Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2014 Ripper Conference In The U.K.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Maria Birbili View Post
    I think that with the "TLC" comment Tom was simply making a funny about Mr Poster, who keeps accusing everyone disagreeing with him of being "unable to read", while his own posts are chock-full of typos. :-)


    I personally think that a symbiosis* of academia and Ripperology would be a good thing, and would help Ripperology move further away from commercialism.


    (* How's that for academic speak?)
    How about kid gloves. Is that better? Perhaps it has something to do with a project to 'resurrect' Aaron Kosminski using the (possibly apocryphal) nuclear DNA that someone is in possession of? Not resurrect in the physical sense, mind you, but an image of what he'd look like based on his DNA.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
      Perhaps it has something to do with a project to 'resurrect' Aaron Kosminski using the (possibly apocryphal) nuclear DNA that someone is in possession of? Not resurrect in the physical sense, mind you, but an image of what he'd look like based on his DNA.
      Jurassic Park territory. :-O
      Best regards,
      Maria

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Maria Birbili View Post
        Jurassic Park territory. :-O
        Indeed. Paul is in talks with Jeff Goldblum as we speak.

        Yours truly,

        Tom Wescott

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
          Clearly I didn't read anything into that response since I asked the question before you made it. I asked the question because of years of observations I've made on the boards, just as you've made the observation over the years that I 'screw your words'. We'll have to agree to disagree on both counts.

          Yours truly,

          Tom Wescott
          Tom
          You stated that I especially wanted academics to take Ripperology seriously and you asksed why. In answer I said that I wanted Ripperology taken seriously period. That is not saying that I think academics are so important that they should be treated with tlc. The importance attached to academics and how I think they should be handled is purely your invention.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
            Look at this post from a month ago where I ask why Paul and others feel academia is so important. Paul replies. A couple posts later even Debs asks what Paul and Mr P are on about. So I don't imagine I'm the only one who's noticed.

            http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=406

            Yours truly,

            Tom Wescott
            Tom,

            Do you not want your own work to be taken seriously?

            Gary

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
              Tom,

              Do you not want your own work to be taken seriously?

              Gary
              You're suggesting it isn't?

              Yours truly,

              Tom Wescott

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Paul View Post
                Tom
                You stated that I especially wanted academics to take Ripperology seriously and you asksed why. In answer I said that I wanted Ripperology taken seriously period. That is not saying that I think academics are so important that they should be treated with tlc. The importance attached to academics and how I think they should be handled is purely your invention.
                If it's my invention then why am I not the only one who reads your posts and wonders 'Hmmm'?

                Yours truly,

                Tom Wescott

                Comment


                • I also have got the impression, over a few years, that Paul and others were attempting to encourage more academic input into the field. Mr P lately made a list of academic disciplines that might be useful for us. Lynn and Maria are getting exactly the same treatment we all get from certain quarters, I doubt anyone with any sense will want to become a part of all this. Most are bailing out.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by CGP View Post
                    There might be 13 variations from the reference sequence in the whole molecule, but far fewer than that would be expected for a small segment like that. So it's very difficult to guess what might have been meant by these "13 markers". Unless it's explained what was meant, I think it's fruitless to speculate.
                    More like just a coincidence of numbers do you mean, Chris? As in the mtDNA samples from the shawl and the descendant matched each other because they showed the exact same 13 differences from the CRS and it has nothing to do with the 13 markers recognised in law as being a match in nDNA?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                      More like just a coincidence of numbers do you mean, Chris? As in the mtDNA samples from the shawl and the descendant matched each other because they showed the exact same 13 differences from the CRS and it has nothing to do with the 13 markers recognised in law as being a match in nDNA?
                      It may be something a bit like that. But that relates to Kozminski, not Eddowes, so there would have to be an additional layer of confusion for that to be the explanation.

                      And according to the book, the Kozminski match, like the Eddowes match, was based on only a segment, not a complete sequence. The Russian T1a1 sequence came from some kind of match with a database (apparently the GenBank database). It's not explained in the book what data from the shawl went into that match.

                      We can speculate, but what it all comes down to is that Edwards and Louhelainen have presented no valid evidence that either of the matches is significant. If they want to convince anyone, the ball is in their court.

                      Comment


                      • Hmmm

                        I'll make some points.

                        1. Ripperology, as an -ology, has, outside of two websites (and perhaps within one of them) essentially no credibility as a discipline of any kind.

                        2. Its practitioners are, in the main, viewed as cranks by the public and press.

                        3. Attempts to revitalise the subject via concepts such as non-suspect Ripperology, "its more about the history" Ripperology and "respect the wimmin" Ripperology have failed.

