The chain of custody on the shawl means this wasn’t a particularly scientific study — not to mention the other factor, “oh look, six suspects from the time of the killing, DNA match to one of them, but also to tens of millions of other people alive today”. Reeks of sensationalist BS.
All that can be said is, in 1888 a hooker — who was later murdered, presumably by ‘Jack the Ripper’ — had perhaps been in the company of a Polish immigrant who likely was a john.
Reeks of sensationalist BS.>>>>>>
Yes I guess it does.
You are spot on! It proves little other than a woman had sex with a particular person unless there is somehow mixing of the two ingredients in a specific way i.e. the Polish man’s DNA was deposited on top of the blood. They don’t say that however and you think they would if they want to be definitive about the conclusion.
I had a Ripper doc on the other day. The conclusion was that it was a morgue worker, whose name I didn’t catch.
The kidney that was sent had indications of practiced knife skills, as well as a disease one of the victims had.
The kidney had been stored in wine spirits, available at the morgue.
The morgue at the time was at the geocenter of the killings.
The worker grew up in the area, mother being a hooker.
They attribute two other victims a predecessor, but more importantly, a final victim that had comparatively shallow cuts, which they attributed to the pleurisy of the morgue worker, which was his COD.
YMMV.
When it was leaked they were testing stains on thevshawl, hillary immediately called it a vastrightwing conspiracy
The way they described the DNA evidence .... Only family members would have matched the mitochondrial DNA passed down through female relatives.
Or is that not true?
At the invitation of a friend in Scotland Yard, I toured the Black Museum.
The Black Museum is inside the Scotland Yard building and is a very interesting place, a relatively small place and is chocked full of sensitive (and some classified) displays of all sorts of crime-related items that spanned centuries.
In this museum was an autobiography book published by the Chief Inspector in charge of the ripper investigation.
I saw the notes referenced in the article so the article is correct in stating: “Chief Inspector Donald Swanson, the officer in charge of the investigation, had named him in his notes: Aaron Kosminski, a Polish Jew who had fled to London with his family, escaping the Russian pogroms, in the early 1880s.”
When the police identified him they knew he did it and, yes, they thought they had enough evidence to prosecute but the curator conducting the personal tour stated the police did not proceed with the prosecution because evidence, while strong, was also very much circumstantial and they received political pressure not to prosecute. Something to do with the fact he was a Jewish refugee and there was a huge anti-Semitic movement in Europe at the time and the UK was also surging in that direction, so politically, it would have been dangerous to prosecute.
Seems the UK was even back then sensitive to PC influences. At any rate, the guy was committed and when he was released, he was under constant police supervision 24/7, living with his brother. (The article is wrong about him being committed the rest of his life).
This piece of evidence has been well known for decades by serious Ripper writers. . .and many did receive permission to examine the book in the museum and many saw the evidence with their own eyes. Interesting this article doesn’t mention where those notes are and if he reviewed them himself.
However, according to the curator, these writers did NOT write what they knew to be true because the Ripper story was an industry and they didn’t want to kill that industry, an industry they made their living in.