Jack the Ripper identified with DNA

Elias Graves

Elias Graves

Common misfit
DNA evidence has now shown beyond reasonable doubt which one of six key suspects commonly cited in connection with the Ripper’s reign of terror was the actual killer – and we reveal his identity.

A shawl found by the body of Catherine Eddowes, one of the Ripper’s victims, has been analysed and found to contain DNA from her blood as well as DNA from the killer.

The landmark discovery was made after businessman Russell Edwards, 48, bought the shawl at auction and enlisted the help of Dr Jari Louhelainen, a world-renowned expert in analysing genetic evidence from historical crime scenes.

Using cutting-edge techniques, Dr Louhelainen was able to extract 126-year-old DNA from the material and compare it to DNA from descendants of Eddowes and the suspect, with both proving a perfect match.

The revelation puts an end to the fevered speculation over the Ripper’s identity which has lasted since his murderous rampage in the most impoverished and dangerous streets of London.

In the intervening century, a Jack the Ripper industry has grown up, prompting a dizzying array of more than 100 suspects, including Queen Victoria’s grandson – Prince Albert Victor, the Duke of Clarence – the post-Impressionist painter Walter Sickert, and the former Liberal Prime Minister William Gladstone.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...iminal-126-years-string-terrible-murders.html
 
there is some controversy about that conclusion:
(from the full article)
"One of the reasons for the controversy has to do with the limitations of the DNA test that was used. Louhelainen could recover the genetic signature only from mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA, rather than the nuclear DNA that serves as a unique identifier.MtDNA is passed down from a mother to her children, and many people can share the same mtDNA signature.
The signature linked to Kosminski, T1a1, is a relatively common subtype. Thus, the determination doesn't mean much unless the signature can be narrowed down to a rarer subtype, or unless additional evidence can be brought to bear (as was the case for identifying the remains of Russia's Czar Nicholas II and his family)."

this most recent conclusion is apparently not exactly conclusive.
 
mongooz said:
there is some controversy about that conclusion:
(from the full article)
"One of the reasons for the controversy has to do with the limitations of the DNA test that was used. Louhelainen could recover the genetic signature only from mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA, rather than the nuclear DNA that serves as a unique identifier.MtDNA is passed down from a mother to her children, and many people can share the same mtDNA signature.
The signature linked to Kosminski, T1a1, is a relatively common subtype. Thus, the determination doesn't mean much unless the signature can be narrowed down to a rarer subtype, or unless additional evidence can be brought to bear (as was the case for identifying the remains of Russia's Czar Nicholas II and his family)."

this most recent conclusion is apparently not exactly conclusive.
Click to expand...

Party pooper!
 
So called 'experts' have been claiming they have irrefutable proof of the killers identity for decades. Its all bollocks if you ask me.

For a start, they need to start looking for someone called 'Jack', not some mental Polish fellah.
 
I remember reading the book that Patricia Cornwell wrote about it that has been debunked by Ripper experts.

Her team took a letter written by the Ripper and did mitochondrial DNA testing on the back of the letter's stamp, came back as Walter Sickert's.

The letter was always thought to be from the Ripper, as some details were in it that only the killer would know.

Experts have debunked the theory that Walter Sickert was the Ripper as he was in France during many of the killings. So if Sickert did send the letter, how did he know some of the details of the cases? If he didn't send the letter, how did his DNA get on the back of the stamp?
 
I watched a story about this last night.
"A shawl found by the body of Catherine Eddowes, one of the Ripper’s victims, has been analysed and found to contain DNA from her blood as well as DNA from the killer."
The DNA mentioned above was from the killer's jiz in the victim's shawl. So he slashes up her face, kills her, disembowels her, then jerks off on the corpse. :eek: Sick phuker.

STOP5-CatherineEddowes.jpg
 
Tig said:
I watched a story about this last night.
"A shawl found by the body of Catherine Eddowes, one of the Ripper’s victims, has been analysed and found to contain DNA from her blood as well as DNA from the killer."
The DNA mentioned above was from the killer's jiz in the victim's shawl. So he slashes up her face, kills her, disembowels her, then jerks off on the corpse. :eek: Sick phuker.

STOP5-CatherineEddowes.jpg
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's pretty disappointing to learn that Jack the Ripper wasn't the wholesome guy we all thought he was.
 
I'm all for science and solving the mysteries of the universe.

But I like having some historical mysteries, ones this this one, remain mysterious.

Inconclusive or not, the those who claim to have "solved" the thing should be dismembered on sight.
 
Flamencology said:
I'm all for science and solving the mysteries of the universe.

But I like having some historical mysteries, ones this this one, remain mysterious.

Inconclusive or not, the those who claim to have "solved" the thing should be dismembered on sight.
Click to expand...
And then we could have a newer mystery...
 
Does anyone care who JTR was? This seems really pointless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top