A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[GUT]

Yes, there were plans for one in September, with Russell Edwards and Jari Louhelainen, but the latter withdrew because he said he had "been advised by the Corporate Communications office at his University to not give further interviews "at this time"."

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=247222&postcount=625

That was on 24 September. Which, thinking about it, makes his "tweet" about "seven weeks of interviews, invited talks and photo shoots for magazines etc" even stranger. Has he been defying their advice for the last month, or what?

G'day Chris

I think the answer is "or what" ie I suspect "been advised by the Corporate Communications office at his University to not give further interviews "at this time" was a convenient excuse, but a lot of people say that I'm a skeptic.

[mickreed]

I suppose it could be, but it seems to me to read more like a description of the murderer's modus operandi:
... his eyes lit up and he said this is exactly what has been reported about Jack. This is his way of operating and this is a great find.

Problem is, with Jari's pronouncements, is that we now know he doesn't always get the right end of the stick when talking to native English speakers, which is why he won't do interviews without RE.

As Chris says, this must make his life difficult at LJMU.

Personally, I suspect it's hogwash. Somebody, the publishers, or RE himself, think the Jari needs a minder.

[mickreed]

G'day Chris

I think the answer is "or what" ie I suspect "been advised by the Corporate Communications office at his University to not give further interviews "at this time" was a convenient excuse, but a lot of people say that I'm a skeptic.

Has anyone asked the Corporate Communications office what the official view of JL's silence vis-à-vis four world experts over his key fining of 314.1C?

[jmenges]

Ask away

Janet Martin- Director of Marketing and Corporate Communications.

http://livjm.ac.uk/corporatecommunications/100926.htm

She's the one who provided Dr. Louhelainen with the following 'out', on Sept. 24th, for the podcast interview:

"We suggest that the timing for this is inappropriate at the beginning of term and that you are not available to conduct an interview at this time."

JM

[Richard Dewar]

In Defense of Mr Edwards, Ms Cornwell, and Ms Harrison

I salute those who are trying to use physical evidence to try to solve the case.

In some ways, the Shawl issue is very similiar to the Maybrick Diary and the Sickert/Ripper letter controversies.

Compare the attacks these proponents have suffered compared to the reverence shown to noted authors and researchers who have proposed solutions to this case without the slightest evidence.

Although those proposing a scientific resolution to this case may be wrong in their specific cases, if this case is ever solved it will be by their path rather than the mere theorizing done in most so-called solutions.

We should thank those whose use of physical evidence elevates the debate to a forensics puzzle rather than parlour game.

[GUT]

I salute those who are trying to use physical evidence to try to solve the case.

In some ways, the Shawl issue is very similiar to the Maybrick Diary and the Sickert/Ripper letter controversies.

Compare the attacks these proponents have suffered compared to the reverence shown to noted authors and researchers who have proposed solutions to this case without the slightest evidence.

Although those proposing a scientific resolution to this case may be wrong in their specific cases, if this case is ever solved it will be by their path rather than the mere theorizing done in most so-called solutions.

We should thank those whose use of physical evidence elevates the debate to a forensics puzzle rather than parlour game.

G'day Richard and Welcome to case book.

I simply can't agree, how can science solve the case when you are trying to apply it to things that have no connection to the case.

Walter MAY have written some letters, so what.

The Table Runner / Shawl MAY have had some connection to Koz and Kate but unless you could place it at the murder scene, which you can't, in fact the evidence makes it about 99% that it was never there, so what.

And what has science got to do with the Diary.

'm not saying theorizing alone will solve the case, it won't just look at the ongoing argument over Cross/Lechmere and if Fisherman and Lechmere [the poster] bring out a book you don't think it will be dissected if they are stupid enough, in my opinion, to put "Case Closed" or "Final Solution" or anythng similar on it.

I think you will find that is a large factor n people's responses. Those who play "parlour games" or involve themselves in "mere theorizing" on the whole admit that their answer isn't conclusive. Those who try to claim they have solved it are the ones that attract the attack, look at Dale's book in Van Gogh if it ever comes out.

