| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 20:57 - Sep 8 with 3172 views | Match82 |
Thinking about this more, what exactly is going to be in this book that could make it worth 16.99? Surely the only interesting bit (if true) is going to be what we've all just read? |  | |  |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 21:28 - Sep 8 with 3152 views | scot1963 |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 20:52 - Sep 8 by Hunterhoop |
Westbourne, I can only how annoying this must be for you.
That said, I'm inclined to believe it. This isn't some amateur doing the DNA analysis. This is a leading professor in the field putting his name and reputation on the DNA match validity AND the process. It's taken them years, so it's hardly a rushed job and they actually explain the DNA but quite well - that it's not the type used today by Police but a different strand which takes much longer to break down.
They ran a test to a relative of the murdered woman, which matched and ran two tests on a relative of the accused's sister.
The shawl makes far more sense being the killer's thand the murdered given the latter a poor prostitute, and the shawl showing a number of signs as originating from a East Europe, where the accused is from. Then there is the fact it has someone's jizz on...and it's from there they have a match to the accused suster's relative.
When you read the full article it doesn't come across like a sensationalist piece. They explain the science and have a professor fully supporting it.
All of that is pretty strong. And let's not forget, he was one of the main suspects, a witness (albeit possibly unreliable) had named him, the police had strong suspicions and started I monitor him, after which the murders stopped and they kept tracks on him until he went to an asylum.
It does seem fair to conclude the circumstantial evidence alongside the DNA evidence, which both point to the same thing, may be giving the right answer.
Sorry, fella. |
have a read of this link as to the shawl and the DNA 'proof'
http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2014/09/dna-evidence-proving-jack-rippe |  | | |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 22:03 - Sep 8 with 3106 views | Hunterhoop |
Meh,
That article does a reasonable job of pointing out potential fallacies in the DNA case.
However, it's suppositions are, frankly, less likely than the case put forward by the DNA link. Yes, of course he could have jizzed in it, tossed it out onto the street (why?) and she could have picked it up (of all the gals...) and she could then have had it on her. Equally, he or his brothers could have been a client of hers (of all the gals...) and jizzed onto her shawl then (of all things..).
And then she could have had it on her when she was murdered.
There's a hell of a lot of coincidences that need to happen there.
Frankly, him owning it is more likely than her given the type of shawl it was. And it has his jizz. And it was at the scene of the crime.
Of course, "cross contamination" can't be ruled out, but what did it get cross contaminated with after the event? When did he find time to spunk on it? Did the police keep his spunk?
Before hand requires a very convoluted set of events. After is almost impossible.
The proposed theory is by far the most likely.
Disputing the professor's practices seems silly. He's a professional who's put his name to this. I suppose he could have been bought, but it's unlikely and presumably they are willing to "show" the match.
The article's conclusion is right. It doesn't "prove" that this fella was Jack the Ripper in the commonly perceived form.
But given he was a major suspect, I'd say this evidence is MORE conclusive than any hypothesis put forward to date AND, at the very least, makes him by far the most likely killer of this woman, if not all 5 (or 11).
We'll never get 100% proof on this case. And I agree the Mail are sensationalising (what a surprise) but this is the strongest evidence by far to date. |  | | |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 22:16 - Sep 8 with 3096 views | scot1963 |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 22:03 - Sep 8 by Hunterhoop |
Meh,
That article does a reasonable job of pointing out potential fallacies in the DNA case.
However, it's suppositions are, frankly, less likely than the case put forward by the DNA link. Yes, of course he could have jizzed in it, tossed it out onto the street (why?) and she could have picked it up (of all the gals...) and she could then have had it on her. Equally, he or his brothers could have been a client of hers (of all the gals...) and jizzed onto her shawl then (of all things..).
And then she could have had it on her when she was murdered.
There's a hell of a lot of coincidences that need to happen there.
