Jack the Ripper Identified by DNA

kwstevekwsteve
in Off Topic Lounge
Jack the Ripper unmasked by amateur sleuth as Aaron Kosminski | Mail Online


If true this is pretty interesting. Aaron Kosminski has been identified using dna found on the shawl of one of the victims. By testing descendants of the victim and suspects, they identified Kosminski.

Mystery solved.
«1

Comments

  • HobbesHobbes
    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.

    Under UV photography, a set of fluorescent stains showed up which Jari said had the characteristics of semen.

    While it may have the blood of the victim (who could not afford such a scarf) all this proves (maybe) is Kosminski (maybe) jacked off in the scarf at some time.

    Naming Jack The Ripper, by Russell Edwards, will be published by Sidgwick & Jackson on September 9, priced £16.99.

    And then there is this ....
  • kwstevekwsteve
    Yes, it's reasonable to assume the shawl was Kosminski's and he brought it to the crime scene. Considering he was one of the main suspects I'd say this is some pretty good evidence. You'd probably be convicted nowadays with evidence like this.

    Also, if I had solved the mystery I'd definitely write a book about so I don't think there's anything suspicious there. It all comes down to whether or not the science is true.
  • MiloMilo
    kwsteve wrote: »
    It all comes down to whether or not the science is true.

    Or that it was tested under proper scientific methods.


    "IF" is sometimes the biggest word in the English language.
  • UnknownUnknown
    I don't even know who this guy is :confused:

    Cliffs ?

    Edit- I've heard of Jack the ripper but don't know the story. When I was a young lad, I used to have a ton of flatulence and my pop always used to call me Jack the ripper , because I'd hike my leg up and let em rip
  • kwstevekwsteve
    Milo wrote: »
    Or that it was tested under proper scientific methods.


    "IF" is sometimes the biggest word in the English language.

    I'm pretty sure that Jari Louhelainen would use proper scientific methods. He's legit.

    Jari Louhelainen - Google Scholar Citations
    http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/PBS/116512.htm
  • HobbesHobbes
    kwsteve wrote: »
    Yes, it's reasonable to assume the shawl was Kosminski's and he brought it to the crime scene. Considering he was one of the main suspects I'd say this is some pretty good evidence. You'd probably be convicted nowadays with evidence like this.

    So while a prostitute could not afford a shawl like this a Polish immigrant hairdresser could?

    Any decent lawyer gets the shawl tossed.
  • trigstrigs
    Note to self: Don't masturbate on the clothes of the people I kill.
  • kwstevekwsteve
    Hobbes wrote: »
    So while a prostitute could not afford a shawl like this a Polish immigrant hairdresser could?

    Any decent lawyer gets the shawl tossed.

    Good fuckin' luck. I wouldn't want to take that chance. Maybe the hairdresser made good money? The main point is that it is a direct connection from one of the victims to the main suspect.

    He probably used the shawl to lure the victim, like it has been suggested grapes were used. Perhaps it was his sister's shawl with whom he lived? Lots of possibilities.
  • KristyKristy
    kwsteve wrote: »
    Perhaps it was his sister's shawl with whom he lived? Lots of possibilities.

    Hidden "kosher to masturbate on your sister's stuff" beat
  • MiloMilo
    Lots of things to question about his theory . . .

    Ripper never had sex with his victims, so of what relevance is a semen sample found on the property of a prostitute?

    Said property was not exactly stored in an evidence bag for the last century, was it?

    Lets just wait and see if the studies and tests hold up to peer review. If they do, then I will be just as excited as anyone at what "might" be the investigative breakthrough of the century.
  • kwstevekwsteve
    Milo wrote: »
    Lots of things to question about his theory . . .

    Ripper never had sex with his victims, so of what relevance is a semen sample found on the property of a prostitute?

    Said property was not exactly stored in an evidence bag for the last century, was it?

    Lets just wait and see if the studies and tests hold up to peer review. If they do, then I will be just as excited as anyone at what "might" be the investigative breakthrough of the century.

    You assume the shawl was Eddowes'. The article distinctly says that she was unlikely to own it since it was expensive, as she pawned her shoes the day before the murder.

    I say that it was perhaps Kosinski's sister's (it was made in Eastern Europe where they were from) and he used it as a gift to lure the victim (similar to what was speculated about the grapes).
    What is certain is he was seriously mentally ill, probably a paranoid schizophrenic who suffered auditory hallucinations and described as a misogynist prone to ‘self-abuse’ – a euphemism for masturbation.
    In other words, he was the type of person who got sexually aroused when he killed his victims. Not unheard of in modern times.

