snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Crime

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 08 September 2014, 05:04 PM
Ali Infree's Avatar
Ali Infree Ali Infree is offline
 
Join Date: 02 February 2007
Location: Wheeling, WV
Posts: 2,581
Default

As soon as Judge Crater returns from his sabbatical and issues an arrest warrant.



Ali
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 08 September 2014, 07:04 PM
Seaboe Muffinchucker's Avatar
Seaboe Muffinchucker Seaboe Muffinchucker is offline
 
Join Date: 30 June 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 18,841
Glasses



Two thumbs up, Ali.

Seaboe
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 21 October 2014, 06:51 PM
Koshka Koshka is offline
 
Join Date: 28 July 2014
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 23
Default

An article in The Independent is challenging the Kosminski=JTR identification.

The book publishers are still saying the science is valid, but what else would they say?
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 21 October 2014, 07:12 PM
Seaboe Muffinchucker's Avatar
Seaboe Muffinchucker Seaboe Muffinchucker is offline
 
Join Date: 30 June 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 18,841
Glasses

The science can be valid, but the original data may be off. Garbage in = garbage out, no matter how valid the process is.

Humans appear to be wired in such a way that "we don't know and we'll never know" is not an acceptable answer.

Seaboe
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 21 October 2014, 07:22 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,233
Default

This criticism is much more about the science not being valid than about a problem with the data. The scientist misidentified a gene sequence, claiming it didn't match the known mitochondrial DNA database, and therefore had a frequency of no more than 1/290,000.

It turns out to be not a unique sequence, but rather a very common one, and due to the size of the database, even if it had been unique, it couldn't have been characterized as more rare than 1/29,000.

It was bad science, not bad data.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 21 October 2014, 07:31 PM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 26,339
Default

The objection as stated in that article doesn't quite make sense either:

Quote:
"One of these amplified mtDNA segments had a sequence variation which gave a match between one of the shawl samples and Karen Miller's DNA only; ie the DNA sequence retrieved from the shawl did not match with control reference sequences," Dr Louhelainen writes.

"This DNA alteration is known as global private mutation (314.1C) and it is not very common in worldwide population, as it has frequency estimate of 0.000003506, i.e. approximately 1/290,000. ..." he says.

But experts with detailed knowledge of the GMI's mtDNA database claimed that Dr Louhelainen made an "error of nomenclature" because the mutation in question should be written as "315.1C" and not "314.1C". Had Dr Louhelainen done this, and followed standard forensic practice, he would have discovered the mutation was not rare at all but shared by more than 99 per cent of people of European descent.

"If the match frequency really is 90 per cent plus, and not 1/290,000, then obviously there is no significance whatsoever in the match between the shawl and Eddowes' descendant, and the same match would have been seen with almost anyone who had handled the shawl over the years," Professor Jeffreys said.
So if it's the case that he looked at match frequency for the wrong variant of the gene, rather than making some sort of typo, and the actual variant is shared by over 99% of the population, then why did the gene not match any of the control samples? (Note, samples plural). Did they manage to choose multiple control samples which all happened to have a mutation of this gene that's shared by less than 1% of the population?

If the author, or the guy who did the testing, is meant to have somehow read the wrong row of the table for "global private mutation", isn't it just as possible that they read the right row for the frequency and number but the wrong row for the name, rather than the wrong row for frequency and number but the right row for the name? That would make more sense together with the other statements they've made.

Hard to say without more detailed data and information, of course.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 22 October 2014, 01:59 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,657
Default

Yet I think that kind of discrepancy should cast serious doubt on the conclusion until it can be replicated independently. I wouldn't trust the people who made the original conclusion to give a reliable answer on what happened - not to disparage them but I think it's just human nature to see the mistake as merely a transcription error (no pun intended - he he) after they've invested time and publicity in a specific outcome.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 22 October 2014, 07:56 AM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 26,339
Default

Yes, I agree - the ball is still back in the court of the people doing the study to either give enough information to explain the discrepancy, or let somebody else do independent tests, or both. Otherwise their conclusions can't be trusted.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.