General Chat

Just as a quick footnote to this thread.

From now until the end of January 2015, they are having an exhibition in the British Library, in Euston Road, London, about the macabre.

Included in the exhibits will be a letter sent to Scotland Yard from The Ripper.

A leading scientist has said in the article in the Evening Standard, that the true identity of The Ripper may never be established. And the shawl cannot be used as evidence, as it has probably been contaminated so badly, that no true DNA can be established.

I've read that the shawl may not have belonged to her at all, it was good quality and would have been expensive and she lived in poverty and pawned the few clothes she had on a regular basis.

The article I read opined that the shawl was taken by Kosminski as a "trophy" following a rape of another woman and that it was he who laid it over the corpse of the Ripper's victim when he stumbled across the body.

That seems as good a theory to me.

The perpetrators of awful crimes are long remembered but few can name with certainty any of the victims.

The butler did it!!! ;-)

"The maternal inheritance of mtDNA allows scientists to compare the mtDNA profile from the evidence (hairs, bones, etc.) to that of reference samples from the individual; the individuals mother, brother(s), sister(s); or any other maternally related family member. These samples should have the same mtDNA profiles because all maternal relatives inherit the same mtDNA.

Since mtDNA is maternally inherited and multiple individuals can have the same mtDNA type, unique identifications are not possible using mtDNA analyses"

I am having a hard time following all these alternate theories ...

it wasn't blood from the killer (or at least from some man) that was on the shawl, it was semen

the only blood that was on the shawl was blood from the victim (in that it matched the victim's greatx3 granddaughter)

and I am still at a loss to understand how, no matter how many people handled or sneezed or bled on the shawl, it would result in
m-DNA (in semen) that matches Kosminski
and
m-DNA (in blood) that matches victim
being on the shawl

:-S

all of that being, of course, if the tests done were reliable

I did not say cow blood. If the suspected murderer was a butcher, there is nothing to say he could not have cut his hand. Cutting a vein makes a spurt.

Health and Safety was not as vigorous in those days.

As reported in the papers, the shawl has been to many Ripper Conventions, and has been handled by many people. Maybe even a descendant of the Ripper victim.

As I said, I do not want to know who the Ripper was. I was merely saying although the tests were vigorous, I would need more convincing.

MotownGal ... cow blood doesn't have human mitochondrial DNA in it ... let alone m-DNA that matches a victim of the Ripper :-D

I just have to keep asking ... if we assume that the tests are reliable (and of course that is a big if because no work has been done to replicate them etc) ... what explanation is there for
the m-DNA (in blood) that matches a descendant of the victim
and
the m-DNA (in semen) that matches a descendant of the suspect's sister
being in the same place?

I have a fascination with the Ripper stories. I have read plenty of books on the subject.

All the authors have a different suspect in mind, and their books respectively lay out the case for their theory.

Leather Apron was a butcher in the area if I recall. He was a Polish Jew called John Pizer. But a lot of theories abound about Leather Apron, and his part in the murders. These theories are nothing new.

I was very interested to read over the weekend about the new DNA testing of a shawl.

However, in no book I have read does there ever mention a shawl in the effects that were collected at the site of the murders.

I am also very sceptical as to the testing. I understand that the most vigorous laboratory tests were undertaken. But there is nothing to suggest that the shawl was at the scene.

This shawl has done the rounds at Ripper Conventions, and maybe the original owner wore it to go to the butchers, and was splashed with blood when the meat was being butchered.

I dont think I really want to know the true identity of the Ripper, the intrigue about guessing who it was adds to the notoriety of the murders. It has been so for well over 100 years, and we are still as wise as they were then.

I also saw the documentary with Patricia Cornwall, and was not impressed at all. It seemed as if she had decided who the murderer was, and built a case around it.

It doesn`t seem to say, but I wonder, were ALL other suspects eliminated from these tests?
It seems to appear from what I have been reading that Aaron Kosminski was the target from the onset. (as if the stage were set.).
A very interesting and intriguing story, would like to see a verification for the findings from an independent unbiased source though.

btw.. Will the Russell Edwards ("Best seller" ?) book be found in the fiction or non fiction section of a Library? (joking) ;-)

and the question is ... cross-contamination with what?

something that magically contained the m-DNA of both victim and suspect? :-D

yes, if it happened at the scene, it could have been contaminated with blood from the victim not already on the shawl

... but with semen from the suspect? :-S

it really isn't like the police in those days were taking samples

it's not like OJ :-)

one problematic point is that the 'chain of custody' is so broken, there is no reliable proof of where the shawl came from

but again, it just happens somehow to have the m-DNA of both suspect and victim ...

I have to say I'm always sceptical of claims such as this, and I was when I heard of this - thought "Here we go again". Have to say that I'm leaning towards this latest finding taking it into consideration the tests done and having read numerous articles about it, comparing with newspaper reports from the time. Further test results would be interesting.

Regarding contamination by people handling the shawl - the tests were specifically from blood and semen within the fibres. Handling the shawl would not have the same effect.

certainly there were other crimes, have been since time immemorial



someone on another site mentioned Leather Apron


Anyone hear of him??


I hadn't .........................



but he was apparently active at the same time as Jack the Ripper.


There were 11 separate murders, stretching from 3 April 1888 to 13 February 1891, that were included in a London Metropolitan Police Service investigation, and were known collectively in the police docket as the "Whitechapel murders"


Only 5 of those were linked to Jack the Ripper.


Leather Apron was the nickname given by prostitutes to a man who wore a leather apron (!), and was an extortionist. The women were terrified of him.

I know very little about DNA. So I will bow to the greater knowledge of others :-)

The problem, whether it is the shawl, or anything else, is that whilst the science is accurate, human's are not. There is always the possibility of error, cross contamination, even, dare one say it, a financial backhander to skew the results.

Hopefully the results can be double checked independently.

It's interesting though how this case in particular has gripped people for so long. there must have been many crimes in the poor areas of London at the time that have gone unremembered.

Cynthia
I don't think she is gullible at all

joonie is entitled to her opinion as are we all :-D :-D

I said I was unconvinced! I will remain so until the method and results have been reviewed by a panel of their peers, nothing wrong with that I don't think.

How many years was the Turin shroud revered until carbon dating proved it could not possibly be contemporary?

I agree the coincidence is remarkable but that's what it is .. a coincidence.. until all other possibilities for both samples being present are excluded.

Just my opinion of course ;-)

I don't honestly think that Joonie Cloonie is gullible enough to automatically believe everything she reads, in fact, I think the very opposite.

It seems as though she has looked into this interesting article in some depth - more than any of us - and is making a considered statement, perfectly aware of all the 'ifs' and 'buts'.

I find science quite an awesome subject and never cease to be amazed at the part it plays in solving crime.

wouldn't it be wonderful
l if Scotland yard took it up as a cold case joonie :-D :-D

JoyBoroAngel, I am convinced that the work done by these scientists is worth examining carefully, that is what I am convinced of, in case you meant to say I was convinced of something else

I am really very very capable of both understanding what I read and asking the appropriate questions about it

I don't always believe what I read believe me!

if I did, I would believe in things like burning bushes and virgin births :-D :-D

funny what some people will believe with no evidence at all and what some people will poke fun at despite the evidence :-S

JoonieCloonie you seam convinced
sorry but some of us have doubts

don't always believe what you read

it may say St Michael on the label of my bloomer
but it doesn't mean he owned them ;-)

like wise with this story things are not always what they seam ;-) ;-)
or how we are told them