A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Chris]

Dr Louhelainen desperately needs the advice of a candid friend.

[Archaic]

How do you know, as you imply, the bags are not for teaching purposes only, and the names on them fictitious?

Hi Observer.

I don't know for sure, which is why I said, "Unless they train with fake evidence bags with pretend names."

Best regards,
Archaic

[Chris]

I see Edward Stow is now saying he understands Edwards and Louhelainen may have been unable to answer questions about the DNA "for legal reasons".

Perhaps "Daz the Bull" was at the meeting as a legal adviser?

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

I see Edward Stow is now saying he understands Edwards and Louhelainen may have been unable to answer questions about the DNA "for legal reasons".

Perhaps "Daz the Bull" was at the meeting as a legal adviser?

I've been looking at a couple of posts made by Trevor Bond on the WS1888 Facebook page and was quite stunned when I found this paragraph:

On the Friday evening, Ricky spoke to Whitechapel Society committee member Sue Parry and asked whether he could attend Edwards and Dr Louhelainen's appearances after all. He assured her that he would not misbehave, and Sue stated that he could therefore attend the whole weekend fully. However 5 minutes before Dr Louhelainen's appearance was due to begin, Russell Edwards approached members of the organising committee and asked why Ricky was sitting with the rest of the delegates. He then demanded that Ricky be required to stick to his original offer, and made it clear to the impression of all committee members that if the is was not done he would walk out and would require Dr Louhelainen to do the same.

I am really curious as to why Mr Bond used the word "require". Is it a word he chose and if so why? Or did RE actually say that? And if RE used that actual word, what hold has RE got over Dr. JL?

cheers, gryff

[Ally]

With Trevor Bond's permission, I am reposting his full explanation of the events here:

Okay, as discussed. Here is what happened as Sue assures me it occurred. This is based on a number of conversations with Sue and other members of the committee over the weekend and due to my having been asked to summarise such as a gesture of goodwill. People can draw their own conclusions from the below, but at least as then dealing with the facts. I will also post below, so it is clear which list is which, with some observations of my own about what, as a delegate, speaker and Whitechapel Society member, I feel still need addressing. Of course, no one is obliged to listen to me, but again these are things I personally observed or have heard from reliable sources, and in the case of the latter will be clearly marked as such. To the best of my knowledge therefore, both lists are 100 percent true. If anyone doesn't like that, then please be prepared to supply evidence to show how you know I am wrong, rather than simply stating I am. And please remember that these are based on specific conversations about these issues and events with Sue, Whitechapel Society chairman Steve Forster, and others, and that the former person has given me this information specifically in order for me to post this. So please respect her even if you choose not to respect me, in not assuming that a one-off conversation of your own with one or two members of the committee should take precedence over that. Similarly, if anyone wants to believe I have an agenda in raising the point I am going to go on to do, then I will probably never be able to convince you otherwise. But maybe Sue's judgement should be given a bit of credit. Finally I should point out that all opinions expressed are my own and are in no way representative of the views of any other member of the Jack the Ripper Conference organising team, and nor have they been discussed with them or shaped by being part of that collective. I will explain all events fully enough that anyone reading this who was not in Salisbury should hopefully understand - as this thread has shown, events at conferences, especially when they involve the current 'hot topic' have become a focus for widespread and even international discussion. For better or worse, the idea of keeping things 'in the room' is no longer possible. People who may not have been able to attend still feel entitled to know how the field they have invested a lot of time into is being represented.

As far as Ricky's ban - early last week, Ricky and for association Becky were both banned from the whole conference. The stated reasons for this were twofold - firstly, because of comments Ricky had made about a member of the Whitechapel Society committee after an argument online, and also due to comments Ricky had made regarding his opposition to the presubmitted questions format of Russell Edwards and Dr Louhelainen's appearance. He had made various comments which were construed as 'threats' and had been conveyed to Russell Edwards by members of the Whitechapel Society committee. A summary of these threats was given in an email sent from Sue to Ricky last week informing him of the ban, and it should be recognised here that this list included threats which were disruptive in nature undoubtedly, but no threats of any form of physical violence. Ricky also believes that his comments were taken out of context and represented jokes and an expression of frustration rather than genuine notice of what he was going to do, and has pointed out that there were others who had threatened to disrupt proceedings including one delegate who had threatened to throw eggs at Edwards and Dr Louhelainen, but was allowed to sit through their appearances without any mention of it. The Whitechapel Society commitee position on this as states to me is that their member who was reporting Ricky's comments to them did not do so about anyone else's comments and therefore they were not aware of them. There has been discussion around whether Becky was banned or not, but in stating her fee was being refunded, I personally cannot see how that does not amount to the same thing.

Subsequently, Becky's ban was lifted - as the committee fully accepted that she had herself not been guilty of any such offences and that it was unfair to ban her simply because of who she is in a relationship with. This they accepted and apologised for. Eventually, Ricky's ban was also lifted after he made an offer to absent himself for Edwards and Dr Louhelainen's appearances. Ricky fully accepts that when he turned up on Friday he was so far as he knew still held to that agreement and states that he would have accepted being asked to fulfill it.

Although I will go into more detail below, it should also be pointed out at this point that Russell Edwards attended the conference on the Friday night, seeming to enjoy both the ghost walk and the evening at Conran's bar. I have not been made aware that any point he expressed his unease at this meaning he was in Ricky's close vicinity, and nor it would seem did he feel so when he attended the Saturday night dinner after the events of the afternoon had unfolded.

On the Friday evening, Ricky spoke to Whitechapel Society committee member Sue Parry and asked whether he could attend Edwards and Dr Louhelainen's appearances after all. He assured her that he would not misbehave, and Sue stated that he could therefore attend the whole weekend fully. However 5 minutes before Dr Louhelainen's appearance was due to begin, Russell Edwards approached members of the organising committee and asked why Ricky was sitting with the rest of the delegates. He then demanded that Ricky be required to stick to his original offer, and made it clear to the impression of all committee members that if the is was not done he would walk out and would require Dr Louhelainen to do the same. Faced with a decision between going back on their word to one delegate or potentially having to tell a whole conference that 2 speakers had walked out, the decision was made and Sue spoke to Ricky to tell him that he was once again not allowed to attend for those talks. Sue has stated that she should not have told Ricky that the situation could be changed on the Friday as without speaking to Russell Edwards about it as she or any other organising committee member lacked the authority to change things without doing so. She has apologised to Ricky for her error in this.

Myself, Jon Rees and Becky also chose not to attend those 2 talks at this point, and I sincerely feel that the members of the Whitechapel Society committee would have felt exactly the same if one of their number was to be excluded in this manner. It was not an organised protest and Ricky said to us on more than knew occasion that we should all still attend and that he was not asking us to refrain from doing so on his behalf, but we felt the need to support a friend who had been treated in an unfortunate manner. Becky subsequently posted on various parts of Facebook simply static what had happened and where we were instead, in case any delegates were wondering what had occurred and/or were hoping to speak to any of us in the breaks. This was a statement of facts and was not intended to prejudice anyone's view of events. It was posted, amongst other places, on the Whitechapel Society facebook group so as delegates were easily able to find it. I believe this is the thread which has subequently been deleted but should reiterate that the only member of the organising committee who is truly active on facebook has denied doing so. However it is important to note that there are ways in which others outside of the committee could have done so, I personally would be very interested to hear from anyone who may want to admit to having deleted it as to why without being a member of the committee they felt they had the right to do so, and in doing so to actually erroneously show the committee in a bad light.

Secondly, the DNA questions. I should point out at this stage that any statements which were made previously were made to the best of my/ others' knowledge and made for that reason alone, and not in a vindictive manner. It was difficult to gauge what was happening given our exclusion (forced or voluntary) from events and with new information coming in all the time.

Sue assures me that all questions which were submitted in the prescribed form were shown to Russell Edwards and Dr Louhelainen beforehand and that none were rejected. All were then asked by the MC. Only one touched on the controversy around the DNA results, but not on specific issues of nomenclature. The question was about the reaction to the story and included a reference to a well known scientist. The question was partly answered but on the DNA slant, Russell Edwards stated that he could not talk about the DNA as more work is required. On a personal level, I have to wonder what he was therefore expecting to be asked about when promoting a book which relies heavily on DNA evidence and has been internationally publicised as such, and why he felt the need to demand a few months back that he was accompanied by a DNA expert. But that is only my opinion. Also my opinion is that given the widespread attention which questions of nomenclature have been given in on the international press recently, that Edwards and Louhelainen had been given plenty of time to prepare in case such a question should be raised, and that I feel a bit disappointed that a serious academic event did not consider this central question important enough to pose regardless of the specifics of who had submitted what. But again, it is up to the committee how they choose to run their events. Just as it is up to delegates and others to make up their mind based on the choices they made.

