Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
LucidElement

Jack the Ripper (Another Angle)

32 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Likely Guy
1 hour ago, Holden M. Caulfield said:

Except that the officer would have no reason to plant semen or any other bodily fluids. It would have served no purpose in 1888. I agree that it's not proof by any means but to imply that DNA evidence was planted by an officer with an agenda in the 1880s is a bit silly

This has nothing to do with the topic, but I preferred your Vonnegut character reference title... (not that I have anything against Salinger).

That, and I agree with you... with the technology of the day, a diabolical genius would need a time machine...

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Imaginarynumber1
1 hour ago, Holden M. Caulfield said:

Except that the officer would have no reason to plant semen or any other bodily fluids. It would have served no purpose in 1888. I agree that it's not proof by any means but to imply that DNA evidence was planted by an officer with an agenda in the 1880s is a bit silly

I haven't read the paper. Was it semen or another fluid?

Yeah, I mean, he couldn't have planted evidence for DNA purposes, i wasn't really thinking on that front, but regardless, there is zero chain of custody with the shaw. With no chain of custody, there is no corroboration, only speculation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice
Posted (edited)

They couldn't even take fingerprints at that time. It was still in it's infancy and wasn't used until the early 1890's. There probably wasn't even a proper chain of custody. It was semen they found and it was a match to Komoski. They matched Eddowe's DNA also. So he was kinda close to her, but I don't recall ever reading that the Ripper had any sexual contact with his victims. The theories are all totally opposite from that. 

 

Edited by susieice
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Holden M. Caulfield
23 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

This has nothing to do with the topic, but I preferred your Vonnegut character reference title... (not that I have anything against Salinger).

That, and I agree with you... with the technology of the day, a diabolical genius would need a time machine...

 

I keep switching it up. The one before kilgore trout was Seymour Glass, another Salinger character. Maybe next time I'll go with a Steinbeck reference....

 Anyway, back to the topic at hand lol 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maureen_jacobs

Ms. Eddowes was a night worker.  Mr. Kominski was known to frequent night workers.  

Back in the late 1800s, laundry was not an easy task.  Things weren’t washed after every wearing.  Also, a night worker would not worry if the shawl was soiled with body fluids.  She may have just wanted to clean up quickly.  It is possible she was working for Kominski earlier.  Furthermore, if Kominski was the killer, it would reason that more evidence would come out.

My point is that I’m not defending Kominski, I’m just looking at it from an outsider’s view.  It’s been 120 years.  Where exactly has that scarf been?  5(maybe more) women were killed yet only one piece of evidence exists.

I'm dubious.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Holden M. Caulfield
9 hours ago, Maureen_jacobs said:

Ms. Eddowes was a night worker.  Mr. Kominski was known to frequent night workers.  

Back in the late 1800s, laundry was not an easy task.  Things weren’t washed after every wearing.  Also, a night worker would not worry if the shawl was soiled with body fluids.  She may have just wanted to clean up quickly.  It is possible she was working for Kominski earlier.  Furthermore, if Kominski was the killer, it would reason that more evidence would come out.

My point is that I’m not defending Kominski, I’m just looking at it from an outsider’s view.  It’s been 120 years.  Where exactly has that scarf been?  5(maybe more) women were killed yet only one piece of evidence exists.

I'm dubious.

I don't disagree with any of that. Like I said, not definitive proof but I do think it's interesting....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NightScreams

Anyone find reasonable doubt? Then he's innocent. If not, well he's already dead. Guess I can leave my window unlocked tonight....but maybe not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.