Jack the Ripper case solved, Ripper now identified

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

Norma,ly I would be agreeing with you but as the male sample was from semen, I'm having a difficult time believing he had enough time to have sex with her and then kill her. Its possible that part of his game was a pre kill episode of "self harm" as it was referred to when masterbation was at the level of compulsion and there was transfer to the shawl during the kill. But that's the thing, there are a lot of open ended possibilities and none of it actually is conclusively linking the guy as the Ripper. It gives him a circumstantial tie to one victim and the tie that binds them isn't necessarily one of death. I thi the jury is still out on this one.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: JiggyPotamus

Norma,ly I would be agreeing with you but as the male sample was from semen, I'm having a difficult time believing he had enough time to have sex with her and then kill her. Its possible that part of his game was a pre kill episode of "self harm" as it was referred to when masterbation was at the level of compulsion and there was transfer to the shawl during the kill. But that's the thing, there are a lot of open ended possibilities and none of it actually is conclusively linking the guy as the Ripper. It gives him a circumstantial tie to one victim and the tie that binds them isn't necessarily one of death. I thi the jury is still out on this one.

And this we can agree on.

Without the actual evidence, it will lead to more anti-Semitism. I can see it now, the conspiracy theories swirling about Zionists.

He was definitely a quick worker. I can't buy the policeman angle, because policemen in that time, or even now, are not trained to be able to slice up people. But then again, if the policeman were interested in reading a bunch of anatomy books, but then again, someone would have known.

All we can say at this time is that the guy somehow got semen on her shawl. That's it. This happened in the Victorian Era, when certain things were not talked about, like masturbation.

In some of the letters, which I don't believe were all written by him, maybe he had Syphilis that he got from a prostitute and that would lead to his anger at them, because they weren't able to have self-accountability for their own actions. There was simply not enough time to do all that.

Syphilis was rampant in Victorian England and they didn't talk realistically about it. The Dear Boss letter was well-written but the From Hell letter was by a different hand. But he knew how to get a kidney, that's not what the average Eastender would have known in those days. I don't think they ever said even what kind of knife was used. Even Jeffrey Dahmer read books about anatomy, he learned it on his own, but he definitely took his time. Jack the Ripper did it in the dark, with little time. So Jack the Ripper obviously knew anatomy.

originally posted by: Qumulys
While many are scoffing about 'it proves not much' do indeed have a point, it is by far the most exciting bit of evidence so far. It is probably as good as a result as there will ever be. Also, it's funny how the killings stopped once he was put in a mental hospital huh? For me, this is as close to a slam dunk as there will be to put a face on the ripper. And at least this guy got off the net instead of just talking the talk, he went out and walked the walk. Sad he chose the Daily Mail though...

Exactly. Some people are just so desperate to have the legend endure, or to believe that there was some ridiculous conspiracy, that they will never accept ANYTHING as evidence of the true culprit. I've been a Ripperologist for over 30 years now and I have never been as excited about the case as I am today. I mean really, we have one of the five canonical suspects and his DNA and a canonical victim's DNA possibly on the same article of clothing? Come on, man, what more do you want? IF the backstory to the shawl holds up and IF the DNA results survive peer review, I;m all in on "The Polish Jew" as the final answer to "Who was Jack the Ripper?"

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: JiggyPotamus

Norma,ly I would be agreeing with you but as the male sample was from semen, I'm having a difficult time believing he had enough time to have sex with her and then kill her. Its possible that part of his game was a pre kill episode of "self harm" as it was referred to when masterbation was at the level of compulsion and there was transfer to the shawl during the kill. But that's the thing, there are a lot of open ended possibilities and none of it actually is conclusively linking the guy as the Ripper. It gives him a circumstantial tie to one victim and the tie that binds them isn't necessarily one of death. I thi the jury is still out on this one.

And this we can agree on.

Without the actual evidence, it will lead to more anti-Semitism. I can see it now, the conspiracy theories swirling about Zionists.