To be clear, the prescribed form for questions was that they were to be emailed to Sue Parry in reply to a specific email, during a specific time period. The Whitechapel Society reserve the right to administrate their events however they see fit. Questions sent to other members and/or the MC appear to have been considered ineligible due to how they originated rather than simply being forwarded on to Sue for inclusion. I feel this was regrettable but again it is entirely the committee's choice. Questions from non delegates were never going to be considered eligible (unless a delegate chose to ask them on someone's behalf but with their name attached), and neither were questions posed on message boards or social media.

One group of questions submitted in the correct form did end up being omitted however. These were questions which had been submitted under Ricky's name, and although clarification would be good, I assume they were excluded because of that fact. This batch included a specific question on 314.1c/ 315.1c as forwarded to Ricky from Tracy I'Anson, but as explained above this had ended up under Ricky's name.

Ed is spot on that the handwritten question was submitted during the break between Dr Louhelainen's presentation and the discussion with the MC. It is fairly unarguable that this was too late, and the person who submitted the question feels the same. So that should probably be allowed to rest there. For completeness though, it should be a acknowledged that the MC did his best to see whether it could still be included and showed it to Russell Edwards prior to see restarting proceedings. He asked whether Edwards would be prepared to answer it, to which Edwards replied he would not.

Various members have been contacting committee members to express their distaste at how events unfolded and some have requested cancellation of their membership. Sue Parry in particular has taken this very hard, and feels that her integrity is being called into question. I should therefore like to point out once and for all that I am not suggesting anyone should question the integrity of Sue or any member of the organising committee. It would make me very sad to see anyone doing so, and very angry indeed to hear any allegations that this is my aim. However the integrity of the event as it transpired is something which people are entitled to an opinion on, and that is a decision everyone is big enough and ugly enough to make on their own. The issue of whether any such concerns as may be raised should be considered 'black marks' against the organising committee (once again, I don't feel they should) has clearly been significantly complicated by the admission that the organising committee were not in sole charge of the event but that Russell Edwards was also being consulted as to proceedings.

[RockySullivan]

Well atleast we have "solid proof" that RE is a scum of the utmost detestable order

[Chris]

Just to be clear, the error made by Dr Louhelainen was originally pointed out to him directly by email about seven weeks ago.

[Robert]

Thanks Ally and Trevor for that.

[Bridewell]

No the shawl in Edwards theory of the crime

Apologies, Rocky. I mistook your meaning.

[Cogidubnus]

To be totally fair, in response to my email to the Whitechapel Society, I have received the following from Sue Parry:

Clearly your email both saddens and upsets me.
I am not totally sure what you are referring to, though I think I can guess and I would say to you that I do not think you have been informed accurately.
I would be happy to expand on the events to which I think you refer, but in the meantime I will remove your name from our list of subscribers.
Please come back to me if you would like to discuss the matter further.

All the best

Dave

[Bridewell]

That's a pretty gracious reply, Dave.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Colin

I agree, and confirm I have no personal animus towards anybody...but I do believe that collectively they've been incredibly naive...

All the best

Dave

[Colin Roberts]

So having organized a conference at which Trevor Marriott was a featured speaker, Mr. Cobb was inclined to "misbehave" at someone else's gathering?

[jmenges]

You mean Trevor Marriott spoke at a conference, by himself, without body guards, and took any question that anyone wanted to ask, and never once suggested that a single one of the paid conference attendees who disagreed with him be told to leave the venue?

Astounding.

JM

[PaulB]

You mean Trevor Marriott spoke at a conference, by himself, without body guards, and took any question that anyone wanted to ask, and never once suggested that a single one of the paid conference attendees who disagreed with him be told to leave the venue?

Astounding.

JM

Not really. You are talking about Trevor. The only egg he expected to see was on his breakfast plate and otherwise the worst he could expect was hilarity.