The GREATEST murder mystery finally solved, who was Jack the Ripper

[BruceVC]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746321/Jack-Ripper-unmasked-How-amateur-sleuth-used-DNA-breakthrough-identify-Britains-notorious-criminal-126-years-string-terrible-murders.html

 

 

At last, really interesting story. It deserves its own thread. Remember all the conspiracy theories and guesses around "who was Jack the Ripper "

 

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Ewww, Daily Fail.

[Gfted1]

How do they know the blood is from the killer and not some random "John"?

[Sarex]

Guess they presumed anyone who came in contact with the ripper would have been dead or on his way to it.

[Nepenthe]

How do they know the blood is from the killer and not some random "John"?

They don't and the provenance is suspect, but barring fraud, finding dna of a major suspect in an item that supposedly belonged to one of the victims is about as close to "solved" as you are likely to get...

 

This has been picked up by Serious Media here, as well, due to the nationality of the scientist who did the dna recovery and testing...

[IndiraLightfoot]

I for one believe that they've got the right guy. It's his **** on the scarf. He's been one of the suspects for years.

Edited September 8, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Fighter]

Looking forward to the movie.

[BruceVC]

Looking forward to the movie.

 

Yea that would be cool

[Blarghagh]

I actually feel bad that they solved it. Makes it a less interesting story.

[Amentep]

Since the person who bought the shawl doesn't believe it was Eddowes, and since the suspect was known to the police as a "self-abuser", there could be legitimate reasons for the shawl to have been in contact with Kosminski before the murder and have no relation to the murder.

 

Like most other solutions offered, its not terribly definitive.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Amentep

[IndiraLightfoot]

Amentep: But his occupation fits a horror movie so well!

[Nepenthe]

Since the person who bought the shawl doesn't believe it was Eddowes, and since the suspect was known to the police as a "self-abuser", there could be legitimate reasons for the shawl to have been in contact with Kosminski before the murder and have no relation to the murder.

 

Like most other solutions offered, its not terribly definitive.

Yes, but highly unlikely, as there were no other unidentified samples on it.

 

In fact, if there was a chain of custody for the item, I'd feel very comfortable prosecuting the case

Edited September 8, 2014 by Nepenthe

[PrimeJunta]

Ehhh... color me skeptical, until this is independently verified. This is just the kind of thing where even extremely solid professionals can get carried away and produce the results they want to see.

 

And even if it is, it only proves that the guy was one of her johns, not that he killed her. We already knew there was a high likelihood of that; he wouldn't have been a suspect otherwise.

 

(I would also be extremely surprised if there was no other DNA on that scarf other than his. There's DNA everywhere, and certainly more on a dirty scarf than most places.)

 

Edit: even so YAY! Finland FTW.

Edited September 8, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[Amentep]

 

Since the person who bought the shawl doesn't believe it was Eddowes, and since the suspect was known to the police as a "self-abuser", there could be legitimate reasons for the shawl to have been in contact with Kosminski before the murder and have no relation to the murder.

 

Like most other solutions offered, its not terribly definitive.

Yes, but highly unlikely, as there were no other unidentified samples on it.

 

In fact, if there was a chain of custody for the item, I'd feel very comfortable prosecuting the case

 

 

A chain of custody would make all the difference; but that doesn't exist and why the shawl was there is still a mystery.  Was it Eddowes?  Was it another prostitutes?  Was it Kominski's?  Was it by Eddowes because the killer had it, because she had it, or because someone who found the body had it? 

 

The thing is, Kominski was probably a suspect because he was a foreign Jew with signs of mental problems who was known to the police at the time.  Because he lived in the area - which was a home to prostitution, transiency and so forth, it becomes problematic to assign a significance to it that it can't bear. Particularly knowing that he was a public self-abuser as well as potentially a client of the lady in question.

 

 

Ehhh... color me skeptical, until this is independently verified. This is just the kind of thing where even extremely solid professionals can get carried away and produce the results they want to see.

