Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2014 Ripper Conference In The U.K.

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

  • I disagree. It is a cop out for them, they were never going to tell us anything more than what they have, if the above reason wasn't trotted it another one would have been
    Perhaps Tracy perhaps....but we've been here before believe it or not.

    Its almost a carbon copy of the Diary debacle minus the leatherette elbow patches.

    p

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
      Im not interested or overly concerned with what Edwards says was said or quotes "verbatim" or anything else.
      Are you really suggesting that Dr Louhelainen may not have written the report of his work quoted by Edwards in the book?

      Comment


      • Are you really suggesting that thing you assert was his only means of identifying Eddowes doesnt feature any time he is actually discussing the matter?

        I cant find it.

        p

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tracy Ianson View Post
          I disagree. It is a cop out for them, they were never going to tell us anything more than what they have, if the above reason wasn't trotted it another one would have been.
          Actually, Tracy, take it from me, it isn't a cop out. I know it isn't. Believe me.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
            Are you really suggesting that thing you assert was his only means of identifying Eddowes doesnt feature any time he is actually discussing the matter?
            Please try to understand what I am saying.

            I am saying that the only quantitative evidence that has been presented in the book (or presented anywhere else, as far as I know) for the significance of either of the DNA matches was the figure of 1 in 290,000. Anyone who has read the book attentively will know that is true.

            True, it wasn't mentioned in his article for the Mail on Sunday and I haven't heard him mention it in his interviews. Given the concerns he has expressed about privacy, that may be understandable. It may even be part of the reason for his reluctance to acknowledge the error.

            But it is set out quite clearly in the report that is reproduced in the book. You are surely not suggesting that report was faked by someone else?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Paul View Post
              Actually, Tracy, take it from me, it isn't a cop out. I know it isn't. Believe me.
              I've seen several different reasons given by Dr Louhelainen at different times. I don't think any of us is in a position to know for sure what the real reason is.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by CGP View Post
                Please try to understand what I am saying.

                I am saying that the only quantitative evidence that has been presented in the book (or presented anywhere else, as far as I know) for the significance of either of the DNA matches was the figure of 1 in 290,000. Anyone who has read the book attentively will know that is true.

                True, it wasn't mentioned in his article for the Mail on Sunday and I haven't heard him mention it in his interviews. Given the concerns he has expressed about privacy, that may be understandable. It may even be part of the reason for his reluctance to acknowledge the error.

                But it is set out quite clearly in the report that is reproduced in the book. You are surely not suggesting that report was faked by someone else?
                You know Im a little surprised.

                People like yourself and debra purport to be serious researchers, devoted to getting at tthe truth or whatever and yet ye are incapable or, more likely, simply refuse to see a picture wider than your own narrow view.

                My position (again) is that one needs to see the broader context to approach the truth.


                1. Louhelainen spent something like 3 years working on this.

                2. Over three years there would be more than one communication/report with/to Edwards.

                3. You contend that the only means of identification of Eddowes is by the mutation.

                4. Mention of this comes in a book, not written by Louhelainen, by an author who seems to have a fairly cavalier attitude in relation to what he presents and concludes. There is no photocopy or facsimile of the report presented to my knowledge.

                5. This mutation - the "only" means of identifying Eddowes - is not mentioned once by Louhelainen in interviews with him. He manages to somehow avoid it entirely - even before it was a possible problem - and conduct entire discussions around his identification of Eddowes without falling back on it.

                6. The mention of the mutation in this verbatim quotation is done without mention of where that report featured in the overall communication between Edwrads and Lohhelainen. There is no mention as to whether that report or email was followed up by others. There is no mention of any addenda, corrections, later documents.

                7. No timeline has been presented as to what was reported and when, no access has been given to other reports or communications etc etc.

                Now until you have the bigger context, your endless discussion and persisiting in focussing obsessively on what is in Edwards book gets you nowhere except feeling good about yourself and scoring brownie points with acolytes.

                There is a clear divergence between the author of the book and the scientist - both in terms of what they feel could be reasonably concluded as to Kosminski and in terms of the weight they place on the mutation question.

