Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Gothic Horror => Topic started by: FramFramson on 08 September 2014, 07:10:40 AM
-
Daily Mail Jack the Ripper mystery finally solved through DNA testing (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746321/Jack-Ripper-unmasked-How-amateur-sleuth-used-DNA-breakthrough-identify-Britains-notorious-criminal-126-years-string-terrible-murders.html)
Reading the article, it looks they did their homework well. Everything seems pretty sound.
So... Wow! :o
EDIT: Some of my friends have been expressing rather pointed skepticism based on the fact that it's the Daily Mail (an not unfounded criticism) reporting and also due to the long history of people claiming to have solved the Ripper case.
Going over the article again, it nevertheless seems to all hold together very well.
The short version is that the investigators obtained an item of unproven provenance, then proved the provenance by getting a direct DNA link between the item and a Ripper victim's descendent (the same one the item was purportedly found with). That confirms that that item was indeed found at a genuine Ripper crime scene and had the victim's blood on it.
Then and only then did they test the other genetic material found which was DNA linked to a different person, a known suspect.
So unless there's an alternate explanation why a shawl with both blood and kidney cells from a Ripper victim and semen and epithelial cells from a known strong Ripper suspect exists, or unless they are flat-out lying about any aspect of their process or the modern-day descendents they claim to have tested, I would say this all looks pretty conclusive.
Unless there is actual outright fraud going on. Which is not impossible! But that's a different conversation entirely. I guess we'll see if they allow their work to be independently verified?
-
EDIT: Some of my friends have been expressing rather pointed skepticism based on the fact that it's the Daily Mail (an not unfounded criticism) reporting and also due to the long history of people claiming to have solved the Ripper case.
Because the DNA scientist happened to be Finnish, this was also reported in today's Helsingin Sanomat.
Even though they might make a mistake, they are not in the habit of printing baloney just to drive newsstand sales (the publisher has another paper for that).
-
Actually, there are many reasons to be dubious about this claim. See the links below. This author is trying to flog books, plain and simple, using very dubious 'CSI-type' science and some leaps of logic. He's the fifth person I've seen this year claiming to have 'solved' the murders, but only the second to name Kosminsky.
http://io9.com/three-things-to-keep-in-mind-about-the-big-jack-the-rip-1631736706/+rtgonzalez
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/has-jack-the-rippers-identity-really-been-revealed-using-dna-evidence-9717036.html
The best analysis of this story I've seen so far is here (NSFW due to naughty language ;-) http://bakerstreetbabes.com/jack-the-ripper-revealed-eehhhhhhhhh/
-
Actually, there are many reasons to be dubious about this claim. See the links below. This author is trying to flog books, plain and simple,
Yeah, and the last of the links you gave also has a book to sell...
I don't have a dog in this fight, nor do I have a book to sell, but quite frankly the I find the dismissals overly harsh.
We have a physical piece of evidence with DNA from both the victim and one of the prime suspects.
The way I see it this could mean a number of things:
1) They mucked it up and the DNA was not really there, the samples were contaminated or the descendants weren't really descendants of the right people. Honest mistake, in other words.
2) They intentionally falsified evidence.
3) The victim and the suspect knew each other (perhaps due to the victim's profession), but he didn't kill her. Maybe he was just another satisfied customer.
4) The shawl got contaminated by their DNAs through some other means without them ever meeting, but Occam's razor favors number 3 above.
5) Maybe they are right.
But one thing I do know: This is interesting. Even if it proves to be a hoax, it seems more elaborate than your average "psychic hotline blames Prince Albert".
P.S. A lot was made about this not being published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Who is to say such an article isn't in the works? Agreeing to this order of publication was probably a requirement to get to work with the sample.
Yes, if the article never appears I agree, but I wouldn't draw too many conclusions simply because it hasn't been published yet.
-
Reserver judgment until there is some real peer review/scientific journal publication to clear up the vagueness/doubts if possible.
Await that with some interest thats for sure.
Without that, just add it to the list of book peddlers.
I don't think the guys doing the guided tours and other ripper stuff will be too much affected yet.
-
Honestly, the only thing ever linking Kosminsky to the case was a margin note in a policeman's report that appeared years after the fact. And Aaron wasn't specifically named - just the surname. The DNA - IF the shawl was genuinely from the scene, and IF the newly invented technique is actually accurate and not a load of hokum, could have been from ANY of the Kosminsky family. Aaron was only named because he was later committed, but he was never accused.