 

And even if it is, it only proves that the guy was one of her johns, not that he killed her. We already knew there was a high likelihood of that; he wouldn't have been a suspect otherwise.

 

(I would also be extremely surprised if there was no other DNA on that scarf other than his. There's DNA everywhere, and certainly more on a dirty scarf than most places.)

 

Edit: even so YAY! Finland FTW.

 

 

With respect to his being a suspect, if you look at the early suspects you tended to have people who would have been on the police radar at the time and/or who were seen as "deviant" in some way - Druitt (possibly homosexual and/or possibly mentally ill and committed suicide right after the last murder), Kłosowski/Chapman (Polish immigrant, eventually hanged for poisoning his three wives and retroactively seen as a Ripper possibility by Abberline), Kosminski (Polish, Jewish, later admitted to an insane asylum), Ostrog (Russian immigrant and con man), Pizer (Polish, Jewish, assault suspect), and Tumblety (homosexual, con man).

 

IIRC of the early police candidates, only Sadler (sailor, violent drunk) didn't fit the bill of "undesirable (foreigner, mentally ill, gay)" in some way.

 

That said, only Druitt, Kominski and Ostrog were officially mentioned by police, ultimately, which implies they were more serious candidates than others (unless you believe the theory that this list was released so that another press suspect - Cutbush - would be dropped from speculation).  Mind you these were the same police who interviewed native American members of Buffalo Bills Wild West Show on the idea that "a savage had to have done it", so...

Edited September 8, 2014 by Amentep

[Nepenthe]

Ehhh... color me skeptical, until this is independently verified. This is just the kind of thing where even extremely solid professionals can get carried away and produce the results they want to see.And even if it is, it only proves that the guy was one of her johns, not that he killed her. We already knew there was a high likelihood of that; he wouldn't have been a suspect otherwise.(I would also be extremely surprised if there was no other DNA on that scarf other than his. There's DNA everywhere, and certainly more on a dirty scarf than most places.)Edit: even so YAY! Finland FTW.

Again, when there is just one identifiable sample and it belongs to a suspect, it's a completely different scenario. If there were mutiple unidentifieds, then it would be a more likely scenario that there were traces if her, ahem, customers on it.

[Amentep]

 

Ehhh... color me skeptical, until this is independently verified. This is just the kind of thing where even extremely solid professionals can get carried away and produce the results they want to see.And even if it is, it only proves that the guy was one of her johns, not that he killed her. We already knew there was a high likelihood of that; he wouldn't have been a suspect otherwise.(I would also be extremely surprised if there was no other DNA on that scarf other than his. There's DNA everywhere, and certainly more on a dirty scarf than most places.)Edit: even so YAY! Finland FTW.

Again, when there is just one identifiable sample and it belongs to a suspect, it's a completely different scenario. If there were mutiple unidentifieds, then it would be a more likely scenario that there were traces if her, ahem, customers on it.

 

 

The first test of something they thought was there on the shawl ended up being "inconclusive" and for this new test the methodology of the recovery/identification hasn't been "peer reviewed" prior to being touted as an answer in the popular press (if that's important to you).

[Nepenthe]

 

 

Ehhh... color me skeptical, until this is independently verified. This is just the kind of thing where even extremely solid professionals can get carried away and produce the results they want to see.And even if it is, it only proves that the guy was one of her johns, not that he killed her. We already knew there was a high likelihood of that; he wouldn't have been a suspect otherwise.(I would also be extremely surprised if there was no other DNA on that scarf other than his. There's DNA everywhere, and certainly more on a dirty scarf than most places.)Edit: even so YAY! Finland FTW.

 

Again, when there is just one identifiable sample and it belongs to a suspect, it's a completely different scenario. If there were mutiple unidentifieds, then it would be a more likely scenario that there were traces if her, ahem, customers on it.

