WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Jack the Ripper unmasked:

by sallypelt 06.09.14 22:35

Make of it what you will:

WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Jack the Ripper unmasked: How amateur sleuth used DNA breakthrough to identify Britain's most notorious criminal 126 years after string of terrible murders
DNA evidence on a shawl found at Ripper murder scene nails killer
By testing descendants of victim and suspect, identifications were made
Jack the Ripper has been identified as Polish-born Aaron Kosmiski
Kosmiski was a suspect when the Ripper murders took place in 1888
Hairdresser Kosmiski lived in Whitechapel and was later put in an asylum

Read more: 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#ixzz3CcoJK07w
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

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

by **PeterMac** 06.09.14 22:42

Dead
Foreign
Swarthy
Pervert

ticks all the boxes !

by Guest 06.09.14 23:27

DNA evidence?

What type?

So perhaps the barber touched the shawl?

Did the victim always own the shawl?

When did the barber leave his DNA on it?

The victim was a prostitute so contact with men was a given.

How does all this "nail the killer"?

by Newt Fink-Nottle 08.09.14 14:21

I'm highly skeptical.

First, data regarding DNA should be published in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal...not a book.

Second, there isn't nearly enough provenance regarding the apron.

That said, if they can show more evidence for the apron's provenance AND if someone can replicate the results regarding the DNA, I'm willing to accept that Kosminsky was the killer of Eddows. That's it. Doesn't make him the Ripper.

by Guest 08.09.14 14:27

PeterMac wrote:Dead
Foreign
Swarthy
Pervert

ticks all the boxes !

So, not that one son of Queen Victorias' then?

Pfff... (sigh of relief)

Just in time to convince the Scots to stay in the UK then?

by nglfi 08.09.14 14:38

Apparently the DNA sample came from a semen deposit found on the shawl, but all this proves is that Kosminski was either a client of Eddowes or a lover. However, I do think this makes it a lot more likely that it was him, particularly given that he was already a strong suspect and the only witness to be able to point out a suspect, pointed him out. Just goes to show there is hope, even after 100 odd years.

by Guest 08.09.14 18:53

nglfi wrote:...particularly given that he was already a strong suspect and the only witness to be able to point out a suspect, pointed him out...

Foreign, swarthy and how good was the witness eyesight in the dark....?

He probably had a speck of gunpowder in his pocket... and nitrate on his fingers...

by Guest 08.09.14 18:58

Newt Fink-Nottle wrote:First, data regarding DNA should be published in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal...not a book.

It would never pass a peer-review.

Second, there isn't nearly enough provenance regarding the apron.

Yes, it wasn't in the first police reports/lists.

That said, if they can show more evidence for the apron's provenance AND if someone can replicate the results regarding the DNA, I'm willing to accept that Kosminsky was the killer of Eddows. That's it. Doesn't make him the Ripper.

Indeed.

But Eddow's descendants have handled the shawl over the years.. recently... so who's DNA is on it?

The woman was a prostitute.. how many other people's DNA did they find?

The simple solution offered in the book is anything but.

by nglfi 08.09.14 19:03

BlueBag wrote:
nglfi wrote:...particularly given that he was already a strong suspect and the only witness to be able to point out a suspect, pointed him out...

Foreign, swarthy and how good was the witness eyesight in the dark....?

He probably had a speck of gunpowder in his pocket... and nitrate on his fingers...

The evidence at the time suggests they avoided publicly naming Kosminski, and rubbed off the 'juwes' graffiti as they wanted to avoid racial tension. Shame TM couldn't take a leaf out of that book and stop with the 'sardine muncher' bashing!

by aiyoyo 08.09.14 19:48

BlueBag wrote:
nglfi wrote:...particularly given that he was already a strong suspect and the only witness to be able to point out a suspect, pointed him out...

Foreign, swarthy and how good was the witness eyesight in the dark....?

He probably had a speck of gunpowder in his pocket... and nitrate on his fingers...

