Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Forensic Sciences : The Eddowes Shawl

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

  • #16
    Interesting to og back and cough up some of the comments made about this poor man when he first got drawn into all this:

    It's up to them to produce evidence for their claims. At present, there's no evidence at all, and unfortunately there's every reason to doubt Louhelainen's competence in this field. (So we must be forgiven if we remain unconvinced by the buoyant tone of his tweets, for example.)

    Competent enough to publish in a reputable journal and after a peer review.

    "As it is, he has been shown to have been completely wrong, and we know that that sequence variation is found in more than 99% of the population. After more than a year, Edwards and Louhelainen have been unable even to assert that the matched DNA sequence is at all uncommon, let alone proving it." Well, that's an amateur for you.

    Cheers.
    LC


    An "anateur" who publishes in a reptuable journal and doesnt spend his time sniping from web fora I guess.

    But there is no excuse for the continued failure to publish, explain or prove - to anyone at all - their final conclusions.
    Their continued failure tells its own story.
    Except...it is now, as he said it would be , published.
    Dr. Louhelainen said he would not submit a paper to be reviewed unless somebody would fund him to write it.
    The writer of this one obviously seems to have eithe rmisheard or misquoted. As it is now published and as no statement of interest is made...teh Publishing was paid for by no one.

    No he's very clearly not explaining the results or conclusions to anyone.

    He's going around describing his methodology - how he extracted and enhanced the DNA and passing that off as if his findings are accepted.
    There is not the slightest hint - not the slightest - that he has ever described the results in any meaningful detail to anyone anywhere.
    Except he obviously explained it to the people who reviewed teh paper.

    Yes, of course there is evidence that hasn't been published. The point is that they haven't been able to come up with any evidence to support their claims, to replace the discredited "314.1C" stuff.
    Doesnt seem to matter much now does it?

    Jari has the perfect answer or answers to any probing questions - wait for my peer review paper - or it's confidential.
    Well now, Edward, it looks like your wait is over?

    In general...its nice to actually see something on this matter that has not been filtered through the Russel Edwards publicity machine.

    P

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Steve Blomer View Post
      If it's in a scientific journal, there will be peer reviews

      Steve
      Indeed. And you wont be seeing them. As in the traditional world of journal publishing they are between the editor, the author and the reviewer.

      So where you intend to see them is beyond me. No doubt some will take that as some kind of evidence of something or other.

      "Oh we havent seen the peer reviews so that must mean [insert various madcap notions here]".

      P

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Steve Blomer View Post
        Very well put Debs,


        We know the problems with the shawl, it's the science that needs to be reviewed and now it can be.


        Those are different issues.


        But both are important.


        I seriously doubt there is definitive evidence to link it.
        If only there were.




        Steve
        Hi Steve,
        There is no mention of the 'private mutation' that the book's author claimed was specific to the Eddowes' family MtDNA in this paper. An error of nomenclature would have occurred for both samples, the descendant and the shawl sample supposedly from Catherine Eddowes and so there was still a match at this location, an extra cytosine at 3.15.1C in relation to the rCRS. This would still be a match but it would not be the significant match described in the book.
        The science will stand up to scrutiny. It is the provenience of the shawl that is more important to the significance of the results.

        Comment


        • #19
          In the published paper, the population frequency given for the Eddowes descendant and supposed Catherine Eddowes shawl MtDNA match are significantly different to the frequency figure given in the original book.

          Comment


          • #20
            Well only one of them was written by man himself, only one of them is in a peer reviewed journal, only one of them doesnt have Russell Edwards in the background, only one of them has a academic co-author, only one of them doesnt have the stink of money/publicity following it and only one of them can be considered as authorative.

            In the same way that Rubenhold was accountable (or not) for her work on her chosen channel of communication (Tweeter), the author of this paper is accountable for his work on the accepted channel of communication (the Journal).

            One is of course free, as with Twitter, to communicate with the journal if one feels there is a problem. The Editor would be no doubt delighted to entertain any doubts or questions and communicate them to the reviewers who reviewed the original manuscript, then sent it back for changes, then reviewed it again and accepted it for publication.

            It wont be as fast as Tweeter but at least you wont get blocked!

            P

            Comment


            • #21
              The different figures could be explained by Jari Louhelainen accepting the error of nomenclature pointed out after the book was published and revising the figures accordingly for a match that did not include a 'private mutation', That would be my guess.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
                Well only one of them was written by man himself, only one of them is in a peer reviewed journal, only one of them doesnt have Russell Edwards in the background, only one of them has a academic co-author, only one of them doesnt have the stink of money/publicity following it and only one of them can be considered as authorative.

                In the same way that Rubenhold was accountable (or not) for her work on her chosen channel of communication (Tweeter), the author of this paper is accountable for his work on the accepted channel of communication (the Journal).

                One is of course free, as with Twitter, to communicate with the journal if one feels there is a problem. The Editor would be no doubt delighted to entertain any doubts or questions and communicate them to the reviewers who reviewed the original manuscript, then sent it back for changes, then reviewed it again and accepted it for publication.

                It wont be as fast as Tweeter but at least you wont get blocked!

