The Goodwins

[Mike Poirier]

Hi Cliff
Thanks for that. Sounds like great info you have. Hope you got the digitals of the claims I sent for your article...

Well Tim, when you get your degree in science and the art of DNA, let us know. Can't wait to see your thesis when you are ready.

 

[Darren Honeycutt]

There are 9 Goodwins listed in the white pages for Niagara Falls. I wonder if Frank has any living children or grandchildren still in that area.

 

[Cliff Mark Barry]

Hi Mike,

got the scans - many thanks, may not just be a second wife but possible child as well

speak soon

Cliff

 

[Timothy Trower]

A thesis and a degree sure didn't help Alan Ruffman.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>A thesis and a degree sure didn't help Alan Ruffman.<<

Perhaps not but further work helped sort things out and that's the beauty of real science. It has the methodological mechinisms in place to correct mistakes, and these people did it in public for all to see.

 

[Timothy Trower]

Did it in public? Whoa. What they did in public was to make sausage.

What went wrong here? Assumptions were made about teeth and shoes, and child victims were ruled out based on these assumptions. Not because of the DNA testing -- testing that was not completed, I might add, but DNA testing that wasn't completed in violation of proper protocol.

I do look forward to the promised article, but fear that we will learn little that we do not already know ... and that little bit of information could have saved a lot of heartache for the Panula family, and a lot of embarrassment for Ruffman and company as well as their supporters.

 

[Mike Poirier]

Well, until you learn more about the methods and the whole story of what happened, ie not 'pervasive rumors', I think that you might want to save your finger wagging. I am sorry that I did a bit of that myself at Ruffman, until I read the whole story.

Science has never been exact. All the families that participated wanted to participate. As I said in my earlier message, those techniques had not been fully developed. Quite frankly, don't you think it would have been easier for Ruffman and Parr never to have started the final test which was more developed after the initial tests? Who would have questioned it? They did the right thing. They admitted their error, the came up with a new plan, and they did what people expected of them... Too bad that doesn't apply to some people today that have decisions to make.

A tragedy like Titanic, always leaves heartache, even in this case where it is several generations removed. It is unfortunate for the Panula family, but I am sure that although disappointed, it is better to have the correct answer which also means they know that the final resting place is the ocean. There are no more doubts.

 

[Paul Lee]

I don't recall any other "mistakes" ever being made in DNA technology. Just think Ruffman might have given hope to some people on death row, included genuine murders, convicted by DNA analysis who now think they can get away with it.

At least Eino Panula's name wasn't inscribed on the "Unknown Child's" tombstone. Someone would be out there now sandblasting it away.

 

[Mike Poirier]

Hi Paul
Of course there are DNA mistakes. Take a look at the below article. If one were to search google, there are plenty of articles. I think also there is a difference between mistake and evolving technology.

seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/183007_crimelab22.html

 

[Paul Lee]

But the mistakes in those cases were due to contamination, something that doesn't apply in this case. DNA technology itself is fairly mature: its the handling of the evidence thats at fault.

The DNA testing was botched in this case because, I feel, of the hurry to get the results into a TV documentary. I wonder if that will ever be repeated?

 

[Mike Poirier]

The are always mistakes in any field. As I said, it doesn't take long to google search dna errors, mistakes, etc... What I gave you was just one example to show you what can be found online. Things like that can happen for a myriad of reasons, but my point is that they still happen and no science is completely accurate. Look at botched paternity tests. Well, 'you feel' is just an opinion. Are you 100% sure that is the reason? You could always email Ruffman and Parr.

 

[Paul Lee]

>You could always email Ruffman and Parr.

I did a few weeks ago, thank you.

Look, this is bad science, and I should know, speaking as a scientist! Going public and then recanting ruins reputations. Look at the mess over N-Rays, polywater, cold fusion etc.

 

[Mike Poirier]

That is good to hear that you took the initiative. Am disappointed they did not reply as of yet, but hopefully soon or they will possibly keep you abreast of their article.

You say, 'recanting', I say showing progress. As scientist, you must know that it is all trial and error. Nothing is 100%. As with medicine, there are warnings and no guarantees. It helps and provides answers for some, yet not others. Do you really think DNA research is at its pinnacle and no other things can be added to help it evolve? Science is always evolving and hopefully for the better.

As I said earlier, they could have left it alone and no one would have been the wiser, but they did the honest thing.

 

[Paul Lee]

Well, when I see public relations taking precedence over science, I detect something fishy.

No, DNA is not at its pinnacle, but in 2002 it was good enough to prevent this kind of thing from happening. The problem is that Ruffman et al decided to put too much credence in tooth analysis, and not enough in DNA. The resultant DNA signature should have been good enough to show that the Panula family was never a viable option for a match candidate. Actually, this comes down to another point I should make. Tooth analysis is subjective, dependant on expert opinions. And we know now it was just simply wrong. DNA results are more "pure". No opinions, just numbers, from which you can do the statistical analysis. Why was "opinion" allowed to take precedence over much more trustworthy data? Well, only the scientists in this case know, but I suspect that with a TV camera over your shoulder and wanting results, that has to be a deciding factor. And yes, I have emailed the TV company to ask them about the situation and never received a reply.

As for Alan Ruffman, he told me of the article in Voyage 60, and also pointed out that he was preparing a paper for a peer reviewed journal, and that he wasn't going to say anything more on the subject. At least till then.

 

[Mike Poirier]

Possibly, but as of yet we do not know the exact circumstances. Will Ruffman and Parr blame the media? We wont know until they say so. I thought you hadnt heard from Ruffman.. So you did get some sort of reply then?

There are still mistakes in DNA even in something like paternity, and that is within the current generation. Not several generations removed. Of course, there was room for error in this case.

As I said, if they were really looking for a photo op or media op, they would not have continued the last set of tests, would they?! They could have just have easily let it slide and no one would have ever thought otherwise... That says something.