                        4. Any time that experts outside the field have been unlucky enough to wander into it (Diary, Shawl etc) they have been treated dismally.

                        5. Debate within Ripperology consists of one or two reasonable voices being drowned out by the howls of the others due to a lack of any structured means of debate.

                        6. Ripperologists even turn on their own - witness the kerfuffle over the photograph Phillip Hutchinson unearthed as an example.

                        7. Ripperology doesnt have the skill base to make any further significant strides in the field.

                        8. The premier Ripper "website" has a reputation for lunacy largely due to the way debate is conducted and the inability of its owners to restrict what is going on.

                        Any of those problems above can be argued about in terms of magnitude but not in terms of whether they are actual or not.

                        By introducing "academic" and by that I mean dedicated practitioners of various disciplines that may be of use (humanities or not) who practice what they do within the structures and systems of their professions one might:

                        1. Give Ripperology or the study of teh Whitechapel murders some kind of formal credibility in the eys of historians and the public and so on.

                        2. Remove the crank title if possible.

                        3. Refocus ripperology back to the ripper by turning fresh eyes upon it instead of having to say "Oh we are more about the history now as we've run out of other ideas"

                        4.Provide a means of attracting rather than repelling people who may be able to assist from time to time (DNA experts and the like).

                        5. Provide the reasoned debate structure required to progress any field.

                        6. try and reduce the occurrence of ripperology eating its own as people defend their percieved pecking order in Ripperologys food chain by any means necessary

                        7. expand the skill base to one that includes the list I mentioned before and where work might be done on things other than the polish bobbies used on their whistles.

                        I dont see a need for strict peer review for everything written about the Ripper. Anything produced in technical matters should be peer reviewed but the humanities side of things has never been majorly reliant on strict peer review anyway.

                        A resistance to academia is in itself a sign of unhealth in the field - and dont make me explain as I think we already know the reasons.

                        p

                        Comment


                        • Hi Ho Maria

                          Comparing Louhelainen to Keith Skinner: Skinner conducts his research, gets paid, then backs off, leaves the author work independently. Thus he can reasonably claim not to be legally involved in the content of the book. Skinner did not appear on conferences and interviews along with Patricia Cornwell, plugging her books.
                          I dont know that Skinner "backs off". Its more likely that he gets paid and the type of research he does doesnt need expert explaining to readers.

                          So theres no reason for him to appear up front as the author who paid for the wrok is well able to explain the resultys.

                          Unlike Edwards who never had a hope of being able to credibly explain the work he had paid for so Louhelainen was still required after publication.

                          If he hadnt have been, I doubt we would have seen much of him as Edwards would have hogged the limelight.

                          So Skinner/Louhelainen as a comparison in teh context you devise is fairly weak if you ask me.

                          p

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                            Seriously? I'm not going to answer that.

                            No more or less relevant than all other posts on this thread of late. As for 'mixing it', your boy P has that down pretty well. I couldn't compete.

                            Yours truly,

                            Tom Wescott
                            Thats pretty lame, even from Wescott. First, Im a twit on my own terms and can stand on my own two twit feet thanks very much.

                            Second, (assuming I understand "mixing it"), Im not mixing anything.

                            I can see you are as utterly devoid of argument as your book was of intelligence and are therefore reduced to making comments of this calibre.

                            P

                            Comment


                            • What's your basis for saying that I'm not knowledgeable enough to say what I've said?



                              I suggest you figure out the difference between knowledge and information, the latter being the only thing you and I have in relation to the case at hand.

                              Unless youve been hiding away 10 or fifteen years of experience in teh field of genetics, you are, by definition virtually, devoid of knowledge on the matter.

                              As am I.

                              hence I am willing to wait for more information as Im unlikely to suddenly gain knowledge in teh field.

                              Unfortunately for me, the howler monkeys have closed off the doors for getting more information.

                              p

                              Comment


                              • Mr Poster

                                I understand that you may not feel knowledgeable enough to decide for yourself.

                                But what puzzled me was your desire to "get someone with knowledge of the field to analyse the information we have and come with an opinion".

                                What I'm asking is:
                                (1) Are you really in any doubt that the figure of 1 in 290,000 for "314.1C" is the only quantitative evidence that's presented in the book for the significance of the DNA matches?
                                (2) Are you really in any doubt that it's based on an error, and that the true figure is about 99%?

                                These matters are simple enough that people can check for themselves if they're sufficiently interested. Or if they're not scientifically minded and prefer to look to "authority", they can go by Sir Alec Jeffreys's opinion. But I find it odd if people won't do either of those, but still choose to imply the matter is in doubt.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X