    He masturbated after/during killing the victim.

    To address your second point. They extract dna from bones thousands of years old. It is not inconceivable, with modern techniques, to extract dna from something only 130 years old.

    Do I really have to connect ALL the dots? I just posted the article because it was interesting.
  • UnknownUnknown
    ....
  • MiloMilo
    kwsteve wrote: »
    You assume the shawl was Eddowes'. The article distinctly says that she was unlikely to own it since it was expensive, as she pawned her shoes the day before the murder.

    I say that it was perhaps Kosinski's sister's (it was made in Eastern Europe where they were from) and he used it as a gift to lure the victim (similar to what was speculated about the grapes).

    In other words, he was the type of person who got sexually aroused when he killed his victims. Not unheard of in modern times.

    He masturbated after/during killing the victim.

    To address your second point. They extract dna from bones thousands of years old. It is not inconceivable, with modern techniques, to extract dna from something only 130 years old.

    Do I really have to connect ALL the dots? I just posted the article because it was interesting.


    And "interesting" is about the best way to describe the article, and the book. At least until those reviews on the testing methods come in. Until then, there is nothing wrong with some healthy skepticism.
  • UnknownUnknown
    lol "healthy skepticism"

    milo your posts lately have been my caliber lately, do u have a brain tumor or something?
  • MiloMilo
    Yes, skepticism . . . somebody comes along and says, " I have solved the mystery that no one in a hundred years could solve," and you can read the answer in my book for just $29.95 . . . sort of makes you ask questions.


    And yes, I know where you're heading . . . good luck with that.
  • kwstevekwsteve
    But you don't have to buy the book. He gave the answer up front, no purchase necessary. So your statement is disingenuous.

    Wait, you've got a problem with someone making money from their work?

    What are you, some kind of socialist/communist?
  • MiloMilo
    kwsteve wrote: »
    But you don't have to buy the book. He gave the answer up front, no purchase necessary. So your statement is disingenuous.

    No it isn't . . . the reveal is part of the marketing strategy . . . you want to see how the "proof" works, you have to buy the book for all the details beyond just the "who".

    Wait, you've got a problem with someone making money from their work?

    Not one little bit . . . hope he buys a jag with his profits.

    What are you, some kind of socialist/communist?

    Not hardly, I am simply negatively optimistic.
  • KristyKristy
    Am I the only one who finds the whole "bolded answer within original quote" unwieldy and obnoxious to read?
  • MiloMilo
    Kristy_Sea wrote: »
    Am I the only one who finds the whole "bolded answer within original quote" unwieldy and obnoxious to read?

    So don't read it . . . ;)

    But, when a person is making multiple points you wish to address, it seems perfectly valid to me.
  • UnknownUnknown
    same with the . . . spaces with the dots

    milo is a 2/10 poster lately :(
  • kwstevekwsteve
    The "big reveal" was the name of the killer.

    Not whatever you think it is.
  • MiloMilo
    kwsteve wrote: »
    The "big reveal" was the name of the killer.

    Not whatever you think it is.


    Wrong . . . the name is the teaser . . . the reveal is how the science allegedly backs up the teaser.
  • UnknownUnknown
    Milo wrote: »
    Wrong . . . the name is the teaser . . . the reveal is how the science allegedly backs up the teaser.

    funny-al-bundy-shut-up-birthday.gif
  • kwstevekwsteve
    Milo wrote: »
    Wrong . . . the name is the teaser . . . the reveal is how the science allegedly backs up the teaser.

    2f0gheu.jpg
  • piggypie123piggypie123
    Kristy_Sea wrote: »
    Am I the only one who finds the whole "bolded answer within original quote" unwieldy and obnoxious to read?
    agreed
  • KristyKristy
    kwsteve wrote: »
    2f0gheu.jpg

    Sometimes I get sucked in by this gif, and can easily lose several minutes.
  • MiloMilo
    piggypie123 wrote: »
    agreed

    Your screenname is derived from an animal considered unclean by God's chosen people, you opinion is invalid . . . and possibly sacreligious. :D
  • piggypie123piggypie123
    Milo wrote: »
    Your screenname is derived from an animal considered unclean by God's chosen people, you opinion is invalid . . . and possibly sacreligious. :D
    agreed
  • wildbill7145wildbill7145
    piggypie123 wrote: »
    agreed

    bacon
  • KristyKristy
    ^That
Sign In or Register to comment.
HomeDiscussionsToggle Dark Mode