Honestly, I'm not saying it wasn't him - many experts have named him, and the case is compelling (other than the fact that he had no surgical knowledge whatsoever, and leading contemporary experts said that the ripper certainly did). I personally believe he *is* the most likely suspect from all those named after the fact. However, for this author to say that this is DEFINITIVE PROOF is utter nonsense, when the evidence is circumstantial at best.
Like all other theories, this one is just going to come down to faith, because the 'hard science' isn't actually convincing.
PS. The fact that the world exclusive went to the Daily Mail and not to a genuine scientific journal actually does speak volumes. The Hate Mail editors are rubbing their hands together that they get to name an immigrant and Jew as the killer lol
-
I'd be a wealthy man if I had a fiver for every book that's been published with the premise of 'I can definitely, definitively prove once and for all that XYZ was Jack the Ripper'...
Just another in a long line of contenders - and another bod making money out of a ghastly ancient mystery.
Besides, let's face it, nobody really wants to know for sure, because it's only the not knowing that makes it such an endlessly fascinating and notorious case. If we knew for sure, the air would go out of the balloon in a moment. And all those thousands of authors, filmmakers, graphic novelists and conspiracy theorists, who have, for generations, made a healthy living of the back of a (relatively, in comparison to many later serial killers) small spate of 130-year old unsolved murders, would have to find other ways to earn themselves some money instead... ;)
-
That's it really - the naysayers don't even need a financial incentive. Lots of people just want it to never be solved. It's far too late for any justice, so "allow us our modern-day romantic historical mysteries".
Arguing about the scientific techniques seems to be nitpicking to me. A few minutes of googling confirms that the listed techniques are valid and while they're new, there's plenty of documentation. On top of that, the scientist of the pair is an actual forensic investigator by trade, which is no guarantee, but again, attacking from the angle of "poor science" seems a waste of time. Poor science or sloppy work would give you entirely different DNA or dead results, not a direct physical link between a victim and a suspect. Lightning might strike once, sure, but twice?
Even if we accept the arguments of the shawl having a dubious provenance, I don't see how those two DNA samples could have come together on one item by accident or how different people's DNA would give those two exact people by chance. And the presence of kidney cells indicates this would have been at the murder scene, not some alternate location like a trunk or flat. If those things aren't true, that's not slipshod work, that's lies. So to my mind this is either true or a wholesale, blatant fraud with evidence fabricated at every step of the way.
The investigators appear to have anticipated possible criticism and have a statement for them all. Either you believe them or you don't - and I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt pending independent confirmation of their scientific results. The lack of a journal is understandable if they do want to make money (and they do). If they're legitimate, then the same information which would be in a peer-reviewed journal will largely be in the book. For now now the only thing to do is wait for the published results and details to be scrutinized. Since the book is coming out in a week, I'm sure we won't have to wait long.
-
In a modern investigation it wouldn't get past stage one because the the chain of evidence has been broken and the shawl has been contaminated by exposure to Lord knows how many people over the century and a bit. In fact, all you have is a family anecdote of where the thing came from in the first place, let alone where it's been in the meantime.
Add to that the owner of the shawl may or may not have been a prostitute in the same area the suspect lived and you have an obvious 'DNA sample' which could be present on the garment, donated by any one of her customers (including him) at any stage. Just because he (or someone else) wiped his wotsit on her scarf, doesn't mean he then killed her (but it might have meant she tried to kill him afterwards).
Even if we make the huge assumptive leap that this shawl belong to the victim (or murderer), and no cross-contamination has occurred during its time from then to now ... there is nothing to link this man himself to the DNA sample. It could just as easily be any member of his extended family, several of whom lived in Whitechapel too.
It's another theory, but thus far it's hardly conclusive. It's using scientific phrasing and statistics to make some pretty huge leaps of 'proof'.
PS. By not agreeing with the conclusions of the author, I am in no way inferring that Fram should not have shared this, nor that he is a big bag of poo, nor that I want to show great disrespect to him and his entire family, nor that I want to send him a smack in an envelope.
It's an interesting wee item, but one I am happier to discuss than agree with.
-
Johnny Depp said it was william Gull so it had to be ,so there . ;)
-
Johnny Depp said it was william Gull so it had to be ,so there . ;)
Yeah, but he was Bilbo Baggins, and I'm sure he'd have mentioned something about that in his memoirs. And Johnny Depp was the Mad Hatter, so his evidence can hardly be trusted.
