Did anyone else here read the news about scientists extracting DNA from a bloody shawl left on a victim of the famous murderer?

They compared what they got off the shawl to DNA from modern descendants of both victim and prime suspect. Results are said to be conclusive.

The killer was not a certain Dr. Gull, nor a member of the Royal Family, as some have speculated. It was a poor Polish Jew who worked in the area as a hairdresser. He died in an insane asylum and was never charged, although one of six prime suspects. (Aaron Kosminski.)

I'm not sure if I can post a link here, but Search if you're interested. It is an absolutely fascinating account.

This new technique could possibly solve other old murders. No, they don't have Julius Caesar's bloody toga to test...

I saw that this morning.Interesting article.

Aaron Kosminski is JTR

__________________
No good deed goes unpunished.

Here is the link...

ID of the notorious 'Jack The Ripper' allegedly found via DNA

I read the article earlier, and though I found it interesting, I dispute the "conclusive findings" for the following reasons:

1) The victims were prostitutes, and were in contact with many individuals at any given time. The tested DNA could have been there for various reasons, including post-mortem robbery, and not necessarily murder.

2) Sanitary conditions in the Whitechapel area in the 1880s were terrible. Any DNA sample could been easily tainted and would never hold up in court. Think about the defense in the OJ trial attacking the coroner's office and the LAPD for the mishandling of evidence at the scene.

3) Everyone knows that Kosminski was the shooter on the grassy knoll, NOT Jack the Ripper.

__________________
I'm with the banned ...

NO NO NO!!!

It was Sasquatch on the GN. Or either DB Cooper.

__________________
Georgia On My Mind

The Irish aren't buying it: Has Jack the Ripper's identity really been revealed using DNA evidence? - Independent.ie

DNA is about as valid as it gets. It is particularly valid when it turns out to be the DNA of one of the primary suspects in the case.

I gotta go with Texas Star.

Fascinating....

(Wait. I seem to be channeling a certain Vulcan...)

While genetic testing can be 100% conclusive of a match between two samples, there are certainly plenty of ways a definitive answer to a complex question can be less than 100% conclusive.
In a paternity suit you can be 100% sure, less any mistakes in the sample collection or analysis and if there are no identical twins involved. But in any cases where you cannot be 100% sure of the sample collection methods and chain of custody of the evidence even without inetention or accidental manipulation of the samples or raw data or results I would think it would be difficult to base an entire case on the DNA alone.
Or consider a rape case, with DNA you can determine that a particular man's DNA matches a sample taken from the victim but that does not prove rape. We could go on for days with possible scenarios.
I studied genetic engineering in college and I know from experience that there are many steps involved in any procedure used and lots of opportunities for mistakes or contaminion.
DNA is the ultimate finger print but just like regular finger prints, finding a match at a crime scene does not in itself prove the owner of the print committed the crime.
Although, finding your finger print and even more so your blood at a crime scene when you had no reason to be anywhere near the scene and or claimed you weren't anywhere near it certainly doesn't help your plea of innocence.

JFK committed suicide.

Interesting article

__________________
Cheers, Charles
SWCA #2442

I read this great book and tended to agree with her that it was the artist Walter Sickert. Forensics scientists she hired found Sickert's DNA on one of the envelopes taunting the police about the crimes. Problem was a bunch of crazies were copy-catting what were likely authentic Ripper letters.

What convinced me he was the killer is certain doodles and graffiti found at the scene and on authentic Ripper letters are amazingly similar to those found in Sickert's journals that were done pre-crime.

But who knows?

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Patricia Cornwell and Walter Sickert: A Primer

__________________
Possum—The other white meat!

You know what really caused me to pity one of the victims, the girl whose shawl had the blood and semen on it?

She was so hard up that she'd just pawned her shoes!

Not all grinding poverty is in Third World countries.

For someone that hard up to have to also suffer being brutally murdered is just horrible.

A good point not brought up in the small amount I have read about the new evidence. Was his dna sample blood? Could it have been semen and if so could he possibly could have been a client rather than her killer.

T-Star, in the link I posted, the fact that the victim was so poor makes her possession of the shawl, which is apparently a luxurious one, doubtful. It is one of the reasons there is doubt about the accuracy of the new claim to have discovered Jack the Ripper's identity. (There is also a bunch of doubt about the DNA testing and lack of peer review in the article.)

Still, it is all fascinating stuff!

Patricia Cornwall? Really? A former medical examiner turned fiction writer? I guess Kay Scarpetta solved the case Dats some funny ****!

