The amount of research they've done at least gives it great credibility this time.
Interesting to read the guy was recorded by the police as the main suspect even then.
He was always the main suspect but never enough evidence in those days.
Well, I've never heard of him. I also heard it was some guy who came out here and got strung for something else. And some other guy...and someone else....
Didn't Patricia Cornwell solve it too?
At least they can lock him up now and the streets will be safe again.
Finally the whores of London are safe.
Ask him if he knows Sarah? lf not let's introduce him to Willo, they would get along okay. On second thoughts, even he doesn't deserve a fate like that.
Cool story.
Holy Moly.
Im not going to read it though.
Countdown to biopic begins today. Someone pen a script.
Tipping someone will find a flaw in the testing process and doubt will remain.
I was way off...
I had it as Professor Plum, in the Kitchen with the Lead Pipe
Tipping someone will find a flaw in the testing process and doubt will remain.
I've found one all ready. His name's not Jack it's Aaron. It's pretty obvious. I'm surprised they missed it.
I was way off...
I had it as Professor Plum, in the Kitchen with the Lead Pipe
The hairdresser, in the lane way, with a large knife.
AaronJohn's?I've found one all ready. His name's not Jack it's Aaron. It's pretty obvious. I'm surprised they missed it.
Tipping someone will find a flaw in the testing process and doubt will remain.
So it seems that the mtDNA subtype match is actually one of the more common ones and narrows the field to a few million people, not one person. And the bloke who bought the shawl has a book coming out… of course.
Looks a bit like the bloke from Deadwood to me.
I was way off...
I had it as Professor Plum, in the Kitchen with the Lead Pipe
The hairdresser, in the lane way, with a large knife.
Sounds like it could be a good movie. Who could play the main character? Johnny Depp?
I read the article. Sounds full of holes to be honest.
First, the guy who wrote the book and is making the claims ever so conveniently found evidence that the bloke who was guilty was the one he suspected all along?
Second, the provenance of the shawl is as shaky as hell - so it apparently a vital piece of evidence in the most notorious murder case of all time just hung around as a grubby bloodstained rag in the family of the cop for a hundred-odd years, never being washed, never being thrown out? And it somehow managed to still preserve uncontaminated not only the victim's DNA, but the epithelial DNA of the killer which even the forensic DNA expert didn't expect to find? That's some pretty extreme claims, which will require some pretty extreme evidence to support.
And as others have said, there's a long long history of spectacular new evidence about the Ripper case coming to light just in time for the discoverer to write a sensational book about it, only for it to be discredited or have major doubt cast on it as soon as independent analysts have a go at it. Remember the 'Diary of Jack the Ripper' from a decade or so back? Apparently by some bloke called Maybrick, who nobody had ever heard of, who wrote about how he committed the murders. Massive sensation - then someone confessed to forging it, then recanted the confession, then recanted the recantation, and then someone showed up with a pocket watch belonging to the guy with 'I am Jack' scratched on it, and scientific opinion still differs about whether they're genuine or not, and the argument still goes on years later....
Finally the whores of London are safe.
Warnies never going back?
The greatest mystery of all is every time they confirm this for money it's a different answer. Now it's "ethnic minority this paper's readership doesn't like" did it because a hairdresser's DNA was found on a woman's shawl. The way the press works I'm 50/50 on whether the murders even happened.
Have they "confirmed" the murderer as other people before?
The greatest mystery of all is every time they confirm this for money it's a different answer. Now it's "ethnic minority this paper's readership doesn't like" did it because a hairdresser's DNA was found on a woman's shawl. The way the press works I'm 50/50 on whether the murders even happened.
Have they "confirmed" the murderer as other people before?
"They" being newspapers and authors? see HM post above.
I remember it coming up a couple times in the past.