                The cause for the divergence on the second point is where the answer to the problem lies. As it is obvious the scientist is not placing the same weight on the mutation as Edwards is and there is no evidence he did so even before it popped up as a problem.

                And possible causes may be found in...wait for it...the context around the work done, the reports written etc etc. The emails where it perhaps says "Bloody hell Russel, you should have waited with writing the book till you checked with me. I told you that stupid 314.1c thing was a mistake!"

                All the stuff you and Debra dont care about.

                As it is presumably easier to just keep bleating on about "verbatim reports" from Michaelmas daisy man.

                p

                Comment


                • Originally posted by CGP View Post
                  I've seen several different reasons given by Dr Louhelainen at different times. I don't think any of us is in a position to know for sure what the real reason is.
                  It may have been one thing or a mixture of things, but it is unquestionably the case that they did not appreciate comments made on message boards and social media, Chris. I know that first hand.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
                    Hello Debra



                    I find that hard to swallow.



                    I heard him do it on teh BBC interview. Its one of teh first things he is asked about.. He clearly states he is not as convinced as Edwards is.


                    Jari

                    I underlined the bit Im interested in.

                    He says he is convinced the DNA contributes to the guilt. Omitting circumstantial evidence (which is the bit that pins it on Kosminski presumably), then he still must believe he has identified Eddowes and Kosminski on the shawl (by DNA).

                    yet he singularly fails to mention this mutation which we are assured is the only thing he can have based Eddowes identification on.

                    In any interview he gave before this error was raised, the mutation should have been the thing he is talking about most.

                    Even using the word would have helped him in getting his message across as its relatively well known and easy to understand.

                    yet I struggle to find him discussing it in interviews.

                    Perhaps he did and I missed it. If so...fine.

                    I'll put my hands up and admit that he is now in an invidious position indeed.

                    Can you point me to where he is shown discussing it?

                    p
                    Mr Poster
                    Exactly as I said in my post and pointed out on the thread about the specific broadcast you are talking about where Jari distances himself from Edwards is in relation to Edwards 100% conclusion that the DNA tests have proven Kosminski was the ripper. This was well before the 314.1 error was highlighted.
                    If, as Jari claims, he can't talk about the DNA for ethical reasons then that would have been an issue right from the start and the reason he never mentions the specifics about 314.1c in any broadcasts. The majority of questions he faced in interviews were not even about the Eddowes match, non-ripperologists would be forgiven for assuming the shawl was known to have been at the crime scene the way it was all reported initially. They were all concerned about the ripper being named.

                    I don't contend the mutation is the only thing that constitutes the match. A mtDNA match is a match as I keep saying. The 'rare mutation' made it highly likely it was Eddowes blood. I want to know what excluding the rare mutation means statistically now. That is not an unreasonable request.

                    Comment


                    • If, as Jari claims, he can't talk about the DNA for ethical reasons then that would have been an issue right from the start and the reason he never mentions the specifics about 314.1c in any broadcasts.
                      Hi Debra

                      I dont believe that.

                      He makes clear he has identified Eddowes and Kosminski.

                      He states how he did that.

                      He has no ethical problem with that.

                      So what possible ethical conundrum could arise by mentioning 314.1c? Seeing as it doesnt seem to cause Alzheimers or anything?

                      If you could enlighten me Id be grateful.

                      or could the ethical problem be something else? Something related not to the ethical questiosn fo victims and suspects but an ethical problem in relation to him being aware and having told another person that he had made a mistake or something?

                      Does he ever describe the ethical problem in detail?

                      The majority of questions he faced in interviews were not even about the Eddowes match, non-ripperologists would be forgiven for assuming the shawl was known to have been at the crime scene the way it was all reported initially. They were all concerned about the ripper being named.
                      The BBC interview is much more detailed than that and spends a large amount of time on how the science was conducted. No mutation there unless I missed it.

                      And I may have. Im not infallible.

                      I don't contend the mutation is the only thing that constitutes the match. A mtDNA match is a match as I keep saying. The 'rare mutation' made it highly likely it was Eddowes blood. I want to know what excluding the rare mutation means statistically now. That is not an unreasonable request
                      I agree it isn't. Its not going to be fulfiled though. For all the reasons I have outlined.