-
Without commenting the reliability of their findings for now, I do admire the sentence "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."
It's over. Sorry.
-
Even if we make the huge assumptive leap that this shawl belong to the victim (or murderer), and no cross-contamination has occurred during its time from then to now ... there is nothing to link this man himself to the DNA sample. It could just as easily be any member of his extended family, several of whom lived in Whitechapel too.
I do agree that there are too many gray areas to send anyone to the gallows, but it is still the best piece of evidence linking the victim to anyone at all. Assuming it wasn't botched or falsified, ofcourse.
If you could find any single item in the world with my DNA and yours, that would be mighty interesting, wouldn't it? Especially 126 years after the fact. (To the best of my knowledge, I've never met Cubs)
The problem is that "We've extracted 126 year old DNA to identify possible persons" sells far fewer papers or clicks or books than "We've identified Jack the Ripper".
-
Arguing about the scientific techniques seems to be nitpicking to me.
lol In a theory that revolves around a single piece of scientific evidence, we aren't allowed to scrutinize that evidence?
Forgive me sir, but if you're interested I have a bridge for sale ;)
-
I do agree that there are too many gray areas to send anyone to the gallows, but it is still the best piece of evidence linking the victim to anyone at all. Assuming it wasn't botched or falsified, ofcourse.
If you could find any single item in the world with my DNA and yours, that would be mighty interesting, wouldn't it? Especially 126 years after the fact. (To the best of my knowledge, I've never met Cubs)
On a more serious note:
The technique used to examine the DNA could only possibly link a member of your extended family to a member of mine, not specifically me to you. I'm certainly not saying he botched or falsified the evidence - I'm saying his train of logic is full of flaws and assumptions, and the test he used - the only test he could have used under the circumstances - is not accurate to the degree that he states.
Secondly, the only reason Kosminsky was linked using this technique is because the researchers specifically looked for members of Kosminsky's family to test. Obviously no contemporary DNA existed. They ignore the fact that he could have been a paying customer. They ignore the fact that it could have been his brother. They ignore the fact that there is probably other, unidentifiable, DNA on that shawl, *because* it's unidentifiable. They even ignore the fact that the shawl may not even have come from the crime scene! Ignoring facts is not good scientific method. I'd say he's rather jumping to a conclusion, and twisting the facts the fit his theory.
In a modern court of law, this would not be enough to convict a man of murder beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, it is not the 'definitive proof' which the author claims - it's just a better theory than the ones we already had.
-
If you could find any single item in the world with my DNA and yours, that would be mighty interesting, wouldn't it? Especially 126 years after the fact. (To the best of my knowledge, I've never met Cubs)
But as Psy points out, the analogy is more like taking a sample of my DNA now, comparing it to a sample from a century and a bit ago and then trying to guess which one of my 16 great-great-grandparents, or even 32 great-great-great grandparents, or their immediate siblings, it comes from. A lot of that guy's family lived in and around Whitechapel at the time.
That's assuming the shawl has absolutely anything to do with the Ripper murders, which is based on nothing but hearsay.
That's assuming the DNA was actually put on the shawl by the murderer, which is nothing but a wild guess.
That's assuming the sample hasn't been contaminated or degraded beyond the point where it can be accurately measured.
You see the problem?
Like I say, it's a theory, but the evidence is some way short of solid, or even admissible by modern standards.
-
Oh, all right.
It was me. I did it. I confess. It's a fair cop.
It's the last time I order a DIY surgeon's kit from the catalogue.
They didn't even send me my Certificate of Completion.
-
That's assuming the sample hasn't been contaminated or degraded beyond the point where it can be accurately measured.
I was just reading a quote this morning from a scientist, who was saying that the DNA matching technique isn't the problem - it's the newly invented technique called 'vacuuming', which was used to extract the sample. Apparently that hasn't been peer reviewed - it was invented by the microbiologist involved with this book, specifically to extract really old DNA from an item. If that technique hasn't been peer reviewed, and later turns out to be hokey, then they'll have effectively destroyed or contaminated [potentially] the best piece of evidence ever found!
-
lol In a theory that revolves around a single piece of scientific evidence, we aren't allowed to scrutinize that evidence?
