Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Shawl Controversy

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Stephen Thomas View Post
    Wasn't Alice McKenzie wearing a Paisley Shawl?

    Where was Amos that night?
    Brilliant, Stephen! What an intriguing thought...
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen"
    (F. Nietzsche)

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
      Brilliant, Stephen! What an intriguing thought...
      I'm not as daft as I look, Gareth.

      Hopefully.......
      Itsnotrocketsurgery

      Comment


      • #63
        Ian

        Hello Stephen. Actually, it was NOT Alice, but Ian. (heh-heh)

        Cheers.
        LC

        Comment


        • #64
          Jari was just on BBC TV (Crimewatch) describing the eureka moment when he confirmed the identity of JTR .

          It was very much a cat who got the cream moment. So he's convinced himself at least.

          Comment


          • #65
            It was all very cheesy. I was cringing.

            Comment


            • #66
              It was very much a cat who got the cream moment.

              The cat sat on the match.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                So he's convinced himself at least.
                Of course, the fact that 314.1C and the rest have been silently excised from the paperback edition doesn't necessarily mean he realises he made a mistake.

                It has been indicated that no details of Karen Miller's mitochondrial DNA should have been made public in the first place, because they had promised to keep the details confidential. We might easily have been presented with the claim of a DNA match without any means of seeing that it rested on an error of nomenclature.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Rick Cobb View Post
                  I wouldnt get your hopes up for anything earth shattering. To me its been a polished turd since it came out.
                  We all love polished turds..

                  And `~Edwards book is a polished turned until he addresses the criticism layer at his door, about DNA averages, by Chris Philips (Yes he is an annoying *** isn't he?)

                  But while I find Russel Edwards a massive distraction from reality

                  He's still backing the only credible suspect

                  So don't we have to deal with that? Even if the shawl is a pile of crap?

                  Yours Jeff

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
                    But while I find Russel Edwards a massive distraction from reality He's still backing the only credible suspect
                    Because Macnaghten gave him a name-check? Don't forget that he also name-checked Druitt and Ostrog. Caveat emptor.
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen"
                    (F. Nietzsche)

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                      Jari was just on BBC TV (Crimewatch) describing the eureka moment when he confirmed the identity of JTR .

                      It was very much a cat who got the cream moment. So he's convinced himself at least.
                      I've posted Jari's mercifully brief Crimewatch appearance on Rippercast's Facebook group for those who want to see him. It's a public group, so you don't have to join to watch.

                      (Not that we wouldn't welcome you...)

                      https://www.facebook.com/groups/1467146456857041/



                      JM

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Thanks very much, Jon !

                        Jon's group covers cases which will be of interest to one and all....give it the once over.
                        To Join JTR Forums :
                        Contact [email protected]

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by CGP View Post
                          Of course, the fact that 314.1C and the rest have been silently excised from the paperback edition doesn't necessarily mean he realises he made a mistake.

                          It has been indicated that no details of Karen Miller's mitochondrial DNA should have been made public in the first place, because they had promised to keep the details confidential. We might easily have been presented with the claim of a DNA match without any means of seeing that it rested on an error of nomenclature.
                          Whatever the reasons for the deletion, failing to face up to the 314.1C criticism, which was internationally reeported, is an unforgiveable cop out, and even more so is editing a direct quote and replacing it with completely new material which may or may not have been in the original.

                          However, their emphasis is now on the 100% Kosminski match.

                          It is claimed that having Kosminski's and Eddowes' DNA on the same piece of material is decisive, which I don't think is altogether a claim without merit - if Eddowes' DNA is there. I am not sure what the evidence for that now is.

                          As I've said before, the whole DNA stuff flies over my head, but isn't it the case that 314.1C is that Dr. L. made a mistake about the rarity of the DNA, but doesn't rule out the chance that he did find DNA that could be a match with Eddowes (albeit along with half the population or whatever). If the Kosminski DNA is a 100% match, then what they seem to be saying is that they found the DNA of Kosminski and the DNA that possibly/probably/might be a match with Eddowes.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Paul View Post
                            It is claimed that having Kosminski's and Eddowes' DNA on the same piece of material is decisive, which I don't think is altogether a claim without merit - if Eddowes' DNA is there. I am not sure what the evidence for that now is.

                            As I've said before, the whole DNA stuff flies over my head, but isn't it the case that 314.1C is that Dr. L. made a mistake about the rarity of the DNA, but doesn't rule out the chance that he did find DNA that could be a match with Eddowes (albeit along with half the population or whatever). If the Kosminski DNA is a 100% match, then what they seem to be saying is that they found the DNA of Kosminski and the DNA that possibly/probably/might be a match with Eddowes.
                            No - as far as we can tell the basis of both "matches" is the same. They are both "100% matches", but only of small segments of DNA. Since "314.1C" is really 315.1C, which is found in more than 99% of the population, we have no evidence that either match is significant.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by CGP View Post
                              No - as far as we can tell the basis of both "matches" is the same. They are both "100% matches", but only of small segments of DNA. Since "314.1C" is really 315.1C, which is found in more than 99% of the population, we have no evidence that either match is significant.
                              Another issue, which I dont know if it has been covered before is how many other un-identified DNA profiles were also extracted from the shawl?

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by CGP View Post
                                No - as far as we can tell the basis of both "matches" is the same. They are both "100% matches", but only of small segments of DNA. Since "314.1C" is really 315.1C, which is found in more than 99% of the population, we have no evidence that either match is significant.
                                They certainly made a big thing out of the rarity of the mutation, Russell Edwards explaining it in some detail on pages 203-4 of the hardback. What they found wasn't rare, but they seem to have argued that the accumulated evidence made the identification significant. In the paperback Russell Edwards writes, 'When all sequencing of the mtDNA was finished, we had enough information to put together the mtDNA equivalent of genomic DNA profiling...this data indicated that the shawl contained human DNA identical to karen miller's mtDNA profile.'

                                Is that their answer to the 314.1C error?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X