A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Chris]

On the other hand, as I asked, where online or otherwise could he rebut his critics, assuming he'd want to avoid a confrontational argument?

Russell Edwards's website would be one obvious possibility. Or his own university webpages. Or he could issue a press release through the PR company that represents him. I don't understand the difficulty.

[Monty]

Indeed he could, and I think it is a huge mistake not to have done so, or to have acknowledged his error if he made one, but, as I said, he may be contractually unable to do the latter or has been prevented from doing so by his university. On the other hand, as I asked, where online or otherwise could he rebut his critics, assuming he'd want to avoid a confrontational argument?

The university's, publishers or Edwards website springs to mind Paul.

A simple acknowledgement, a "yes I am aware, but cannot comment just yet", would suffice.

Monty

[PaulB]

Hello Paul

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I agree that business often trumps ethics, but I don't have to like it, nor support it. I may be utopian, but c'est la vie.

Based on what's in the book, I find it hard to believe that JL can believe the science. If he has more, then it can be put out without a slanging match. Maybe Casebook isn't the venue, but nobody suggested it was. I have no doubt that he would find an opportunity to give us more information quite easy to find.

If he can come up with a peer-reviewed piece then I am sure it will contradict the book.


But, this is not the material for peer review. It's old technology - a simple case of identification. Been done a thousand times.

No, what might be suitable for a peer-reviewed piece would be the process by which the DNA was obtained, but that won't answer the real problem, namely the error of nomenclature, and the implications of that.

I hope I am wrong but I doubt there will be a peer-reviewed article.

I didn't say I approved of business trumping ethics, I just said that it did. My suggestion that he was maybe writing a paper for peer review was simply speculation as to why there has been no reply to the criticism. For all I know he's holding back for the paperback.

[PaulB]

Paul, your JTR teapot - has the spout dropped off?

No, it's chipped though.

[mickreed]

The university's, publishers or Edwards website springs to mind Paul.

A simple acknowledgement, a "yes I am aware, but cannot comment just yet", would suffice.

Monty

With the addition, perhaps, of some sort of timeline for comments to be made.

[PaulB]

Hi, PaulB,

I can see the merit (from a business point of view ) in a publisher preventing an author, through a contractual obligation, from releasing information that directly contradicts the premise of his/her recently published book.
However I find it hard (not impossible, just hard ) to imagine that a publisher would have a contract in place that would prevent a contributer to a publication from confirming or asserting that the information he/she has provided is correct.
The 2 gentlemen have clearly been appearing in the media in promotion and support of the book they are involved in.
So it seems odd that you suggest they are in some way shackled as to what information they can engage themselves in discussion about.



Your, Caligo

A publisher wouldn't have a contractual clause preventing Jari from stating that his information is correct, but it is best to remember that publishers are first and foremost businesses and they will do what's best for sales. I worked with them long enough! Cut through the idealism of publishing and books are just boxes of soapflakes and the salesfolk may be reckoning that the negative criticism will be over in a week, but that a response - any response - could generate further argument and further negative criticism. The thinking may be to keep one's head below the parapet and secure what rights deals are on the table, then take another look at the options.

[PaulB]

Russell Edwards's website would be one obvious possibility. Or his own university webpages. Or he could issue a press release through the PR company that represents him. I don't understand the difficulty.

I regret that it is not for me to attempt to fathom the iscrutable workings of a publisher's mind, and God knows I have spent what seems like a lifetime trying todo so, but I doubt that anyone would find a simple "I'm right and you lot are wrong" very satisfactory and to say more might, if it isn't accepted, generate more argument and adverse criticism. But I am only speculating.

[PaulB]

The university's, publishers or Edwards website springs to mind Paul.

A simple acknowledgement, a "yes I am aware, but cannot comment just yet", would suffice.

Monty

I think the publisher has already kind of said that.

[Chris]

I regret that it is not for me to attempt to fathom the iscrutable workings of a publisher's mind, and God knows I have spent what seems like a lifetime trying todo so, but I doubt that anyone would find a simple "I'm right and you lot are wrong" very satisfactory and to say more might, if it isn't accepted, generate more argument and adverse criticism. But I am only speculating.

You asked where he could post a rebuttal. We're not talking about a simple assertion that he's right (though even that would be an improvement on the current situation).

[alkuluku]

LOL. Looks like he now has two "official websites" alkuluku.

Official Website 1

Official Website 2

I think website 2 is newer as it is the one with the"one million copies sold" claim

RE, if nothing else, is prolific. We may have a book sequel by next month

cheers, gryff

WTF LOL

'The Man... The Book... The Experience'

This guy really loves himself.

[Robert]

Russell Edwards : A Man And His Music.

[PaulB]

You asked where he could post a rebuttal. We're not talking about a simple assertion that he's right (though even that would be an improvement on the current situation).

Yes, I'm afraid I did. And I rather regret having done so. But I did qualifymy question by saying that it needed to be somewhere where a slanging match wouldn't result. I think Edwards' web site and the university's web site would consequently be unsuiable. A press release would be down to the publisher and probably be just as bad.

[Chris]

Yes, I'm afraid I did. And I rather regret having done so. But I did qualifymy question by saying that it needed to be somewhere where a slanging match wouldn't result. I think Edwards' web site and the university's web site would consequently be unsuiable. A press release would be down to the publisher and probably be just as bad.

Then I don't understand the point you are making at all.

We have the clearest possible evidence that Dr Louhelainen has made a mistake, and it's up to him to put it right. The fact that he may be criticised further as a result does nothing at all to change that.

Please remember that some of us went out of our way to help Russell Edwards in his research, because we were assured that the DNA analysis would be done by reputable academic scientists. No doubt the relations of Catherine Eddowes and Aaron Kozminski who helped him by giving samples were given the same assurance. We also told Dr Louhelainen about this problem privately before raising it publicly, because we thought that was the correct way to behave. As far as I'm concerned, we've had scant consideration or even courtesy in return. These problems are certainly not of our making, and they need to be resolved.

[Panderoona]

Please remember that some of us went out of our way to help Russell Edwards in his research, because we were assured that the DNA analysis would be done by reputable academic scientists. No doubt the relations of Catherine Eddowes and Aaron Kozminski who helped him by giving samples were given the same assurance. We also told Dr Louhelainen about this problem privately before raising it publicly, because we thought that was the correct way to behave. As far as I'm concerned, we've had scant consideration or even courtesy in return. These problems are certainly not of our making, and they need to be resolved.

If that's the case, and I've no reason to doubt it, then he/they deserve everything they get.

[PaulB]

Then I don't understand the point you are making at all.

We have the clearest possible evidence that Dr Louhelainen has made a mistake, and it's up to him to put it right. The fact that he may be criticised further as a result does nothing at all to change that.

Please remember that some of us went out of our way to help Russell Edwards in his research, because we were assured that the DNA analysis would be done by reputable academic scientists. No doubt the relations of Catherine Eddowes and Aaron Kozminski who helped him by giving samples were given the same assurance. We also told Dr Louhelainen about this problem privately before raising it publicly, because we thought that was the correct way to behave. As far as I'm concerned, we've had scant consideration or even courtesy in return. These problems are certainly not of our making, and they need to be resolved.

The point I am making is that whether a reply is forthcoming or not MAY not be in their hands and I wondered whether it was right to criticise Russell Edwards when the silence may not have been his fault. That's all.

I wholeheartedly agree that things need to be sorted out. Of course they do. I just happen to be able to see how the publisher may be thinking. I hope they're not, but assuming all concerned as kosher, it is difficult to otherwise understand the silence.

That you and others generously assisted Russell Edwards shuld have been taken into consideration.