[Richard Dewar]

G'day Richard and Welcome to case book.

I simply can't agree, how can science solve the case when you are trying to apply it to things that have no connection to the case.

Walter MAY have written some letters, so what.

The Table Runner / Shawl MAY have had some connection to Koz and Kate but unless you could place it at the murder scene, which you can't, in fact the evidence makes it about 99% that it was never there, so what.

And what has science got to do with the Diary.

'm not saying theorizing alone will solve the case, it won't just look at the ongoing argument over Cross/Lechmere and if Fisherman and Lechmere [the poster] bring out a book you don't think it will be dissected if they are stupid enough, in my opinion, to put "Case Closed" or "Final Solution" or anythng similar on it.

I think you will find that is a large factor n people's responses. Those who play "parlour games" or involve themselves in "mere theorizing" on the whole admit that their answer isn't conclusive. Those who try to claim they have solved it are the ones that attract the attack, look at Dale's book in Van Gogh if it ever comes out.

Thank you for the welcome back. . .it's been many years. I am not endorsing any of the recent attempts to link physical evidence to the solution of this case. What I do question is the derision launched in the proponents direction compared to little, if any, criticism directed at those who propose solutions to the case with absolutely no evidence at all.

All of the revered authorities on the case who have books naming suspects follow the same pattern: someone in the past thought their suspect might be the Ripper, the current author believes the suspect is the type of person who might have done the killings, and they have found no evidence to rule out the individuals opportunity to commit the killing.

I think we can all agree that this is very thin. Yet in our community, there isn't the same attack on motives of these celebrated followers of the case versus the "outsiders" who are trying to prove the case with evidence.

My point is that if the case is ever solved it will be with physical evidence not speculation.

[Abby Normal]

Thank you for the welcome back. . .it's been many years. I am not endorsing any of the recent attempts to link physical evidence to the solution of this case. What I do question is the derision launched in the proponents direction compared to little, if any, criticism directed at those who propose solutions to the case with absolutely no evidence at all.

All of the revered authorities on the case who have books naming suspects follow the same pattern: someone in the past thought their suspect might be the Ripper, the current author believes the suspect is the type of person who might have done the killings, and they have found no evidence to rule out the individuals opportunity to commit the killing.

I think we can all agree that this is very thin. Yet in our community, there isn't the same attack on motives of these celebrated followers of the case versus the "outsiders" who are trying to prove the case with evidence.

My point is that if the case is ever solved it will be with physical evidence not speculation.

We all know The authors who you are referring to with maybrick, sickert and the shawl, but who are these other "celebrated" authors you are referring to?

[Richard Dewar]

We all know The authors who you are referring to with maybrick, sickert and the shawl, but who are these other "celebrated" authors you are referring to?

Abby,

Virtually every noted Ripper expert who has authored works naming a suspect has followed the same pattern. First, they find someone in the past who suspected the individual being the killer. Next, the author makes the argument that the suspect is the kind of man who would commit such a crime. Finally, the argument is made that there is no evidence to eliminate this killer from being able to physically carry out the murders.

I don't want to single out specific authors - many of them, I believe, are superior students of the case. But their works, to me, always seem damaged by this venture into speculation.

Perhaps due to their reputations and scholarship within the community, they don't seem to receive the same level of critical scrutiny that the "outsiders" do when they propose a suspect.

[mickreed]

We all know The authors who you are referring to with maybrick, sickert and the shawl, but who are these other "celebrated" authors you are referring to?

Well, I don't know who Richard is referring to, but there are plenty of authors who are 'revered', - that may be too strong a word - but often for reasons other than their conclusions.

Leonard Matters, for example. Dr Stanley was, almost certainly, not real. But Matters did bring together a lot of new (at the time) information as well as excellent photos.

Stephen Knight's theory is, surely, nonsense, but again he did bring information to public awareness, some of which seems to have since vanished.

There are loads more, many did bring something new to the case that is of value to us now.