The first test of something they thought was there on the shawl ended up being "inconclusive" and for this new test the methodology of the recovery/identification hasn't been "peer reviewed" prior to being touted as an answer in the popular press (if that's important to you).

Sure, but the fact of the matter is that there are (afaik) no unidentified traces on the shawl, and the only obtained sample matches a relative of a suspect. So unless there's something murky with the relative etc. We'll see.

 

I've been peer reviewed, it did not improve the result in any way.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Nepenthe

[Valsuelm]

Who Jack the Ripper was will never be known definitively at this point.

 

One can posit various scenarios, make accusations, and surmise whatever, but at the end of the day all of the people involved are dead and a trial where defendant X has the opportunity to clear his/her name cannot be had. Without such a trial we will never know without a doubt if person X committed the crime.

[Zoraptor]

 

 

The first test of something they thought was there on the shawl ended up being "inconclusive" and for this new test the methodology of the recovery/identification hasn't been "peer reviewed" prior to being touted as an answer in the popular press (if that's important to you).

Sure, but the fact of the matter is that there are (afaik) no unidentified traces on the shawl, and the only obtained sample matches a relative of a suspect. So unless there's something murky with the relative etc. We'll see.

 

You have to follow scientific methodologies to be scientifically valid. It's not merely peer review, you should also get results confirmed independently, which clearly hasn't happened. Might be a question of putting 'yet' on the end of that sentence but there are more than a few ways to get bad results (entirely honestly) when doing things by yourself.

 

The whole thing sounds decidedly shonky, especially since there is a book about to be published. If you've spent 14 years working on it you can arrange a second lab check within that time, no problem. Wouldn't be a shortage of labs willing to do it.

[BruceVC]

Yeah, I find it really interesting that at a time when UK wants to get rid of Polish immigrants and cut down their law privelages someone "discovers" that one of the most brutal murderers in UK was a Polish immigrant.. schocking really.

 

But of course you understand the concern from the UK, the UK has to be strict with Polish immigrants because the last thing the UK  wants is thousands of Polish mass murderers running through the streets of London and inflicting carnage and mayhem on people trying to have there tea and scones? You can understand why the British want to prevent this disruption to there lifestyle, its not unreasonable .....

[Nepenthe]

 

 

 

The first test of something they thought was there on the shawl ended up being "inconclusive" and for this new test the methodology of the recovery/identification hasn't been "peer reviewed" prior to being touted as an answer in the popular press (if that's important to you).

Sure, but the fact of the matter is that there are (afaik) no unidentified traces on the shawl, and the only obtained sample matches a relative of a suspect. So unless there's something murky with the relative etc. We'll see.

 

You have to follow scientific methodologies to be scientifically valid. It's not merely peer review, you should also get results confirmed independently, which clearly hasn't happened. Might be a question of putting 'yet' on the end of that sentence but there are more than a few ways to get bad results (entirely honestly) when doing things by yourself.

Yep, agree.

[Tale]

It was a prostitute's shawl. It's easily possible that Kominski was a John, but not the killer.

[Meshugger]

Wait, the killer wasn't Jack?

[Amentep]

It was a prostitute's shawl. It's easily possible that Kominski was a John, but not the killer.

 

To be fair, we don't know who's shawl it was.

 

It could have been Eddowes, it could have been someone who found the body, it could have been the killer.

 

Kominski might have been a john, but he also was a public self-abuser so its entirely possible there is a secondary way to get his **** on the shawl at that.

[Nepenthe]

 

It was a prostitute's shawl. It's easily possible that Kominski was a John, but not the killer.

 

 

To be fair, we don't know who's shawl it was.

 

It could have been Eddowes, it could have been someone who found the body, it could have been the killer.

 

Kominski might have been a john, but he also was a public self-abuser so its entirely possible there is a secondary way to get his **** on the shawl at that.

Could someone at least finish that thought before typing it. It makes no more sense from the repetition.