Frankly, him owning it is more likely than her given the type of shawl it was. And it has his jizz. And it was at the scene of the crime.
Of course, "cross contamination" can't be ruled out, but what did it get cross contaminated with after the event? When did he find time to spunk on it? Did the police keep his spunk?
Before hand requires a very convoluted set of events. After is almost impossible.
The proposed theory is by far the most likely.
Disputing the professor's practices seems silly. He's a professional who's put his name to this. I suppose he could have been bought, but it's unlikely and presumably they are willing to "show" the match.
The article's conclusion is right. It doesn't "prove" that this fella was Jack the Ripper in the commonly perceived form.
But given he was a major suspect, I'd say this evidence is MORE conclusive than any hypothesis put forward to date AND, at the very least, makes him by far the most likely killer of this woman, if not all 5 (or 11).
We'll never get 100% proof on this case. And I agree the Mail are sensationalising (what a surprise) but this is the strongest evidence by far to date. |
as I mentioned before there is no mention of a shawl at the scene of the crime that I have found. And if it was at the scene why would a member of the police force be given permission to take an important piece of evidence home with him? I think it more realistic that it was Kosminski's w@nk blanket and someone at the asylum, knowing that his name was associated with the case, took it as a memento to tell a tale to a gullible unsuspecting audience that it belonged to Jack the Ripper. The item has since been contaminated over the course of time by handling of family members. I have no evidence to back this up  . I read that article as a realistic summary of the information to hand [Post edited 8 Sep 2014 22:21]
| | | |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 22:21 - Sep 8 with 3078 views | CiderwithRsie |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 22:03 - Sep 8 by Hunterhoop |
Meh,
That article does a reasonable job of pointing out potential fallacies in the DNA case.
However, it's suppositions are, frankly, less likely than the case put forward by the DNA link. Yes, of course he could have jizzed in it, tossed it out onto the street (why?) and she could have picked it up (of all the gals...) and she could then have had it on her. Equally, he or his brothers could have been a client of hers (of all the gals...) and jizzed onto her shawl then (of all things..).
And then she could have had it on her when she was murdered.
There's a hell of a lot of coincidences that need to happen there.
Frankly, him owning it is more likely than her given the type of shawl it was. And it has his jizz. And it was at the scene of the crime.
Of course, "cross contamination" can't be ruled out, but what did it get cross contaminated with after the event? When did he find time to spunk on it? Did the police keep his spunk?
Before hand requires a very convoluted set of events. After is almost impossible.
The proposed theory is by far the most likely.
Disputing the professor's practices seems silly. He's a professional who's put his name to this. I suppose he could have been bought, but it's unlikely and presumably they are willing to "show" the match.
The article's conclusion is right. It doesn't "prove" that this fella was Jack the Ripper in the commonly perceived form.
But given he was a major suspect, I'd say this evidence is MORE conclusive than any hypothesis put forward to date AND, at the very least, makes him by far the most likely killer of this woman, if not all 5 (or 11).
We'll never get 100% proof on this case. And I agree the Mail are sensationalising (what a surprise) but this is the strongest evidence by far to date. |
I don't really give a toss about Jack the Ripper, not really my thing, but that's a very reasoned post.
The idea that it can't be true simply because the bloke has a book out is just silly. Of course you have to look hard at the argument, and be aware that money can be made out of books, but putting a book out is the normal way of getting information into the public domain. It's not even immoral to make money out of book sales - the guy's done the work in the form of research and scientific tests, there's nothing worn g in looking for payment. Without it you can't afford to do the work. I really wish people could get away from the idea that the first thing to do with any bit of information is to have a pop at the messenger rather than evaluating the message.
But what's your response to Westbourne's statement that the DNA in question is no more accurate than a blood group? |  | | |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 22:26 - Sep 8 with 3058 views | Hunterhoop |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 22:21 - Sep 8 by CiderwithRsie |
I don't really give a toss about Jack the Ripper, not really my thing, but that's a very reasoned post.