Forgive me sir, but if you're interested I have a bridge for sale ;)
My line was more in reference to the type who've been on about "DNA enhancement? I've never heard of that! Must be a load of codswallop!" when five minutes with google confirms it's a valid technique.
The vacuuming critique is more sound, but botching that seems more likely to destroy evidence then provide false evidence. But getting old DNA isn't as big a problem as you might think. The oldest DNA ever extracted from a human is over 7000 years old. And as I understand, they're using nuclear matching for the actual mitochondrial DNA comparisons, which is an established process and very accurate (barring cross-contamination).
As for the item being at the murder site, I think kidney cells do confirm that. IF they're telling the truth and they really did find them.
If you assume a scenario without fraud (maybe these guys are just sloppy or bad investigators or the shawl has no real relation to the Ripper case). So they just found a shawl that's been argued over for decades as to whether or not it's connected to the Ripper murders. Then these guys test it and find blood and internal organs tissue traces on it. They test those and get a DNA record. Then they go over to a modern woman who claims descent from the same victim that the shawl is potentially related to and the DNA matches. Then they extract semen from the same shawl and get a different DNA record. Then they find some modern person who is purported to be descended from a suspect and the second DNA matches them. What possible sequence of evidence contamination or incompetence or sheer coincidence would possibly explain that chain of events where DNA planted on one object over a century ago matches two separate modern day claimants? I know little enough about DNA sampling, but I know that if they had completely the wrong person they're not going to get 100% matches on two total strangers a century after the fact. They'd get a partial or broken record or null result or just about anything but a perfect match. Or the alternate argument that the same victim first had a customer who was a man who pretty clearly had some flavour of serious mental illness, but was not the killer, but then somehow the same item that had his jizz on it also managed to make its way to the murder scene (as supposedly confirmed by organ tissue). That's a hell of a scenario!
Now, if these guys went to the descendents or some convenient modern dupes, told them they wanted to compare DNA, took samples and then retroactively claimed these were found on the shawl, put together a plausible-sounding account, then ring up the local tabloid rag, okay! That's vastly more straightforward. Or if they found some DNA matches, but then went too far and claimed kidney cells (in order to link it definitively to the murder site), okay! That's also straightforward. But those are things a forensic scientist ought to be able to verify, and I am happy to defer to the experts in this specific situation. Or, obviously if they refuse to allow independent verification or reveal the identity of their sources to ANYONE, even the police, then that too is blatantly suspect. But answers to those will come in the coming days. This isn't the kind of thing that won't unravel quickly if it is fraud.
-
But as Psy points out, the analogy is more like taking a sample of my DNA now, comparing it to a sample from a century and a bit ago and then trying to guess which one of my 16 great-great-grandparents, or even 32 great-great-great grandparents, or their immediate siblings, it comes from. A lot of that guy's family lived in and around Whitechapel at the time.
I don't care if Aaron did it or not. They're not going to dig him up and put him on the stand.
I simply find it fabulous that it can be proven of an item over 100 years old that one of your great-great... grandparents and one of my mine have both handled it.
Yes it could have been his brother. Yes he could have been just a customer. Yes they might just have handled the same item without actually meeting.
To me that's not the point. The point is being able to connect the victim to anyone at all via physical proof after all these years.
In some other case, coupled with other evidence that ability may make a meaningful difference. Being able to move from "could have been anybody" to "one of these 10 people was present".
-
But guys, you're both making the same leaps the author has.
What you have is a shawl with -
Blood DNA samples which show a link to the Great-Great-Great-Daughter of the victim. That's a lot of links in the chain right there and a hell of a lot of people that blood could have come from.
Cells which the tester says may be kidney cells.
Semen DNA samples which show a link to ancestors of the suspect. It may be him, it may be his family, it may be other members of those people's extended family going back however many generations, running into dozens or hundreds of possible contributors.
That's it. You have no way of ageing the item, nor when the samples were introduced to it, other than they're old. You have no way of knowing the link between that item, or the victim and suspect, or even if there was one, because you can't even pin it down to either of those people.
Whitechapel was a close-knit and relatively small community at the time and for decades afterwards. It is in no way surprising that people whose ancestors lived there anywhere around the time of the Ripper murders, knew each other and interacted. The further back you go in an ancestral chain, the more people are in it.
It's certainly intriguing and, if you first invent a scenario where the suspect has knocked one out on a prostitute's shawl (we've all done it) and then killed her, rubbing a kidney on it along the way, then yes, this fits those circumstances.
