There seems to be some dispute over whether or not this evidence should be accepted as 100% proof. From what I have read, the findings have not been peer reviewed or published in a reputable journal. They were sent directly to the press (the Mirror and Daily Mail at that), at about the same time a book was being released.
There is also the issue that the evidence was never handled properly over the past 126 years and was even in the possession of the victim's family for quite a while. It was also not logged in during the initial investigation, so the authenticity has come into question. From a scientific and legal point of view, cross-contamination could have happened quite easily.
Here is a good write up of some of the problems with the evidence. Granted, it is a blog but I think it brings up some valid points (particularly about mitochondrial DNA and the ability to use it to pinpoint individuals).
http://usvsth3m.com/post/96977532433...neithers-aaron
Also this:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news...ectid=11320921
Quote:
Calls for peer review
Some have cast doubt on Edwards' findings.
The research has not been published a a peer-reviewed scientific journal, meaning the claims cannot be independently verified or the methodology scrutinised.
Professor Alec Jeffreys, who invented the DNA fingerprinting technique 30 years ago this week, called for further verification.
"An interesting but remarkable claim that needs to be subjected to peer review, with detailed analysis of the provenance of the shawl and the nature of the claimed DNA match with the perpetrator's descendants and its power of discrimination; no actual evidence has yet been provided," Jeffreys told The Independent newspaper.
|
