Q-C Posted September 8, 2014 #26 Share Posted September 8, 2014 (edited) I just realized the link I posted above about how the movie influenced this writer to look into the Ripper case...it says the policeman that took it wanted it for his wife. She never wore it. I would guess not if it was covered with blood. Unless it was washed. Looking at the pic of the shawl, it doesn't appear to have a lot of obvious blood stains on it. The author says it is badly stained but it doesn't seem so in the pic. Maybe it's just my eyes. I really am just thinking about different things that are said in the article. Could be my bad. I didn't notice any stains as well from the pic. And it was stored away and passed down? I'm sure it smelled lovely. "And the blood and semen stained shawl goes to... our beloved granddaugher, Emma" Edited September 8, 2014 by QuiteContrary 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antilles Posted September 8, 2014 #27 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Provenance is dodgy and I remember the shawl being discussed a few years ago. The consensus then was that the DNA would have degraded to such a low degree that it couldn't be used. Now, if this new scientist has definitively found DNA linking to Kosminski, it's a great discovery. But.....I think it would be a sign of good faith to have the findings checked by an independent authority. I'm also a bit suss that the book's author (And yes, he is flogging a book) won't name the 2nd donor of the mitochindrial DNA. Why keep it a secret? At the moment, h'm. Reminds me a bit of Patricia Cornwall's Final; Solution and the Diaty of JTR's final Solution and Stephen Knights Final Solution. The final solution never really seems to be final ,does it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted September 8, 2014 #28 Share Posted September 8, 2014 (edited) Semen on a prostitute's clothing? Well that MUST mean he's Jack, what other explanation could there be? That was my first thought. How do they know the DNA came from the attacker? And not a customer? I mean if DNA has stayed on the shawl for 120+ years, how long might it have been on there before he attack? Edited September 8, 2014 by DieChecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattyt81 Posted September 8, 2014 #29 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Those were red flags for me, also. And of course, the guy's peddling a book out of it. That, and the story breaking in the Daily Mail of all newspapers. How accurate is mitochondrial DNA testing? its Patricia Cornwell all over again. she basically chose Sickert's name out of a pile and made it her duty to build a case around him being guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefenceMinisterMishkin Posted September 8, 2014 #30 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Really? DNA taken from the shawl of a murder victim in the 1880's is still viable? Okay, I'm going to click on the source. And from a prostitute..maybe she just serviced the guy at some point, this hardly proves he was the killer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac E Posted September 8, 2014 #31 Share Posted September 8, 2014 There are obvious flaws in the case as others have suggested. I did however like the book plug at the end. Better get it in hard cover! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Motson Posted September 8, 2014 #32 Share Posted September 8, 2014 (edited) Absolute tosh. Kosminski was committed to an asylum 2 years after the last (known) murder. 5 women murdered in 6 weeks then nothing for 2 years? None of the eyewtiness descriptions match Kosminski. Where did they get Aaron Kosminski's DNA from to verify? The only DNA that can survive (in normal conditions) for 150 years is mitochondrial DNA (MtDNA), which is inherited from the mother and passed down her line. MtDNA is not conclusive proof by any means. Patricial Cornell also found Sickert's MtDNA on an apparent ripper letter. 'Jack the Ripper Mystery Finally Solved'- I think not. Edited September 8, 2014 by Stephen Motson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ineffectiveArtist Posted September 8, 2014 #33 Share Posted September 8, 2014 It doesn't make sense for Jack the Ripper to be only one person. You can't just find DNA evidence on only one victim. Prove he killed all of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timewarrior Posted September 8, 2014 #34 Share Posted September 8, 2014 This is the Timewarrior speaking. . .holy crap! In all seriousness though, based on method of killing. . .there are five canonical victims that most historians agree with. However, I must lend credence to the previous poster regarding the possibility of multiple killers. In fact, the last victim, Mary Kelly is significantly different from the other four or three (depending on if you count Liz Stride as a Ripper victim). Specifically, she was killed indoors and her wounds more closely resembled the sensational descriptions of the tabloids at the time. . .making some believe that she was killed by someone who was trying to make it look like a Ripper murder. . .the damage to her face could indicate that it was a personal killing. . .that the killer did not want to see the person she had been in what he had done. Her killer could have been someone close. . .a lover. . .her husband. . .a friend. . . In regards to Ms. Stride. . .the argument is that she would have been mutilated had not the Ripper been interrupted. . .still others would say it was a random act of violence. . . My opinion. . .the fact that the Ripper was definitely out that night. . .and killed Catherine Eddowes. . .makes the similar murder of Liz Stride more than likely linked. Ah. . .but alas. . .for modern forensics in the Victorian era. . .was not to be. . . 