                P

                Very well made points

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
                  Well only one of them was written by man himself
                  Yes. Jari Louhelainen has revised the population frequency figures in the final paper bringing the match down from an Eddowes family in 1888 London exclusive profile described in the book and apparently determined by a simple error in nomenclature, to a much wider population match, but a match all the same . He still has a match for MtDNA for both Eddowes and the suspect on the shawl and has calculated the probability of that happening on a crime scene artefact.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    From Chris Phillips ( Mar. 18, 2019 :
                    ************************************

                    Dr Louhelainen has evidently dropped his previous claim that mitochondrial DNA recovered from the shawl, and matched to a relation of Catherine Eddowes, contained an extremely rare mutation - occurring with a probability of only "approximately 1 in 290,000" (or 0.00034% of the population). (This had been identified as an error in the discussions five years ago, but has not - as far as I know - ever been acknowledged as an error or corrected by Dr Louhelainen.)

                    Instead, the claim is that there is a match to the mtDNA of Eddowes's relation which would occur in only 0.13% of the population. But the details of the sequence have been withheld on the grounds of privacy, so - if I understand correctly - the reviewers of the paper have not been able to check the accuracy of the new calculation.

                    Regarding the press reports of a claim of a match to the mitochondrial DNA of a relation of Aaron Kozminski, this is indeed claimed in the text of the paper. But in Figure 7, which displays the comparison graphically (without giving details of the sequence, again on the grounds of privacy), there are indicated to be two differences between the sequences. These two differences are apparently dismissed on the basis that the relevant parts of the sequence "could not be determined with high confidence." It is not indicated whether this was decided before or after it was known that they disagreed with the sequence of the chosen suspect (and it is not indicated whether the same lack of confidence applied to any of the parts of the sequence that matched). In this case, the claim is that the sequence found on the shawl would occur in only 1.9% of the population (again, the reviewers were apparently not able to check the accuracy of this calculation). But as Aaron Kozminski's DNA does not in fact match the sequence found on the shawl, the relevance of this statistic is not clear (again, I don't know whether the non-matching parts of the sequences were included or excluded in calculating that 1.9% figure).

                    A first reading of the paper raises many other questions and concerns. Just one example concerns the question of whether the shawl was screen-printed. The present publication says that it was screen-printed. In contrast, in Russell Edwards's book, he stated that Dr Louhelainen had concluded that "the shawl was definitely not screen printed, which was very encouraging news. Screen printing was introduced in 1910, and if it had been dyed in this way the game would have been over." That conclusion may or may not be a valid one, but unfortunately the contradiction seems typical of the claims made by Edwards and Louhelainen about the shawl.
                    To Join JTR Forums :
                    Contact [email protected]

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
                      From Chris Phillips ( Mar. 18, 2019 :
                      ************************************

                      Instead, the claim is that there is a match to the mtDNA of Eddowes's relation which would occur in only 0.13% of the population. But the details of the sequence have been withheld on the grounds of privacy, so - if I understand correctly - the reviewers of the paper have not been able to check the accuracy of the new calculation.
                      Thats a load of rubbish.

                      1. You dont know if anything was withheld from the reviewers. Consenting to review involves acceptance of an agreement as to confidentiality. No reviewer would or indeed could approve a paper for publication where relevant details were held back...for privacy or any other reason.

                      2. Its standard practice to submit supplementary data either on initial manuscript submission or on request from the editor or reviewer. This data may not ever make the final print article, or may be included on the publishers website as Supplementary Data.

                      Unless one actually knows that data was withheld for privacy or any other reason, then its a serious allegation to make.

                      If you know data was withheld, the editor should be informed so he/she can consult with the referrees as to why they recommended publication and a retraction can be arranged.

                      If you dont know data was withheld...and how could you....then you should perhaps stop gassing and casting aspertions.

                      Instead of moaning on the internet, contact the editor....contact names can be gotten on the Wiley website....and elaborate upon your concerns to them so that, in the event you actually have a point and arent just casting aspertions on the internet, the appropriate action can be taken.

                      Of course you arent going to do that because you havent a balls notion as to what was submitted, what was requested by the reviewers or on what basis they made thir decision or on what basis the editor made his or her ultimate decision.

                      P

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Bernard Beaule View Post



                        2. On page 9, they concluded that:
                        During the analysis of the shawl, the theory that the shawl was not in fact property of the victim but belonged to the murderer was strengthened by the fact that the blue indigo dye in the floral parts of the silk shawl was water soluble. Thus, this expensive silk shawl could not have been used as an everyday outer garment by the victim who reportedly had a very low income and was constantly struggling to afford accommodation.


                        If it wasn't an everyday outer garment, the kind Eddowes would have worn, to whom did it belong? Where did Simpson get? Am I wrong in understanding that it couldn't have belonged to Catherine Eddowes?

                        I believe the author is trying to say the shawl belonged to the killer and Kozminski left it there.

                        Why did the author not question the provenance instead?

                        Mike

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Michael Hawley View Post

                          Why did the author not question the provenance instead?

                          Mike
                          Why would he? The objectives of the study were clearly stated and didnt include provenance.

                          P

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            No, We Still Cannot Confirm the Identity of Jack the Ripper


                            https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ger-180971726/
                            To Join JTR Forums :
                            Contact [email protected]

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Archaeological Geneticists Call Jack The Ripper DNA Study 'Unpublishable Nonsense'

                              https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristin.../#1685c134b900
                              To Join JTR Forums :
                              Contact [email protected]

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                And yet...its published.

                                P

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X