contradict both his and Dr Jari's analysis, will necessarily help his book sales!
Maybe, therefore, his gratitude to you, for drawing his attention to his mistakes and failings, maybe slightly tempered!