                      The same reasons you keep accusing me of stating out of malevolence or something.

                      p

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
                        3. You contend that the only means of identification of Eddowes is by the mutation.
                        I have only just explained to you that I am not saying that.

                        What I am saying - for about the sixth time - is that "the only quantitative evidence that has been presented in the book (or presented anywhere else, as far as I know) for the significance of either of the DNA matches was the figure of 1 in 290,000."

                        I had hoped it was possible to have a serious discussion here. Evidently I was wrong. I'll withdraw now and leave you to it.

                        [PS Apologies to everyone else for feeding the troll during my visit!]
                        CGP
                        Former Member
                        Last edited by CGP; December 19, 2014, 08:37 AM. Reason: Appy Polly Loggies

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Paul View Post
                          Debs,
                          Two things, one is wanting Ripperology and Ripperologists to be taken seriously by the academic community. The other is believing academics to be so important to Ripper studies that they should be treated with kid gloves.

                          I freely admit to the former. I think it would be great if Ripperology was taken seriously by professional historians, archivists, and others with expertise in fields that interest us and who have access to and might bring to our attention documents and other materials. And I think it is important that when they do thinks like exhibitions and so forth that the sterling work people like you and Nail Bell and others have done gets fully and properly recognised.

                          I don't think they are so important to the field that thay are so important they need to be treated with kid gloves, which is what Tom claimed and what I object to.

                          My concern hers is that routes through to Dr L have been closed. If we want to open them, it won't be achieved by kneeing him the groin first. So, I advocate not calling what he does a pseudo-science or saying he's a laughing stock in the scientific community, or saying Sir Alec had described him as such.

                          But if that's what people want to do, I'll back off. It's actually no skin off my nose.
                          Hi Paul. I Do understand what you are saying.
                          Though I must admit to finding it slightly amusing too that the two people who would like to encourage academics to get involved but fear they are being put off by the way we behave towards each other are the ones most disturbed by resident academic, Lynn's attitude towards Jari.

                          Comment


                          • Im not really concerned about whats in the book....as you are painfully obviously unable to digest.

                            The fact remains ..... Louhelainen, when interviewed, is confident of his identification of Eddowes.

                            The only evidence you have for his identification not being as good as his confidence on TV warrants is a piece in a poorly written book, authored by someone who appears to bulldoze his way through everything/one with not much of a care and for which absolutely no context is offered in relation to the overall scientific work.

                            So, quite frankly, I place less value on your analysis of the situation and in the absence of more information from the man himself, will assume that he has identified Eddowes to a degree of certainty that allows him to state it on international TV ......and which I assuem is greater than 1:29000.

                            P

                            Comment


                            • Hi Debra

                              Lynn's attitude towards Jari.
                              His attitude to someone who as of yet hasnt been shown to have done anything wrong, is similar to Cog..dib..us' which consists of calling him a "charlatan".

                              Do you want me to weave a tapestry of Lynns choicer utterances for you?

                              I can if you want. But I think you know what it will be like.

                              resident academic
                              Youve got to be kidding me.

                              P

                              Comment


                              • Hmmm

                                I noticed this by Paul:

                                I don't think they are so important to the field that thay are so important they need to be treated with kid gloves,
                                Its arguable that they are absolutely intrinsic to the field.

                                lets assume the goal of the field is to identify the culprit.

                                I agree with Sugden (I think it was him) who reckoned that the only solution could be provided in some cache of documents or material which has yet to be uncovered.

                                If you read around, in the various polls conducted most respondents indicate they would only be satisfied by actual physical or documentary evidence.

                                And the veracity of such evidence can only be fully demonstrated by academics. Be they historians, chemists, analysts whatever.

                                Unless you think ripperland will be happy, should such evidence ever pop up, with earnest assurances from the finder that they are genuine.

                                And probably if/when they are needed... they will treat the request with the disdain that the treatment of them so far so richly deserves.

                                So kid gloves might not be a bad idea if only to ensure that you have access to them when you really need them.

                                p

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X