2014 Ripper Conference In The U.K.

[Caroline Brown]

To my knowledge, and I stand to be corrected on this, I believe Keith did Maybrick-related research for Paul Feldman, Patricia Cornwell, and Bruce Robinson, and possibly other writers as well.

Best regards

Chris

Hi Chris,

I'm not sure Keith did any Maybrick-related research for Patricia Cornwell - but I too stand to be corrected on this. Certainly, Cornwell had nothing to do with his revelation in Liverpool.

Love,

Caz
X

[Caroline Brown]

You are a very befuddled man Lynn Cates.

Hi Mr. P,

Not if Lynn has proof that serious mistakes of Dr. L's making appeared in the published shawl book with his knowledge and permission.

Have I got that right, Lynn? Did Dr. L know beforehand exactly what the book would be claiming, and was he able to check the final draft for potential errors of his own or the author's making?

Love,

Caz
X

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Caz

My understanding is that he had no idea a book was coming until the papers rang him for an interview.

I could be wrong.

P

[Chris G.]

Hi Caz

My understanding is that he had no idea a book was coming until the papers rang him for an interview.

I could be wrong.

P

I think it's more the case that he hadn't seen the book before he was asked for an interview.

Chris

[Mr. Poster]

I think it's more the case that he hadn't seen the book before he was asked for an interview.

Chris

Within the context of the post by Caz, the point remains valid.

P

[Paul]

Hi Mr. P,

Not if Lynn has proof that serious mistakes of Dr. L's making appeared in the published shawl book with his knowledge and permission.

Have I got that right, Lynn? Did Dr. L know beforehand exactly what the book would be claiming, and was he able to check the final draft for potential errors of his own or the author's making?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,
As ever a pleasure to see you, albeit in electronic words. I think the question is whether the mistake, if made, was one that would have been quickly or easily recognised. And perhaps more importantly, it seems self-evident that Dr J did not write any part of the book, which seems that the science was written up by Russell or someone else (which I think rather likely) from information provided by Dr J. What that possibility leaves open for error in transmission remains to be seen. And, of course, Dr J didn't see the book until 15 minutes before his first TV interview.

[Lynn Cates]

right

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

Yes, you do indeed--you usually do. Even Sir Alec showed the work to be mistaken and then found an error that others missed.

Cheers.
LC

[Debra Arif]

Hopefully we will know exactly what was said soon enough.
For those who have it and have read it; the book does include passages that are verbatim summary reports of the science written by Jari Louhelainen:

"This DNA alteration is known as global private mutation (314.1C) and it is not very common in worldwide population, as it has frequency estimate of 0.000003506, i.e. approximately 1/ 290,000. This figure has been calculated using the database at Institute of Legal Medicine, GMI , based on the latest available information."

Edwards, Russell (2014-09-09). Naming Jack the Ripper: The Biggest Forensic Breakthrough Since 1888 (Kindle Locations 2479-2481). Sidgwick & Jackson. Kindle Edition.

[Paul]

That answers that then.

[Mr. Poster]

Hello Debra Arif

Do you know exactly when that statement was made relative to th ebook being published?

Out of interest, do you know if there were other communications between the two after that communication?

And out of more interest......hve you seen the actual information that this summary is derived from? Or even the actual text which one must assume constitutes the whole communication of which this snippet is part (unless of course the two had begun communicating in fairly terse sentences!).

p

[Debra Arif]

Hello Debra Arif

Do you know exactly when that statement was made relative to th ebook being published?

Out of interest, do you know if there were other communications between the two after that communication?

And out of more interest......hve you seen the actual information that this summary is derived from? Or even the actual text which one must assume constitutes the whole communication of which this snippet is part (unless of course the two had begun communicating in fairly terse sentences!).

p

No. Do you know what Jari has said about 314.1c in his conversation with Robert Anderson at the conference?
Do you know for definite that he has denied any involvement in a mistake or not taken full responsibility for it in that conversation? Are you trying to make excuses for Dr Louhelainen without that knowledge?

[Lynn Cates]

face the music

Hello Debs. Thanks for posting that.

"For those who have it and have read it; the book does include passages that are verbatim summary reports of the science written by Jari Louhelainen:"

Precisely. A businessman could not dream up scientific jargon.

Time to stop shielding a "DNA expert" and let him face the music as you or I would have to do?

Cheers.
LC

[Lynn Cates]

excellent reply

Hello (again) Debs. Sic 'em! (That's my gal!--heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Debra Arif]

If Jari made a mistake so be it. I just want to know what that means in terms of the Eddowes DNA match now. 314.1c in its rarity was significant to that match according to the book, using both Jari's and Edwards' explanations. I want to know how that has statistically affected that match if it is a mistake, in the same way it was originally calculated. That's all.

[Debra Arif]

Hi Lynn. We crossed posts so that last post wasn't directed to you but I would reply in the same way. I'm not interested in endless arguing about who is right and who is wrong or who has the right to question who- as some seem obsessed with. I just want to know where things stand now.