I can testify that DNA mixing was still going on last time I was in Whitechapel.

I thought Kosminski was the top scoring Pole in the Battle of Britain.

Well, the shawl does have both the victim's and Kosminski's DNA. The samples are her blood and his semen. How did those get together? If he was just a customer, account for the blood and the fact that it (shawl) was found on the mutilated body.

I think I know how the male sample probably got there, but can't post that here. It would be consistent with his particular known disorder of a nature probably unsuitable to discuss on this board. I've read some books by real FBI profilers, not just watched Criminal Minds, which is misleading in many ways. That background was revealing, to say the least.

How the shawl got there is another matter, and I think I may know that, too. But I can't risk posting it here.

The shawl is of early 19th Century Eastern Euro origin, and may well not have been the victim's. It would, however, fit Kosminski's ancestral origins. Or a customer may have given the girl the drape, as many residents there were of a background to have had such a shawl. In fact, another suspect was of very similar origin and also worked as a hairdresser or barber. He's the one that Patricia Cornwell cited.

The shawl may have been of pretty good quality, but was old. It may have come into the victim's possession in trade for her services or may have been brought by the killer, whose sisters may have owned it.

Kosminski was known to hate women, BTW.

I'm not saying that this new data is totally conclusive, but it looks very good. It is better evidence than I've seen before. And the new means of extracting it after all of these years was groundbreaking.

Some of the letters to the police are now known to have come from a reporter trying to increase circulation of his newspaper as it covered the grisly crimes.

I was thinking that too - could as easily have been someone stalking him and killing the women he had contact with. Makes you wonder how often Occam's Razor is wrong.

Baring mistakes, the only thing a DNA test tells you without any doubt is whether or not two samples match each other. DNA test cannot tell you who did what or when or to whom. Presence of your DNA on a victim is pretty damning evidence, but only proves you had contact. A much stronger case would be if her DNA was found in a blood sample at his house or somewhere she had never physically been. Still doesn't prove he did it but does make it harder to convince anyone that he didn't.

Great, they solved a 140 year old crime that doesn't affect anyone anymore. Good job

So they confirmed that one of the prime suspects did it. Well, isn't that the way it typically goes? Now that it's solved, it's no longer interesting. Just another psycho, and we've got plenty of them already.

What a waste of effort. It made a better story before.

Whew ! I thought sure the crimes were gonna come back on,.......the past administration.

__________________
wanna do right-- not right now

Now if only the could catch the murders of my BiL and my daughters best friend. Guess we'll have to wait 140 years for that.

Still like others said I don't think it's conclusive as he could have had contact with them in other ways. Of course if they were still alive he would have to have a alibi for the time period.

__________________
Psalm 23:4

I do find it fascinating to know who the killer was and his probable motive.

This didn't take anything away from current investigations or more recent cold cases. The investigators were outside scientists; not the police.

However, profilers can use this case to reaffirm some of their info about similarly motivated killers today. Much human behavior hasn't changed though the centuries.

And the souls and families of the Duke of Claridge, Dr. Gull; even the Prince of Wales (later King Edward VII) can now relax, with suspicion no longer marring their reputations.

I always like when a real life mystery is solved. Hey, they recently dug up Richard III, now if they find Edward V and his brother....
If the chain of evidence holds up and the provenance is proven... Back in 1988 there was a centennial program hosted by Peter Ustinov on Jack, they decided that it was Kominski.

I think finding one of the six primary suspects seamen on one of the victims, is about as damning as evidence gets. To try and create incredible unlikely ways it is not you have to suppress all logic and reason. I certainly think that qualifies as beyond a reasonable doubt for most people.

Additionally, since this man was already one of the top suspects the DNA in this case is confirmation not stand alone data. Although it has certainly been used as stand alone evidence in other cases. It is pretty powerful evidence and certainly better than most eye witness evidence.

Analysis of Richard III's twisted skeleton showed that he ate, among other things, peacocks. I was surprised that they were available then to Englishmen, although primarily to royalty. I also didn't know that diet can be determined from bones.

However, I took an anthropology class in which the professor was basing her doctoral dissertation on the effect that a diet heavy in maize had on the dentition of a particular Mexican Indian tribe.

Maybe the "good old days" weren't all wonderful as we think?

I saw a TV show on some cable network, maybe History Channel, where some retired NYC detective claimed JTR emigrated to NYC and continued his murders here. Must have been true, since it was on the TV...

No but I bet gas was sure cheaper then.