Whitechapel will never be the same

[FramFramson]

Daily Mail Jack the Ripper mystery finally solved through DNA testing

Reading the article, it looks they did their homework well. Everything seems pretty sound.

So... Wow!



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?

[maxxon]

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).

[psyberwyche]

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/

[maxxon]

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.

[Tactalvanic]

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.

[psyberwyche]

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 

[Captain Blood]

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... 

[FramFramson]

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.

[Cubs]

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.

[itchy]

Johnny Depp said it was william Gull so it had to be ,so there .   

[Cubs]

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.

[Dolmot]

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.

[maxxon]

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".

[psyberwyche]

Arguing about the scientific techniques seems to be nitpicking to me. 

  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 

[psyberwyche]

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.