A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Tom_Wescott]

Someone kindly sent me this exchange from Facebook:

Geoff Cross
Jari, the Independent seem to have their knives out for you, what is happening?

Jari Louhelainen
There is a rumour that one person linked to Ripper industry is behind it. It is the only paper which has been negative from the start. Also, The Independent has sued the publisher regarding something else so they clearly have an agenda.

The "Ripper industry", I suppose, refers to people who make money from the public interest in Jack the Ripper, through the publication of books, the running of tours, the selling of souvenirs, the making of films and so on.

I wonder if the rumor mill isn't blaming Cornwell. I've seen posts mentioning her book next year.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Archaic]

"Rumours" vs SCIENCE

Someone kindly sent me this exchange from Facebook:

Geoff Cross
Jari, the Independent seem to have their knives out for you, what is happening?

Jari Louhelainen
There is a rumour that one person linked to Ripper industry is behind it. It is the only paper which has been negative from the start. Also, The Independent has sued the publisher regarding something else so they clearly have an agenda.

The "Ripper industry", I suppose, refers to people who make money from the public interest in Jack the Ripper, through the publication of books, the running of tours, the selling of souvenirs, the making of films and so on.

I wonder if the rumor mill isn't blaming Cornwell. I've seen posts mentioning her book next year.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom.
My understanding of JL's remark, "There is a rumour that one person linked to Ripper industry is behind it. It is the only paper which has been negative from the start." is that there is one person linked to both what he calls "the Ripper industry" AND 'The Independent' that he has heard is "rumoured" to be "behind it".

It's an unfortunate remark, because it implies that some kind of personal vendetta is behind the scientific analysis of his work and the identification of its shortcomings.

Scientific research should stand or fall on its own accuracy and soundness, which is normally established through peer review.

The Independent simply published the opinions of highly qualified professionals who found errors in the scientific analysis of the shawl DNA - errors which were raised here on Casebook. So is JL blaming both 'The Independent' and Casebook.org?

We all are waiting for JL to address the serious scientific issues that have been raised, and Facebook is hardly the venue for that.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Robert]

You know, I had been wondering if RE had some sort of mind control over JL, and then I saw the photo in Monty's post #565 and I had a Eureka moment. Does RE remind anyone of this man :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbrw-d03De8

[RockySullivan]

Instead of taking accountability for his false evidence the scientist tries to put the blame on someone else. I dislike this guy more and more. I've said from the beginning this is all out right fraud and everything just points more to that everyday

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

It's an unfortunate remark, because it implies that some kind of personal vendetta is behind the scientific analysis of his work and the identification of its shortcomings.

Scientific research should stand or fall on its own accuracy and soundness, which is normally established through peer review.

The Independent simply published the opinions of highly qualified professionals who found errors in the scientific analysis of the shawl DNA - errors which were raised here on Casebook. So is JL blaming both 'The Independent' and Casebook.org?

We all are waiting for JL to address the serious scientific issues that have been raised, and Facebook is hardly the venue for that.

Best regards,
Archaic

And Archaic, if you read the Independent article, there is this:

Dr Louhelainen, who declined to answer questions...

Is there some PR person at the publisher who decides on whom RE and Dr. JL can talk to on the record and what to say?

Again from the Independent article:

A spokesperson for publishers Sidgwick & Jackson said: "The author stands by his conclusions. We are investigating the reported error in scientific nomenclature.

Sounds pretty much like the response Dr. JL gave in the two recent Finnish interviews.

cheers, gryff

[mickreed]

Hi Tom.
My understanding of JL's remark, "There is a rumour that one person linked to Ripper industry is behind it. It is the only paper which has been negative from the start." is that there is one person linked to both what he calls "the Ripper industry" AND 'The Independent' that he has heard is "rumoured" to be "behind it".

It's an unfortunate remark, because it implies that some kind of personal vendetta is behind the scientific analysis of his work and the identification of its shortcomings.


The Independent simply published the opinions of highly qualified professionals who found errors in the scientific analysis of the shawl DNA - errors which were raised here on Casebook. So is JL blaming both 'The Independent' and Casebook.org?

We all are waiting for JL to address the serious scientific issues that have been raised, and Facebook is hardly the venue for that.

Best regards,
Archaic

I am astonished by some of his remarks. Okay, they are only informal but it's absurd to blame 'one person'. One could equally say that the Independent was one of the few media outlets to have been doing its job when they didn't genuflect before the science six weeks ago. There were others eg https://theconversation.com/new-evid...onvinced-31445

So, are the four experts cited in the Independent all after JL. I doubt several of them had ever even heard of him.

There's an old saying, which may not exist in Finnish. 'When you're in a hole, stop digging'.

[mickreed]

Those are the main points of the article.

Louhelainen wanted more scientific data in the book, but the publisher thought it would've made the book too difficult to read.

Thanks Alkuluku.

[Archaic]

Hi Gryff, thanks.

I understand that publishers might impose some kind of restrictions upon an author with whom they have contracted to write and publish a book.

But Science is supposed to be based upon Scientific Method, accurate analysis and replication of test results, and peer review.

It seems to me that it's in JL's best interest as a scientist of good repute to respond to the issues that have been raised.

I noticed that the publishers state, "The author stands by his conclusions."