Oh btw, did I mention I am 60-80% sure he was a member of the Royal family.
He resembles Prince so and so, I recognise him instantly by his walk and his well known silhouette as soon I as spotted him gliding down the back lane by the lights of the moon. lol

by roy rovers 09.09.14 0:29

Senior police officer Donald Swanson who was in overall charge of the Ripper enquiry for a period identified Aaron Kosminski in the 'Swanson marginalia' (notes in the margin of a book of his friends reminiscences). They thought it was him but had insufficient evidence.

by Snifferdog 09.09.14 11:38

BlueBag wrote:
Newt Fink-Nottle wrote:First, data regarding DNA should be published in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal...not a book.
It would never pass a peer-review.

Second, there isn't nearly enough provenance regarding the apron.
Yes, it wasn't in the first police reports/lists.

That said, if they can show more evidence for the apron's provenance AND if someone can replicate the results regarding the DNA, I'm willing to accept that Kosminsky was the killer of Eddows. That's it. Doesn't make him the Ripper.
Indeed.

But Eddow's descendants have handled the shawl over the years.. recently... so who's DNA is on it?

The woman was a prostitute.. how many other people's DNA did they find?

The simple solution offered in the book is anything but.

The first murders took place in 1888. DNA strings were only first identified in the 1950's. Never mind that the DNA profiling technique was first reported in 1986...
Did Donald Watson look into the future, and know that we would be able to match DNA profiles, and therefore ensure that articles, such as the shawl, apron whatever, would remain uncontaminated and unwashed, in a zip lock bag , for future DNA investigation?
Nah!

by Guest 09.09.14 12:15

The story if the shawl is very interesting.

There is no sound provenance for it.

Good discussion here by people who know this case inside out and backwards.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8296&page=16

by Gillyspot 09.09.14 14:27

So Mitochondrial DNA (without provenance as victims relatives may have handled shawl at Jack the Ripper conferences) is good enough for Mirror etc to declare Kosminsky GUILTY but in McCann case DNA evidence funnily ignored?? Hmm...

by Guest 09.09.14 15:08

This is a good post by Paul G over at the Ripper forum.

One thing is puzzling me or am I missing something.

Mr Edwards buys the shawl from auction and in good faith believes the historical story connecting the shawl to miss Eddowes.
He decides to pass it over to Mr D.N.A scientist man who comes back and I informs him that he has done extensive tests and has discovered stains identified as blood and semen.

Mr Edwards is so excited

Mr scientists says ok what do you want me to do now

Mr Edwards says get a sample from a living descendant of miss Eddowes see if it matches.

Months pass Mr scientist comes back yeahhhhhh result it matches

Mr Edwards is over the moon.

Mr scientist asks what do you want me to do now

Mr Edwards says test the semen to see if we can match it to a suspect.

Which suspect asks the scientist we have Tumbelty, chapman, kominsky, Barnett, maybruck, sickert, druit well to be honest there's over 40 of them there suspects.

Mmm difficult to chose, we could pick the easiest one to trace possibly MAybrick I'm sure there descendants would be easy to trace.
Or pick one

Ok we will go down the pick one out of the hat way.

Said hat appears and it is Kominsky.

Years of expensive research later as his traceable D.N.A is in Australia mr scientist has a result it matches but only secondary D.N.A.

Mr Edwards is ecstatic and thanks his lucky stars that the first suspect he picked out at random just so happens to match.

I guess Mr Edwards did get lucky....

or perhaps something else is going on.

by Ayniia 13.09.14 18:22

BlueBag wrote:The story if the shawl is very interesting.

There is no sound provenance for it.

Good discussion here by people who know this case inside out and backwards.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8296&page=16

I'm having so much much fun at casebook boards these days. Jack the Ripper is what made me get the interest I have today with crime cases ( ok I admit, obsession ). But this story has so many holes. The science is the important part but the book and the tale of the provenance of the shawl just ruins it.
For anyone interested here's a (IMO ) very interesting podcast with the Dr that conducted the DNA tests.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/inscience

by worriedmum 13.09.14 20:28

Gillyspot wrote:So Mitochondrial DNA (without provenance as victims relatives may have handled shawl at Jack the Ripper conferences) is good enough for Mirror etc to declare Kosminsky GUILTY but in McCann case DNA evidence funnily ignored?? Hmm...