Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Forensic Sciences : The Eddowes Shawl

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

  • Mr. Poster
    replied
    Pity these experts confine themselves to the tv and press.

    Last i checked...no withdrawal, no retraction, no erratum, no amendment, no comments.

    The silence is deafening.

    P

    Leave a comment:


  • Cris Malone
    replied
    The phantom of the opera with Big Ben in the background says it all. Just as plausible as that table runner being at Mitre Square.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    https://www.halifaxtoday.ca/local-ne...report-1333044

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Poster
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul View Post
    I'm pleased or depressed to admit that personally I haven't the remotest idea of the science involved here and were I to write to the editor I could comment only on the history, which is not within Jari L's remit so isn't discussed. As for people like Turi And Adam Rutherford, I have no idea whether they have written to the editor. Maybe they have. They are at liberty to comment on Twitter - the president of the United States does. Not that that's a recommendation or anything.
    I appreciate your position Paul. There some here though who are expert enough in the field apparently to call the man an "amateur" and "incompetent" and other things beside, in public, so I would expect they would have no issue in contacting the journal to show the problems in the technical aspects of the work, and demonstrate that they are publishing the work of an "incompetent".

    Given most journals are protective of their reputations, I am sure they would be most glad to be informed as to why they shouldnt have published this work.

    So I really hope that these technical experts will do the right thing and pen a missive to the journal concerned.

    It will take less time and achieve more than calling a man "incompetent" on the internet.

    P

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
    They do. Some Tech Magazine website type thing will get one and once one newsmedia site gets wind, the same text is on hundreds of websites.

    But as of yet there has been no comment from the author I have seen. Which means he has either not be contacted or chose not to talk to them (understandable if you go back and see the types of comments being made on Ripper sites a couple of years ago).

    Therefore, he has no obligation to engage anybody on twitter, the web, instaface, myface or any other anti-socialmedia internet type thing.

    So if one wants a comment from him as to the criticisms being levelled at him, here is the address you could contact:

    Managing Editor
    Journal of Forensic Sciences
    6700 Woodlands Parkway, Suite 230-308
    The Woodlands, TX 77381, United States.

    You could also write a formal letter pointing out your objections to the published work. They even have a mechanism for that:

    Letter – usually a discussion on a manuscript previously published in JFS, or an issue of interest to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS). Publication of a letter is at the sole discretion of the EIC. Letters commenting on previously published items are shared with the original authors to afford them an opportunity to respond to the commentary.

    Letters concerning a previously published item should be entitled “Commentary on: Full title of published manuscript. J Forensic Sci citation.” The citation should follow the ICMJE Recommendations style. Letters concerning other matters should begin with a brief descriptive title. The salutation “Sir or Madam:” should follow the title and precede the body of the letter.

    And there you have the perfect conduit for raising ones well grounded and considerations of the paper.

    You cannot be blocked, twit-shunned or defriended! No need for mentions of vibrators or getting engaged in nasty 40-letter spats with unhinged fanboys/girls/non-aligned genders.

    One wonders slightly why people are so reluctant to raise their concerns along proper channels and instead prefer to just sit on the internet and rage about not getting answers.

    P
    I'm pleased or depressed to admit that personally I haven't the remotest idea of the science involved here and were I to write to the editor I could comment only on the history, which is not within Jari L's remit so isn't discussed. As for people like Turi And Adam Rutherford, I have no idea whether they have written to the editor. Maybe they have. They are at liberty to comment on Twitter - the president of the United States does. Not that that's a recommendation or anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Poster
    replied
    They do. Some Tech Magazine website type thing will get one and once one newsmedia site gets wind, the same text is on hundreds of websites.

    But as of yet there has been no comment from the author I have seen. Which means he has either not be contacted or chose not to talk to them (understandable if you go back and see the types of comments being made on Ripper sites a couple of years ago).

    Therefore, he has no obligation to engage anybody on twitter, the web, instaface, myface or any other anti-socialmedia internet type thing.

    So if one wants a comment from him as to the criticisms being levelled at him, here is the address you could contact:

    Managing Editor
    Journal of Forensic Sciences
    6700 Woodlands Parkway, Suite 230-308
    The Woodlands, TX 77381, United States.

    You could also write a formal letter pointing out your objections to the published work. They even have a mechanism for that:

    Letter – usually a discussion on a manuscript previously published in JFS, or an issue of interest to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS). Publication of a letter is at the sole discretion of the EIC. Letters commenting on previously published items are shared with the original authors to afford them an opportunity to respond to the commentary.

    Letters concerning a previously published item should be entitled “Commentary on: Full title of published manuscript. J Forensic Sci citation.” The citation should follow the ICMJE Recommendations style. Letters concerning other matters should begin with a brief descriptive title. The salutation “Sir or Madam:” should follow the title and precede the body of the letter.

    And there you have the perfect conduit for raising ones well grounded and considerations of the paper.

    You cannot be blocked, twit-shunned or defriended! No need for mentions of vibrators or getting engaged in nasty 40-letter spats with unhinged fanboys/girls/non-aligned genders.

    One wonders slightly why people are so reluctant to raise their concerns along proper channels and instead prefer to just sit on the internet and rage about not getting answers.

    P

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
    Who was responsible for this media blitz?

    If it was not the authors...then the imposition of a responsibility on them to respond to questions on any other system of communication than the one they chose to communicate their results....is ridiculous.

    I have seen no evidence that the authors approached teh press, there are no interviews with them yet in teh press, one of them is not even saying much on Twitter.

    So if they didnt approach the press, announce anything on Twitter, make any public statement on any fora, perform any Rubenhold-esque unveilings... but confined themselves to an academic channel...what right has anyone to demand they answer on anything but the academic channel they appropriately chose?

    So unless someone has evidence to teh contrary ...there is no indication the Authors did anything other than publish their paper.

    The media blitz could easily have arisen from one media outlet including "Ripper" in its Google search updates and it went from there.

    That imposes no moral obligation on the authors to respond to anything that is not communicated to them along teh appropriate channels.

    If people have questions as to that paper.....its a simple matter to communicate them to that journal. Its not even proper to communicate them to the Author. The journal stands for what it publishes and the quality of it.

    If people are so sure there is a problem ... why not just drop Dr. Peat an email at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and ask him why he feels he though this was fit to publish?

    It wont cost you anything!

    P
    Don't lots of papers in peer-reviewed journals get picked up by main media channels and their authors get asked to comment?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Poster
    replied
    Who was responsible for this media blitz?

    If it was not the authors...then the imposition of a responsibility on them to respond to questions on any other system of communication than the one they chose to communicate their results....is ridiculous.

    I have seen no evidence that the authors approached teh press, there are no interviews with them yet in teh press, one of them is not even saying much on Twitter.

    So if they didnt approach the press, announce anything on Twitter, make any public statement on any fora, perform any Rubenhold-esque unveilings... but confined themselves to an academic channel...what right has anyone to demand they answer on anything but the academic channel they appropriately chose?

    So unless someone has evidence to teh contrary ...there is no indication the Authors did anything other than publish their paper.

    The media blitz could easily have arisen from one media outlet including "Ripper" in its Google search updates and it went from there.

    That imposes no moral obligation on the authors to respond to anything that is not communicated to them along teh appropriate channels.

    If people have questions as to that paper.....its a simple matter to communicate them to that journal. Its not even proper to communicate them to the Author. The journal stands for what it publishes and the quality of it.

    If people are so sure there is a problem ... why not just drop Dr. Peat an email at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and ask him why he feels he though this was fit to publish?

    It wont cost you anything!

    P

    Leave a comment:


  • Cris Malone
    replied
    If all of this had stayed in the theater of 'proper journals' as the example you presented indicated, then that would be the natural procedure, but in this instance there was a media blitz ( just saw it on the morning news). To counter, what one called a "gullible media" social media is the most effective way to express concerns on what is being peddled as conclusive evidence.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Poster
    replied
    Insteadof "taking to twitter " or "Writing on twitter" as these guts and gals do, why not do the right thing and get your arses to your desks and write down your concerns and send them off to M.A. Peat, Ph.D.

    Which is the proper thing to do. As opposed to "taking to twitter".

    Its quite bizarre! Since when did "taking to twitter" consitute a responsible thing to do?

    Heres a nice example of a well written recent rebuttal:
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2019.01.007

    He takes his concerns, elaborates upon them, backs them up and writes it all down.

    He then sends it in and the authors whos work he objects to, have the right to their own rebuttal.

    Which they then do:

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2019.02.016

    He didnt "take to twitter "or some other channel of crap. He did the right thing.

    But some people are just a bit media horny as they say in Norway.

    P

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Poster
    replied
    And yet...its published.

    P

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Archaeological Geneticists Call Jack The Ripper DNA Study 'Unpublishable Nonsense'

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristin.../#1685c134b900

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    No, We Still Cannot Confirm the Identity of Jack the Ripper


    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ger-180971726/

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Poster
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Hawley
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X