The idea that it can't be true simply because the bloke has a book out is just silly. Of course you have to look hard at the argument, and be aware that money can be made out of books, but putting a book out is the normal way of getting information into the public domain. It's not even immoral to make money out of book sales - the guy's done the work in the form of research and scientific tests, there's nothing worn g in looking for payment. Without it you can't afford to do the work. I really wish people could get away from the idea that the first thing to do with any bit of information is to have a pop at the messenger rather than evaluating the message.
But what's your response to Westbourne's statement that the DNA in question is no more accurate than a blood group? |
Well, I'm simply going on the SME, the professor, who has put his name to a DNA match, rather than Westbourne asserting it's no more than a blood group match. The two are different and I'm inclined to trust a fully fledged professor that it's a genuine match not merely a blood group match. The article actually talks about skin cells from the urethra rather than blood too.
It COULD have been been contaminated as you say, scot, but on the balance of probability that is less likely in my view. Much less likely. | | | |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 23:07 - Sep 8 with 3013 views | Jamie |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 22:26 - Sep 8 by Hunterhoop |
Well, I'm simply going on the SME, the professor, who has put his name to a DNA match, rather than Westbourne asserting it's no more than a blood group match. The two are different and I'm inclined to trust a fully fledged professor that it's a genuine match not merely a blood group match. The article actually talks about skin cells from the urethra rather than blood too.
It COULD have been been contaminated as you say, scot, but on the balance of probability that is less likely in my view. Much less likely. |
The fact that members of the victims family have been in contact with the item prior to its testing make contamination very likely indeed.
It the shawl had been found to contain just the suspects DNA would it mean anything? Probably not taking into account the doubts over the provenance of the item.
Equally interesting is that police of the period fancied a guy called 'Kosminski', but for whatever reason had him as dying 20 years before the suspect far later presumed to be 'Kosminski'. | | | |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 10:01 - Sep 9 with 2937 views | FDC |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 14:29 - Sep 8 by TacticalR |
So did you, as a friend of the English working class, support the miners when they were fighting Thatcher? Or the printers when they were fighting Murdoch? |
 |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 11:10 - Sep 9 with 2884 views | TheBlob |
So we're all supposed to believe the opinions of someone who carries out DNA testing in his spare time and has no real accreditations for that process?
Sounds like cold fusion all over again.
The whole premise is fatally flawed. |  |
| |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 11:44 - Sep 9 with 2853 views | Toast_R |
As Richard Richard might say..
"Ah who cares, the git's dead anyway". |  | | |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 11:59 - Sep 9 with 2841 views | WestbourneR |
Ha didn't realise this thread was going so strong after I logged off! Thought I was boring everyone...
Yeah hunter mate you're right, you make fair points and you can't just dismiss it (even if it's in my interest to do so) and the scientist is by far the strongest thing about it... BUT...
...there are serious serious flaws in it.
The shawl has been dated at 1902-1904. If that stands then it is impossible for it to have been anywhere near the murder of Eddowes in 1888.
And if it did exist then, which it didn't, there are also a huge number of reasons with PC Amos Simpson could never had come into the possession of piece of crime scene evidence. I could name them all but it might get very long and boring. It's provenance is beyond dubious.
Now the DNA.
The scientist is just doing the tests but he isn't providing the evidence to be tested, the relatives to be tested against, or investigating the back story. And to an extent, after 3 years work. he has a vested interest in believing he is part of something big too. He maybe a scientist but he is just as prone to getting sucked in as anyone else.
The MtDNA can not link to only one individual but a huge population of people. Especially when they are part of a closely inter-related Jewish population.
And this is without mentioning the huge number of opportunities there has been for contamination both on purpose and unintentionally. The owner has had the shawl for many years and shared it with both the relatives he then used to test against.
By the way, he is also not interested in giving it up for independent testing. No interest. Funny that.
The whole thing is rubbish. That or I am out of a job... speaking of vested interests...  |  |
| |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 12:01 - Sep 9 with 2838 views | WestbourneR |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 23:07 - Sep 8 by Jamie |
The fact that members of the victims family have been in contact with the item prior to its testing make contamination very likely indeed.
It the shawl had been found to contain just the suspects DNA would it mean anything? Probably not taking into account the doubts over the provenance of the item.
Equally interesting is that police of the period fancied a guy called 'Kosminski', but for whatever reason had him as dying 20 years before the suspect far later presumed to be 'Kosminski'. |
All true mate.
This not the first time a 'definite' piece of evidence has come out re JtR only for it all to turn out to be utter bs. | |
| |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 12:04 - Sep 9 with 2834 views | TheBlob |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 12:01 - Sep 9 by WestbourneR |
All true mate.
This not the first time a 'definite' piece of evidence has come out re JtR only for it all to turn out to be utter bs. |
So what's so special about your revelations then?
Unless you've found a photo with someone wielding a knife and stooping over the victim it would remain in the unproven orbit wouldn't it?Smoking guns or their scalpel equivalent innit. | |
| |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 12:53 - Sep 9 with 2807 views | A40Bosh |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 11:59 - Sep 9 by WestbourneR |
Ha didn't realise this thread was going so strong after I logged off! Thought I was boring everyone...
Yeah hunter mate you're right, you make fair points and you can't just dismiss it (even if it's in my interest to do so) and the scientist is by far the strongest thing about it... BUT...
...there are serious serious flaws in it.
The shawl has been dated at 1902-1904. If that stands then it is impossible for it to have been anywhere near the murder of Eddowes in 1888.
And if it did exist then, which it didn't, there are also a huge number of reasons with PC Amos Simpson could never had come into the possession of piece of crime scene evidence. I could name them all but it might get very long and boring. It's provenance is beyond dubious.
Now the DNA.
The scientist is just doing the tests but he isn't providing the evidence to be tested, the relatives to be tested against, or investigating the back story. And to an extent, after 3 years work. he has a vested interest in believing he is part of something big too. He maybe a scientist but he is just as prone to getting sucked in as anyone else.
The MtDNA can not link to only one individual but a huge population of people. Especially when they are part of a closely inter-related Jewish population.
And this is without mentioning the huge number of opportunities there has been for contamination both on purpose and unintentionally. The owner has had the shawl for many years and shared it with both the relatives he then used to test against.
By the way, he is also not interested in giving it up for independent testing. No interest. Funny that.
The whole thing is rubbish. That or I am out of a job... speaking of vested interests... |
Westbourne,
You are not alone, my 15 year old girl who is off sick long term, loves History and is totally captivated by this story has spent hours investigating this story this week.
She spent 20mins + last night without pausing for breath explaining why this is a false claim whilst we were walking the dog around the park.
If I let her come on here to discuss it, the length of her post would probably crash the server.
She was also going into lengthy analysis of the suspects wider family and suggests that if it was anyone then it was his older brother, which would probably be backed up by the DNA.
But I don't do her arguments justice. |  |
| |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 12:54 - Sep 9 with 2804 views | WestbourneR |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 12:04 - Sep 9 by TheBlob |
So what's so special about your revelations then?
Unless you've found a photo with someone wielding a knife and stooping over the victim it would remain in the unproven orbit wouldn't it?Smoking guns or their scalpel equivalent innit. |
We have a very strong circumstantial case. I'm assured by the lawyers that circumstantial is legit in a court of law.
No honestly, it's good, very good. I'm excited (well was...) but then I would say that, it's my show.
Topic has been done to death of course. Pun intended. | |
| |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 13:34 - Sep 9 with 2493 views | CamberleyR |
When's your prog on telly, Westbourne? |  |
| |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 13:44 - Sep 9 with 2474 views | TheBlob |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 12:54 - Sep 9 by WestbourneR |
We have a very strong circumstantial case. I'm assured by the lawyers that circumstantial is legit in a court of law.
No honestly, it's good, very good. I'm excited (well was...) but then I would say that, it's my show.
Topic has been done to death of course. Pun intended. |
Tumblety again? | |
| |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 13:45 - Sep 9 with 2475 views | WestbourneR |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 13:34 - Sep 9 by CamberleyR |
When's your prog on telly, Westbourne? |
Cheers Camberley, good to know your daughter is on the case. Reassuring that the truth is coming out already.
It will be officially unveiled as a hoax soon. A colleague had the shawl for a documentary they made on the Ripper in 2005 and the DNA experts from Uni of London said it was totally unusable to take samples. It had been cleaned with industrial cleaner! This guy has literally planted evidence on it in the last few years and is using it to make a fortune.
Anyway, not 100% sure when mine will be out the channels don't tell us for sure, but towards the end of this year or early next. I am editing it right now. It will be on Smithsonian Channel in the US, Discovery in Europe and... Channel 5 over here. Yes the mighty Channel 5. Currently titled The Missing Evidence.
I'll post something near the time so you can watch and bump my viewing figures up. It looks like I might need it... | |
| |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 14:05 - Sep 9 with 2458 views | WestbourneR |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 13:44 - Sep 9 by TheBlob |
Tumblety again? |
Nah, Tumblety has been done, but he was a decent shout.
I'm not really able to say who our guy is but I can tell you he was found at the scene of one of the murders. There is lots more obviously. He's good and he's new(ish).
Was pretty down on the whole topic when I first came to it but it has turned out to be quite interesting. Ripperologists though  | |
| |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 16:36 - Sep 9 with 2413 views | Rangersw12 |
The Complete History Of Jack The Ripper Philip Sudgen pulls apart the Kosminski theory | | | |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 16:55 - Sep 9 with 2400 views | TacticalR |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 14:05 - Sep 9 by WestbourneR |
Nah, Tumblety has been done, but he was a decent shout.
I'm not really able to say who our guy is but I can tell you he was found at the scene of one of the murders. There is lots more obviously. He's good and he's new(ish).
Was pretty down on the whole topic when I first came to it but it has turned out to be quite interesting. Ripperologists though |
Talking of Ripperologists, I see things can get very heated on the casebook message board. So much so that there is a Personal Attack Policy and Infraction system:
'We are attempting to cut down on the number of Personal Attacks that occur on the boards. While we understand the temptation sometimes, personal attacks are the culprit in the vast majority of the cases where threads go completely off-topic and become about the personality clashes and not about the case.'
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=7476 |  |
| |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 16:57 - Sep 9 with 2398 views | AlbRanger |
Good thread.
Always found JtR fascinating and enjoy reading about it.
Thanks to all for some fascinating posts.
Westbourne, best of British with the programme - looking forward to it. |  | | |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 17:20 - Sep 9 with 2380 views | TheBlob |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 16:57 - Sep 9 by AlbRanger |
Good thread.
Always found JtR fascinating and enjoy reading about it.
Thanks to all for some fascinating posts.
Westbourne, best of British with the programme - looking forward to it. |
Same as that.Love anything to do with Victorian London. | |
| |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 17:49 - Sep 9 with 2367 views | WestbourneR |
Cheers Alb! It's gonna have to go some to trump this DNA nonsense.
Yeah casebook forums are amazing, i'm on there now. If you ever think it's bad on here you should try that. The absolutely hammer each other.
The Ripper is great though, it's just got something endlessly fascinating about it. The guy was an evil genius to get away with it.
Another reason why it was very very very unlikely to be Kosminski. | |
| |
| Jack The Ripper Unmasked. on 21:10 - Sep 9 with 2321 views | MrSheen |
So it wasn't morgantwin then? |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
