DNA identifies Jack The Ripper......

[bladevalant546]

Good good, all I still going according to plan. Yes. it was the "barber".

[Clueless Morgan]

The Brits finally solved a murder case? Good for them I say.

FYI if the information is correct, it only solves one of the crimes, and as historians disagree over which are and are not "Ripper murders" it may be the only murder that the polish hairdresser committed.

OR, and this is the more likely scenario, the polish hairdresser paid Ms Eddowes for sex, ejaculated all over her shawl and went away. Then later, and perhaps this was on another day even, the Ripper came and killed Ms Eddowes.

Case solved my ass.

Actually it's still only circumstantial. The semen (Kosminski) and the blood (Eddowes) were on the shawl, there is no proof the shawl was at the murder scene or that Kosminski committed the murder. Eddowes could have been with Kosminski before she was killed by someone else.

What I find incredibly sad about all of this is the fact at least five women lost their lives to this serial killer and yet it is 'Jack the Ripper' that gets all the attention. These seems to me to be something wrong with this picture.

It is almost impossible for there to be proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' so long after the facts.

MM

[My bolding in both quotes]

Exactly.

Had they found Kosminski's DNA at one of the murder scenes (which I'm not sure even still exist, I haven't looked into it), or could definitively link him to (even one of) the four other known victims of the Ripper they might have a stronger case.

But the author and Russell Edwards, the guy who purchased the shawl, are forgetting the simple fact that Catherine Eddowes was a prostitute. Finding seminal fluid on her shawl would be like finding fish in the ocean. Finding Kosminski's DNA on her shawl proves nothing more than that he was a customer of hers at some point.

I see this as improved circumstantial evidence implying Kosminski's guilt more strongly than some of the other suspects, but it is by no means definitive proof that he was the Ripper.

Interesting article, though. Makes me want to watch From Hell when I get home. :p

[Brian37]

Snopes has this to say about that, in the interest of fairness.
http://www.snopes.com/info/news/ripper.asp

[StealthySkeptic]

Actually it's still only circumstantial. The semen (Kosminski) and the blood (Eddowes) were on the shawl, there is no proof the shawl was at the murder scene or that Kosminski committed the murder. Eddowes could have been with Kosminski before she was killed by someone else.

What I find incredibly sad about all of this is the fact at least five women lost their lives to this serial killer and yet it is 'Jack the Ripper' that gets all the attention. These seems to me to be something wrong with this picture.

It is almost impossible for there to be proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' so long after the facts.

MM

[My bolding in both quotes]

Exactly.

Had they found Kosminski's DNA at one of the murder scenes (which I'm not sure even still exist, I haven't looked into it), or could definitively link him to (even one of) the four other known victims of the Ripper they might have a stronger case.

But the author and Russell Edwards, the guy who purchased the shawl, are forgetting the simple fact that Catherine Eddowes was a prostitute. Finding seminal fluid on her shawl would be like finding fish in the ocean. Finding Kosminski's DNA on her shawl proves nothing more than that he was a customer of hers at some point.

I see this as improved circumstantial evidence implying Kosminski's guilt more strongly than some of the other suspects, but it is by no means definitive proof that he was the Ripper.

Interesting article, though. Makes me want to watch From Hell when I get home. :p

If only Sherlock Holmes had been on the case.

[vorlon13]

Um, at the risk of being indelicate;

the physical location of the blood and seminal stains and the degree of commingling and precedence of deposition might be discernable to modern forensic analysis. (and I don't think that level of scrutiny has been attempted yet)

So, a blood stain 'obliterating' an existing seminal deposit doesn't get you convicted. But blood and seminal fluids commingling and then drying can put you in jail.

A seminal discharge onto a dried blood stain won't put you in prison, but might get you labeled a 'deve'.

So, we have a VERY interesting item here, and it would be a prime candidate for further investigation.

[Clueless Morgan]

Um, at the risk of being indelicate;

the physical location of the blood and seminal stains and the degree of commingling and precedence of deposition might be discernable to modern forensic analysis. (and I don't think that level of scrutiny has been attempted yet)

[snip]

A seminal discharge onto a dried blood stain won't put you in prison, but might get you labeled a 'deve'.

Except that the article doesn't discuss whether the seminal fluid was found to be deposited after the blood, before the blood, or comingled with the blood. All it says is that the blood was matched to a blood descendant of Catherine Eddowes', and that seminal fluid was also found, and matched to Kosminski.

If further analyses reveal that the seminal fluid was deposited after the blood stain, or is indeed comingled with the blood, I agree that that would be interesting, but that's not the case as presented here. What is presented in this article is only sufficient to conclude that Kosminski was likely a customer of Eddowes shortly before her murder, NOT that he was the Ripper.

[vorlon13]

And I don't think that level of scrutiny has been attempted yet.

[downbeatplumb]

It surprises me how Jack the Ripper has became such a big name over the years. Unsolved murders have always been around and to this day we continue to have more and more new cold cases similar to Mr. Jack's claim to fame. Thing is this case is like many many others and doesn't really stand out as anymore special or unique than the others, at least to me. The Bloody Benders of Kansas is far more intriguing to me for it was the home of a family of four sociopaths that were never found. The grim harvest is more unique than Jack the Ripper and far creepier to me, yet it is Jack the Ripper's name that is engraved into people's minds. I wonder if they would spent half the amount of time looking for the Zodiac killer or the original Night Stalker if they would have actually found the culprits behind this crimes. It is reasonable to believe they could actually still be alive, while cases over 100 years cold would only benefit a piece of mind.

It was because news papers were a relatively new thing, they needed something to write about and people are ghouls.