Jack the Ripper finally identified
Discussion
Using DNA matching on cells from a victim's shawl, Jack the Ripper has finally been identified as one of the six prime suspects at the time, Aaron Kosminski
Sorry about the Mail link
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746321/Ja...
Sorry about the Mail link
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746321/Ja...
GTIR said:
Pesty said:
How many hundreds of people over the years have handled that shall and left DNA on it.
"DNA identified as one of the six prime suspects"I doubt all the "hundreds" of people who've handled it were suspects.
OpulentBob said:
Apropos of nothing, my grandfather was born in the year of the Ripper murders. I'm in my mid 30's. Strange to think this was only 2 (slightly stretched) generations ago.
Especially when Kosminski lived until 1919 There are PHers with parents that could theoretically have met him.GTIR said:
"DNA identified as one of the six prime suspects"
I doubt all the "hundreds" of people who've handled it were suspects.
Edit I must admit the story is very compelling and seems well researched. I just don't like to instantly believe the internet. I'd like to hear some reactions to this from others first. Hitler diaries etc etc.I doubt all the "hundreds" of people who've handled it were suspects.
ok it seems they used DNA passed down the female line to varify it was the victims blood.
Just suspicious of any amateur how do we know he didn't fake it to be the one? Not like it's never happened before. He probably stands to make a lot if cash.
But I'm sure it's legit. Hope it is. Just don't get too carried away I would suggest.
I recall a recent case were a man was arrested for rape despite him not fitting the description. Turned out he worked at the hospital the victim was taken to.
This shawl wasn't taken from a box in some dusty archive under Scotland Yard by the way. It's just an alledged shawl of the victim. But the blood links it to a victim. Could it have been stored next to other artefacts and got contaminated?
But I'll say it again the story seems compelling.
Edited by Pesty on Sunday 7th September 10:59
Hmmmmm
By 2007, I felt I had exhausted all avenues until I read a newspaper article about the sale of a shawl connected to the Ripper case. Its owner, David Melville-Hayes, believed it had been in his family’s possession since the murder of Catherine Eddowes, when his ancestor, Acting Sergeant Amos Simpson, asked his superiors if he could take it home to give to his wife, a dressmaker.
Incredibly, it was stowed without ever being washed, and was handed down from David’s great-grandmother, Mary Simpson, to his grandmother, Eliza Smith, and then his mother, Eliza Mills, later Hayes.
In 1991, David gave it to Scotland Yard’s Crime Museum, where it was placed in storage rather than on display because of the lack of proof of its provenance. In 2001, David reclaimed it, and it was exhibited at the annual Jack the Ripper conference. One forensic test was carried out on it for a Channel 5 documentary in 2006, using a simple cotton swab from a randomly chosen part of the shawl, but it was inconclusive.
Who wouldn't wash a shawl from a well known murder where women were butchered?
Also I fear that because of csi type programmes this will automatically become fact without too much investigation by a lot of people.
But yes having an expert finding blood from the victim on the shawl is compelling.
By 2007, I felt I had exhausted all avenues until I read a newspaper article about the sale of a shawl connected to the Ripper case. Its owner, David Melville-Hayes, believed it had been in his family’s possession since the murder of Catherine Eddowes, when his ancestor, Acting Sergeant Amos Simpson, asked his superiors if he could take it home to give to his wife, a dressmaker.
Incredibly, it was stowed without ever being washed, and was handed down from David’s great-grandmother, Mary Simpson, to his grandmother, Eliza Smith, and then his mother, Eliza Mills, later Hayes.
In 1991, David gave it to Scotland Yard’s Crime Museum, where it was placed in storage rather than on display because of the lack of proof of its provenance. In 2001, David reclaimed it, and it was exhibited at the annual Jack the Ripper conference. One forensic test was carried out on it for a Channel 5 documentary in 2006, using a simple cotton swab from a randomly chosen part of the shawl, but it was inconclusive.
Who wouldn't wash a shawl from a well known murder where women were butchered?
Also I fear that because of csi type programmes this will automatically become fact without too much investigation by a lot of people.
But yes having an expert finding blood from the victim on the shawl is compelling.
Edited by Pesty on Sunday 7th September 10:52
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff