yeah, next thing they will find Amelia Earhart, exhume the coffin at Graceland for DNA test, and find that D.B. Cooper is hanging from a tree branch by his parachute shrouds. :mad:
I’m not clear on exactly how much they’d have to know about genetic testing to fool the guy, hence my earlier questions in this thread. If I put some of my blood on a bit of cloth and kept it in the closet for five years, then asked a geneticist to identify the mtDNA in it, would it be immediately obvious that the blood was only five years old? Or do you need to test for the age of the sample specifically?
FTR, I don’t think my theory is likely to be correct - I’m leaning towards this being genuine, but I’m not sure, and if it is a hoax, it’s almost certainly through a mechanism I never considered. I’m just saying, it doesn’t seem a sure thing yet. If this evidence is a strong as the guy with the book claims, I suspect it will verified pretty quickly.
“Going out on a spree, Jack ? Be Good.”
I don’t know specifics. However, my gut feeling is that such samples are sufficiently complex that an experienced analyst would be able to tell something was fishy if a five year old specimen was presented as being more than a century old, and amateur hoaxers would be likely to overlook something.
As I said above, I’d like more verification than publication in a popular book before completely accepting this. Certainly the anomalies regarding the shawl’s provenance present some doubts*. But at least on the face of it, this looks like the best evidence for the Ripper’s identity presented so far.
*Actually, things like the fact that the shawl was apparently too expensive for an impoverished prostitute cut both ways (so to speak). If the shawl were a recent plant by a hoaxer, who could have chosen anything he wanted, one would expect him to pick a cheaper fabric or for that matter an item of clothing that matched what Eddowes was wearing that night.
True, but on the other hand, the kind of shawl a woman in Eddowes position could afford isn’t going to be the kind of thing you can find in a vintage clothing store today - it would have been a literal rag.
Has the shawl confessed yet ?
The shawl has been previously dated to around the turn of the 19th century. The group who did that dating did admit it was difficult to be precise about this date. So, the possibility exists that it could date from a little earlier. The original owners need not have been hoaxers; they could simply have believed(rightly or wrongly) in some family folklore about this item belonging to a Ripper victim. The shawl has since been sold to the gentleman now claiming to have discovered the DNA.
I suspect very few items of clothing exist from the lower classes of 1888. What will exist are more examples of middle and upper class clothing. Any hoaxer(or unwittingly innocent owner) is therfore limited to what type of clothing he can claim as genuine Ripper victim clothing. It has to be dateable to around 1888 or shortly afterwards.
Im always reminded of reading about modern forgeries of historical documents. The vast majority of modern forgers are forced to use the wrong type of paper for such documents. The reason being virtually no unused period paper survives. Therefore forgers are forced to use Victorian photograph album paper as Victorian writing paper for fake documents of that period. I can see such similarities with this shawl. A shawl no average destitute prostitute of 1888 could probably afford to wear, especially one who had a habit of pawning her possessions.
Sorry, I’m at work…
Are you saying that the shawl Beddowes had might have been affordable since it was 80-some years old when she had it? Or that it couldn’t have been hers because clothing that saw a lot of use would not last from the turn of the 19th Century until almost the 20th Century when Beddowes had it?
Sorry, I meant the turn of the 19th/20th century. The shawl has been dated to the early 20th century. The difficulties in dating mean that it could have been made slightly earlier.
Ah. OK.
I’ll have to read the stuff posted from last night forward after I get home.
My above post wouldnt let me edit.
What I mean about the clothing surviving is that any fake shawl/hoax shawl/or wrongly attributed shawl is likely to be of the expensive variety. That the expensive pieces of clothing survive far more often than the cheapest and nastiest clothing. I would imagine it is almost impossible to get your hands on the cheapest clothing from 1888. Certainly far more difficult than getting hold of a middle or upper class item. The cheap stuff gets thrown out and destroyed, the expensive items remain far better looked after.
At the very least, the shawl and the descendants’ samples should have been analyzed at separate labs, to minimize concerns about cross-contamination or tampering.
Why are you do dead set against this guy being Jack?
I don’t particularly care, but if the Ripper has indeed been identified, that is cool.
I am not dead set against him being the killer. In fact he is my preferred suspect, or at least I believe he is as good a suspect as we will ever have. Im against someone authoring the umpteenth book claiming to have positively identified the killer and doing so via a wonderful piece of marketing in the Daily Mail. Unless I am grossly mistaken on this shawl “evidence” the killer will never be positively identified. This will not stop the Ripper moneymaking machine from churning out new books and new evidence for a gullible public to buy.
I thought Kosminski was not considered a particularly strong suspect at the time. Sure he was mentioned by McNaughten who didn’t join the case until a year after the final murder. And the final murder was in 1888, Kosminski locked up in 1891.
Leaves us with nothing but MH 370 and who shit on the toilet seat.
I think **Fuzzy Wuzzy **needs to provide alibies for the nights of the Ripper’s murders! 
A slightly different question - but really just amplifying the doubt on the provenance of the shawl and the samples it contained.
This shawl has be “preserved” for over 100 years - in all that time it was never washed? Or never had any sort of cleaning applied to it that would “spoil” the DNA therein contained?
A blood + Semen stained shawl would presumably have been washed at the time - not sure what effect that would have on the samples, but presumably, since then it would have been steam-cleaned / dry cleaned / washed or whatever a few times?
Or has it been kept in it’s “original state” all this while?
The question is in the efficacy of the testing procedure. There are tests available today that can get a usable sample even off washed clothes and infact semen stained panties have been found to contaminate otherwise pristine clothes after being washed together. This leads us to the second issue, the interpretation of the results. All we have found is a DNA that could have belonged to the victim and suspect. How did it get there. Direct deposit? Maybe by over persons with similar mDNA? Contaminated by contact with same mDNA carrying descendants?
As for Kominsiky, while McNaughten joined the force after the end of the murders, he did have access to police files. CI Donald Swanson, who led the investigation, opined him as the Ripper, as did Robert Anderson, Assistant Police Commissioner. IIRC, although the Met has no official position, internally and informally they have always pinned him as the most likely candidate.
While Kominiski was locked up finally in 1891, he was also locked up for a while in 1889. Moreover, there are 4+1* “canonical” murders, meaning murders believed to have been carried out by the Ripper rather than copycat or unrelated but similar cases, the Whitechapel killing continued until 1891 and at least some are suspected of also being Jack’s work.
- The killing of Mary Kelly was quite different from the others, so many have argued it was done by another person, with her boyfriend being a common suspect.
AK84, with your profession I guess you’d know that access to police files may not have meant much so far back. Police were not required to document everything or anything and training was far less rigorous.
Casebook doesn’t elaborate on Kosminsky being locked up in 1889- do you have a reference (I am not saying it is incorrect, I simply am using one data point).
Also Swanson was quoted as saying:
“…the suspect was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards - Kosminski was the suspect.” (Swanson Marginalia c1910-1924). A newspaper article reported that “…Mr Swanson believed the crimes to be the work of a man who is now dead.” (Pall Mall Gazette May 7 1895)
Kosminski died 16 years after that was written so it must have some problems regarding being factual.
This is speaking from memory so it may not be 100% accurate; it is claimed the shawl has remained unwashed. The original shawl supposedly had more blood on one corner of it, but that part of the shawl was cut off at some stage(part of it has indeed been cut off) and I believe no longer exists. The blood on the remainder of the shawl was quite small, and probably not of obvious notice to the casual handler. From what I know no obvious semen marks remained. The matching Kosminski DNA has been guessed at as coming from semen.