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jilliman Posted September 8, 2014 #35 Share Posted September 8, 2014 I'm still not convinced JTR was one person. Maybe Kosminski was one of the "rippers". Anyways he may have committed that particular murder. I don't think DNA evidence is going to be too accurate as I don't think evidence would be preserved well back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Hu Dunnit Posted September 8, 2014 #36 Share Posted September 8, 2014 I once read a book that stated a fellow named James Maybrick was the killer. Can't remember who wrote it, but it seemed convincing, but then again, these things always do have that insinuation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Fox FK Posted September 8, 2014 #37 Share Posted September 8, 2014 They got the wrong guy. His name was Jack. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paperdyer Posted September 8, 2014 #38 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Well we now have a new "artifact". The "Jack the Ripper stained shawl" definite proof! Does the shawl have a certificate of authenticity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HollyDolly Posted September 8, 2014 #39 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Well,Dr.Hu Dunnit, there is a theory that james Maybrick was Jack the Ripper.Maybrick was an english cotton buyer and he met his wife Florence and her mother on a ship.Anyhow, they wound up getting married and had a couple of kids. I think their home was Battlecrease House in Liverpool. James was a drug addict it turned out and he was older than Florence. They had problems and she had an affair.She became famous because she poisoned her husband and he died.She stood trial for his murder and went to prision.Eventually many years later she was freed and returned home to America. James's relatives took the kids in while she was in prision.I think their children changed their last name but not sure. In a photo of the last victim,Mary Kelly,there appears on a wall next to the bed the letters FM. Some have supposed they stood for Florence Maybrick,and that her husband James was the killer. He was a business man and his brother who was a composer of hymn and songs lived in London, so James did have reason to go there. There is a book entitled The Ripper Diary,which some folks claim they found in an old house.Not sure if it was the maybricks or not. That's how the whole James Maybrick as the Ripper came about. Anyhow, another thing.An english paranormal group was investigating their old home or some place associated with the Maybricks. They did a seance and asked the spirit of James if he was in fact jack the Ripper to which they were given the reply"NO". We may never know who the killer was,despite what ever so called evidence they have. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted September 8, 2014 #40 Share Posted September 8, 2014 I would be more interested if there were more substantial clues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sucellos Posted September 9, 2014 #41 Share Posted September 9, 2014 I dont know but the story about te scarf that was never washed in 126 years, and only holds DNA from the victim and the aggressor, seems at least a bit wierd to me. On the other hand a story so weak invented to deceive the whole world is also implausible. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefenceMinisterMishkin Posted September 9, 2014 #42 Share Posted September 9, 2014 What was the source of the DNA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ophion1031 Posted September 9, 2014 #43 Share Posted September 9, 2014 I'm gonna hold off on forming an opinion for the time being. Just going to sit and wait and see how it plays out. It would be great if it were solved, but at the same time it would kinda be a shame that the mystery is over, if that makes any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefenceMinisterMishkin Posted September 9, 2014 #44 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Scotland Yard has known for years who he was i suspect, but they would never spill the beans and tell us. The Ripper case brings in a lot of money through tourism..etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuchinoko Posted September 9, 2014 #45 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Who know's! If this shawl had blood on it or just DNA from whoever owned it, who knows who it could belong to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracona15 Posted September 9, 2014 #46 Share Posted September 9, 2014 This case has always interested me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSpoonyOne Posted September 9, 2014 #47 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Jack the Ripper has been identified as Polish-born Aaron Kosminski They did it, they finally did it, now they must quickly arrest the madman...oh wait... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted September 9, 2014 #48 Share Posted September 9, 2014 http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Jack-the-Ripper-was-a-Jew-British-paper-claims-374649 Who'd a thunk it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docyabut2 Posted September 9, 2014 #49 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Like others I`m not convinced, he could have been a patron to the many prostitutes roaming the streets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbrn30000 Posted September 10, 2014 #50 Share Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) Here is another take on the story in a book review for Russell Edwards in the LA times. http://www.latimes.c...0909-story.html# seems this might be just another hoax of sorts to sell books. If you can't trust the Daily Mail...lol. Edited September 10, 2014 by mbrn30000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now