This latest book brought nothing to the case other some spurious science about the shawl. Without the science there is nothing.

And there is no science now.

[Chris]

We should thank those whose use of physical evidence elevates the debate to a forensics puzzle rather than parlour game.

Without wishing to be priggish, I think there some of us who would prefer it to be a question of historical scholarship rather than either a puzzle or a parlour game.

And I don't think the debate has been elevated at all by this DNA analysis.

[Tom_Wescott]

Without wishing to be priggish, I think there some of us who would prefer it to be a question of historical scholarship rather than either a puzzle or a parlour game.

And I don't think the debate has been elevated at all by this DNA analysis.

So says you, an Aussie blogger with ties to the Ripper Industry.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Thank you for the welcome back. . .it's been many years. I am not endorsing any of the recent attempts to link physical evidence to the solution of this case. What I do question is the derision launched in the proponents direction compared to little, if any, criticism directed at those who propose solutions to the case with absolutely no evidence at all.

All of the revered authorities on the case who have books naming suspects follow the same pattern: someone in the past thought their suspect might be the Ripper, the current author believes the suspect is the type of person who might have done the killings, and they have found no evidence to rule out the individuals opportunity to commit the killing.

I think we can all agree that this is very thin. Yet in our community, there isn't the same attack on motives of these celebrated followers of the case versus the "outsiders" who are trying to prove the case with evidence.

My point is that if the case is ever solved it will be with physical evidence not speculation.

I know where you're coming from, Richard. I said about the same thing in a podcast recently. I likened Naming Jack the Ripper to old school Ripperology where every book was a 'final solution' and was presented just as you described. I don't think it's anything more than that, really. And nobody has faulted Edwards for spending his money to get the shawl tested. He's faulted for taking the public's money and failing to deliver on his promising of naming the Ripper. I don't know how long you've followed the boards, but 'final solution' authors receive their fair share of derision. The more obscure book the less derision, perhaps. But you should have seen what happened to Uncle Jack, etc.

I will agree that the classic authors are handled with kid gloves. It's a bit of a peeve of mine as well, but one I suppose we have to live with.

Also, keep in mind that the rest of us already knew that the shawl had never belonged to Eddowes and was not a Ripper artifact, so from our perspective, Edwards has not had a Ripper relic tested.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Richard Dewar]

Questioned Motives

There are authors, many contemporary, who have accused suspects of being the murderer with no evidence whatsoever. Yet the motives of those authors are rarely if ever questioned.

The difference I have seen, dating back to the Maybrick fiasco, is that when an author proposes a suspect and offers physical evidence, they are the focus of derision and scorn and their very motives are questioned.

I have no problem with critiques of the logic and scholarship behind a work. When that becomes a personal attack against the author's integrity and motives, when that same standard is not applied to others, I question the critic's agenda.

[Tom_Wescott]

There are authors, many contemporary, who have accused suspects of being the murderer with no evidence whatsoever. Yet the motives of those authors are rarely if ever questioned.

The difference I have seen, dating back to the Maybrick fiasco, is that when an author proposes a suspect and offers physical evidence, they are the focus of derision and scorn and their very motives are questioned.

I have no problem with critiques of the logic and scholarship behind a work. When that becomes a personal attack against the author's integrity and motives, when that same standard is not applied to others, I question the critic's agenda.

What physical evidence? The Diary was approached with an open mind and showed to be a fake. Cornwell tested letters not sent by the killer himself, and the Abberline diary had Abberline's name misspelled. These books were derided because they were nonsense.

Keep in mind the shawl has been known to us and discussed since the 90s. The research had already been done and it was not accepted as legit. And not because some author was pushing it, because nobody was. Historically, it was insignificant, therefore it was rather obvious to many of us that this science would not check out. Sure enough, as you've seen, it doesn't check out.

So what exactly is your beef, Richard? That Edwards is getting more flack than other 'final solution' authors? That's just because his book is current and is higher profile. I assure you he's getting less flack than Cornwell and the Diary, probably because of his choice of suspects.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott