Jack The Ripper Unmasked?

by metatron 29 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Viviane

  This thread has absolutely nothing to do with my beliefs.

  It did until you got questions you didn't like.

  Then he goes on to describe how they were successful in utilizing mitochondrial DNA in their identification. Quite impressive, if you ask me.

  Yes, it is impressive, the amount of leaps of logic, perfect coincidences and ability to see what no one else could, all in a shawl that has absolutely nothing except a myth to back up it's history.

  Also, mDNA alone could NEVER point to the man they claim.

  This is why it goes right and directly to your beliefs. This is so lacking in evidence as to be equivalient to someone claiming to sell you the brooklyn bridge and thinking "Huh... seems legit."
• 

  Vidqun

  The work on the DNA proved the provenance of the shawl. Or do you think it is a coincidence that the blood of the last victim and DNA of Kosminski are found on the same garment?
• 

  Vidqun

  And do you really think that Drs. David Miller and Jari Louhelainen will put their professional reputations at risk so that Mr. Edwards can sell his book? Really!
• 

  Mikado

  very interesting but a lot of holes in the story...

  what's the likelihood the shawl is genuine? how much genuine provenence of it?

  and has never been washed?

  Patricia Cornwall is an excellent reason not to get too excited, her book had more holes than story.

  this is selling anither book.

  ARE the scientists either genuinely scientists, what's their credibility?
• 

  Viviane

  The work on the DNA proved the provenance of the shawl. Or do you think it is a coincidence that the blood of the last victim and DNA of Kosminski are found on the same garment?

  I think they claimed that. mDNA can't tell the whole story and that's all they mentioned. I question, because they didn't say, what the quality of the samples were. They have no way of knowing the history of the shawl. They don't mentioned how or when or who they collected "family" samples were. What do they mean by "identical match"? In the world of DNA, unless you have two perfect samples from the same person, there is no such thing as an "identical" match, so what exactly do they mean? Identical mDNA ONLY means that at some point in the past two people shared a common ancestor (see Mitchochondrial Eve, the common ancestor of every living human). Too many unanswered questions.

  Right now it's unclear what they mean, what's coincidence, what's good work, etc..

  And do you really think that Drs. David Miller and Jari Louhelainen will put their professional reputations at risk so that Mr. Edwards can sell his book? Really!

  People do it all the time. Google scholar shows no public works, no major citations, nothing notable in his career at all. His work isn't peer reviwed and he hasn't disclosed any details regarding his samples, his methodology or anything. Other than this, he really has no reputation.

  But, as trusting as you are, I have some oceanfront property in Iowa to sell you. It's got water and sand, totes legit. You interested?
• 

  Viviane

  Why does skepticism and critical thinking make people so grumpy? When did gullibility become a virtue?
• 

  Vidqun

  Don't you worry, if there's holes in their story, they will be shot down by their peers, people that are eminently qualified for the job. Oh yes, let's not be gullible, but let's not be paranoid either.
• 

  JWdaughter

  Vivianne, I read the article and while the shawl provenance is unproven, they did mention how it was extracted and that mitochondrial dNA from descendants of both parties was used to compare.

  It's a long time later-proving it is kind of a intellectual game in any case, but they actually did make a fairly good surface case for it. I don't remember why they settled on checking the dna descendant of the alleged Ripper. It will be interesting to see if it has any further substantiation. Maybe it is like one of the fake mermaids that keep popping up, maybe it is like Troy. You never know.

  I have read Cornwells work on Sickert and while it was compelling, I was not convinced of it. There wasn't enough circumstantial evidence for me. DNA evidence, if proven with some degree of credibility, would be pretty compelling. At this point, it is interesting but not yet enough for ME to say 'case closed' and you know, my opinion matters to so many people:)
• 

  Viviane

  Don't you worry, if there's holes in their story, they will be shot down by their peers, people that are eminently qualified for the job. Oh yes, let's not be gullible, but let's not be paranoid either.

  Why in the world do you think I would be worried? What an odd and silly thing to say. I'm not even sure where the concept of paranoia would enter the conversation. It's as if you're just throwing anything against the wall to see if anything sticks that might either prop up your support of the story or undermine my evidence based position. The down side in that you need to use words and concepts relevant and appropriate to the conversation.

  Paranoia...at least you used a concept so ridiculous it made me laugh.
• 

  Viviane

  they did mention how it was extracted and that mitochondrial dNA from descendants of both parties was used to compare.

  They did. mDNA alone could never point to a male ancestor, though. And they told us nothing about the quality of the samples. Giant holes in the story.

  It's a long time later-proving it is kind of a intellectual game in any case, but they actually did make a fairly good surface case for it.

  What, specifically, did you find compelling?