It doesn't say where the scientist stands.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Archaic]

Those are the main points of the article.

Louhelainen wanted more scientific data in the book, but the publisher thought it would've made the book too difficult to read.

Hi alkuluku.

I meant to respond to your post earlier.

I can see that some publishers might want to publish a book they consider "easily readable" by the general public.

But when the entire premise of the book's conclusion rests upon Science, why not include a separate chapter on the nitty gritty details of the science that "non-scientific" types can skip over, insert it at the back of the book, or failing all that, simply provide a live web-link to the detailed scientific analysis?

If JL's DNA analysis was completed some time ago -apparently a few years ago? - at any rate well before RE began writing his book, wouldn't that have given JL adequate time to produce a paper explaining his results and submit it for peer-review?

Even if the publishers wanted JL to hold back on the release of the scientific paper until the book was out, wouldn't the paper at least be completed by now, and couldn't he state this to be the case and name a date for the scientific paper's official release date?

Did they not realize that other scientists and a sizable number of readers would ask for and expect to be able to examine the completed paper? That's what baffles me.

Best regards,
Archaic

[mickreed]

Did they not realize that other scientists and a sizable number of readers would ask for and expect to be able to examine the completed paper? That's what baffles me.

G'day Archaic.

I still don't quite go with RockyS and his thoughts about deliberate fraud - but I ain't springing to anyone's defence any more either.

My conspiratorial mind works like this.

Publisher: This book is not very good but will it sell?

Author and Friend: It will if we tell the Mail on Sunday about it and spruik it up properly.

Publisher: Okay, I reckon we'll have six week to maximise sales before anyone starts questioning. So what to do after that.

Author and Friend: If we prevaricate for a bit longer we might sell a few more.

Publisher: Yep. Then, by year's end, it'll be the remainder table for this nonsense.

[richardh]

Well, as it stands, JL's scientific reputation is in for a battering and RE's book is not worth the paper it's written on UNTIL they release their findings for scrutiny.
I think he REALLY wants to be the one who solved the mystery but knows that his findings are somewhat dubious and he doesn't want to be found out.

[richardh]

The final words in the book 'Aaron Kosminski is Jack the Ripper' remain just HIS opinion. There is NO proof. He has not provided ANY proof. He's simply told us he has proof and he expects us to believe him.

He had a preconceived suspect and a preconceived agenda which instantly negates ANY of his 'proven' claims. A vested interest and proper scientific analysis are not good bed-fellows if you want to get at the truth.

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

If JL's DNA analysis was completed some time ago -apparently a few years ago? - at any rate well before RE began writing his book, wouldn't that have given JL adequate time to produce a paper explaining his results and submit it for peer-review?

Best regards,
Archaic

Well Archaic, according to the interview Dr JL did for the BBC Radio 4 InScience program some of the information (hair and eye colour) was delivered to RE 3 days before the book deadline. He also would have liked to do more but the book deadline over rode further investigation (as well as the fact that the RE's budget for the research was blown)

So I'm not sure about a "few years ago".

But I agree with you on

But Science is supposed to be based upon Scientific Method, accurate analysis and replication of test results, and peer review.

It seems to me that it's in JL's best interest as a scientist of good repute to respond to the issues that have been raised.

cheers, gryff

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Archaic

Even if the publishers wanted JL to hold back on the release of the scientific paper until the book was out, wouldn't the paper at least be completed by now, and couldn't he state this to be the case and name a date for the scientific paper's official release date?

Did they not realize that other scientists and a sizable number of readers would ask for and expect to be able to examine the completed paper? That's what baffles me.

Personally I'm not sure it's a sufficiently well-regarded publication to merit that sort of quality-control...my guess being they regard it merely as a potboiler they can milk for a few bob...for example my copy arrived with a couple of "ink-blobbed" pages as an unadvertised additional feature...

I understand that publishers might impose some kind of restrictions upon an author with whom they have contracted to write and publish a book.

They might be able to, if there has been a "consideration" involved, but everything Edwards is attributed to saying about JL in the book seems, to me at least, to be designed to imply this is not the case...I'm not suggesting aye or nay one way or another...nor in the least condemning either party if I'm wrong and there is indeed a financial arrangement, (in solid Victorian terms, any labourer surely being worthy of his hire)...

But I'm wondering if it is in fact JL's employer who is in fact urging him to keep things within limits...let's be honest, they're a Polytechnic-turned-University, they're named for a Mail Order Catalogue distributor, and as if that weren't enough of a disadvantage, suddenly this hithertofore trusted and respected employee suddenly invites controversy upon their heads...

They've surely, (I would have thought), got to feel protective of their status...in which case could they have gagged him (possibly to his own disadvantage even) ?

Until somebody breaks cover we can surely only speculate...

All the best

Dave

[Chris]

Well Archaic, according to the interview Dr JL did for the BBC Radio 4 InScience program some of the information (hair and eye colour) was delivered to RE 3 days before the book deadline. He also would have liked to do more but the book deadline over rode further investigation (as well as the fact that the RE's budget for the research was blown)

So I'm not sure about a "few years ago".

I think the "Eddowes" DNA analysis that's specifically under question now was done early last year. Certainly it was over a year ago. But as you say the "Kozminski" DNA analysis continued up to about May this year.