It could also belong to someone to helped lifted the remains into the police van.
But all you can say is that there is a shawl (of unknown origin) which has some blood and semen, belonging to people who are ancestors of people who are (probably) descendants of the victim and suspect. Plus there are some cells which may be kidney cells (this one, for me, is the most compelling and needs more scrutiny).
Right now, that is still way too little to base a claim of "I've solved it beyond all doubt!" on and that's before we tackle the old favourite of the killer having detailed anatomical knowledge, which the suspect apparently didn't. If I was peddling another book on this tired old subject I might be tempted to do the same.
-
Right now, that is still way too little to base a claim of "I've solved it beyond all doubt!" on and that's before we tackle the old favourite of the killer having detailed anatomical knowledge, which the suspect apparently didn't. If I was peddling another book on this tired old subject I might be tempted to do the same.
That's the issue for me, in a nutshell. I absolutely agree with Maxxon and Fram that the evidence is really interesting, but I take issue with the author saying 'That's it, it's over.'
Interestingly, the DNA test is the same as the one Patricia Cornwell used when she 'definitively' named Walter Sickert as the killer. She was widely ridiculed shortly afterwards...
-
Besides, if the Ripper really did kill her, gut her, then shake hot white coconuts from his veiny love tree all over her shawl, surely the police would have found him curled up asleep next to her ... or at least severely mellowed out with a cup of tea and a cookie. Post-climax jelly-legs are hardly conducive to a quick getaway.
-
It's this bit that irks me;
"I’ve got the only piece of forensic evidence in the whole history of the case," said Mr Edwards. "We have definitively solved the mystery of who Jack the Ripper was.
"Only non-believers that want to perpetuate the myth will doubt. This is it now – we have unmasked him."
A whiff of the Emperor's New Clothes about it?
Hull historian Mike Covell offers comment in this excerpt from the Hull Daily Mail (not affiliated with the non-Hull based Daily. Mail as far as I know):
But Hull historian Mike Covell, who has published a number of books about the Ripper murders, said Mr Edwards' conclusions were unlikely to be correct.
The history of the blood-stained shawl is hazy to say the least and, although Kosminski was named by police as a possible suspect, experts on the case have long ruled him out as a serious contender to be the Ripper.
In fact, it seems he was considered a harmless mentally ill man who was locked up because he had a fondness for masturbation.
"There is no provenance to the shawl," said Mr Covell. "A police officer named Amos Simpson claims to have not only been at the murder scene but to have taken the shawl home. This is false. He was never at the scene.
"The inquest reports and official files show everything Eddowes had on her and with her the night she was murdered. There is no mention of the shawl."
Adding to the doubts is the fact that the shawl has been handled by many people over the years, including the descendants of Catherine Eddowes, increasing the risk of contamination.
Claims the DNA conclusively proves Kosminski's guilt are also wide of the mark, Mr Covell says.
"Mitochondrial DNA can be taken from every female family member and even from a ethnic group and not singled down to one sole person," he said. "The family of Kosminski made clothes in Whitechapel, they were registered as furriers.
"I worked with a television crew on the shawl in 2010. We tested several stains and whilst they were discovered to be blood and semen we could not get any matches or DNA sequences because the samples were too old and too degraded.
End of quote.
Maybe Kosminski just had different quality control methods for his family's clothing business? (actually you never know).
-
Thank God he didn't make yoghurt.
-
Thank God he didn't make yoghurt.
lol
He was apparently a barber though, so best not to ask for hair gell.
The full article is here if anyone is interested :
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-Aaron-Kosminski-Er-says-expert-Mike/story-22893770-detail/story.html
-
But, but, but...
Patricia Cornwell stated 'case closed' in 2002!
Doug
-
But, but, but...
Patricia Cornwell stated 'case closed' in 2002!
Doug
Who is Patricia Cornwell. Little sister of Bernhard Cornwell????
-
Besides, if the Ripper really did kill her, gut her, then shake hot white coconuts from his veiny love tree all over her shawl, surely the police would have found him curled up asleep next to her ... or at least severely mellowed out with a cup of tea and a cookie. Post-climax jelly-legs are hardly conducive to a quick getaway.
Bahahahaha.....But, but, but...
Patricia Cornwell stated 'case closed' in 2002!
Doug
My thoughts exactly....lol