He was definitely a quick worker. I can't buy the policeman angle, because policemen in that time, or even now, are not trained to be able to slice up people. But then again, if the policeman were interested in reading a bunch of anatomy books, but then again, someone would have known.

All we can say at this time is that the guy somehow got semen on her shawl. That's it. This happened in the Victorian Era, when certain things were not talked about, like masturbation.

In some of the letters, which I don't believe were all written by him, maybe he had Syphilis that he got from a prostitute and that would lead to his anger at them, because they weren't able to have self-accountability for their own actions. There was simply not enough time to do all that.

Syphilis was rampant in Victorian England and they didn't talk realistically about it. The Dear Boss letter was well-written but the From Hell letter was by a different hand. But he knew how to get a kidney, that's not what the average Eastender would have known in those days. I don't think they ever said even what kind of knife was used. Even Jeffrey Dahmer read books about anatomy, he learned it on his own, but he definitely took his time. Jack the Ripper did it in the dark, with little time. So Jack the Ripper obviously knew anatomy.

His knowledge of anatomy was debated even at the time by those who saw the wounds. And they did agree about the general size and style of the knife. And the kidney letter was more likely than not a hoax by a medical student, although that is certainly open to debate.

originally posted by: CardiffGiant

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Qumulys

The killings stopped before he was put into the mental hospital. According to an FBI profiler there was no way he did the murders.

[

yeah, the killings stopped a whole month before he went in the asylum.
he has been a suspect for more than 100 years.
i think people just want to keep the myth going

There were periods longer than one month between some of the killings. Just saying.

a reply to: Power_Semi

Without cameras back then it would have been easy to get away with it...not like today with cameras on every corner. ....But oh wait...THEY DID GET AWAy With IT! ...and still have gotten away with it. Hmmmmmm.....what was your point again?
And as I said earlier..serial killers like their trophy so..so was the scarf a trophy? And if so, that would mean the Sargent was the killer.

Some random thoughts on this:

1. There are some who believed the Ripper did not exist. Instead, they believe the 5 similar cases are wrongly clumped together with one perpetrator. IDK

2. The guy lived 200 yards away from KE. Probably knew her. He had sexual 'issues'. She was a prostitute. A link? Sure. Evidence of a killer? Kind of a stretch.

3. The provenance of the piece of clothing is hazy. It probably did come from the scene but would it stand up in court?

4. If this guy was a deranged serial killer, how on Earth would he suppress those urges locked up or not? Because he is in the asylum, finger painting and looking out the window will suffice?

Is this an interesting new take on an old mystery? Absolutely and it could have merit. Am I convinced this guy is the Ripper? Still not yet.

a reply to: spoonbender
a reply to: CardiffGiant


We interviewed the grandson of H H Holmes on episode 174 on ATS Live radio.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

He talks about the Ripper connection, if you are interested, hear the theory straight from the horses mouth.
Just hit the rewind player on this episode (174)

www.illustrial.net...

this article is good. explains the inaccuracy of mitochondrial (maternal) DNA over the degraded nuclear DNA (paternal)

MtDNA is passed down from a mother to her children, and many people can share the same mtDNA signature. The signature linked to Kosminski, T1a1, is a relatively common subtype. Thus, the determination doesn't mean much unless the signature can be narrowed down to a rarer subtype

www.nbcnews.com...

one more thing, i thought it was established the scarf was edwardian and not victorian, so was ruled out few years ago?

make that two more things, the guy who "solved" this has a JTR store....I wander if her sells replica scarves, minus the blood and semen I hope.

From the casebook discussion.

Dear Lyn, Stewart et al.

I have not yet had an opportunity to read the book by Russell Edwards but as someone who deals in DNA on a daily basis perhaps I can make a few cautious observations.
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is passed down in the female line. Although it is possible to analyse the mtDNA of a male it will have been acquired from his mother. Therefore for any comparison of the putative mtDNA from the Eddowes shawl with present day relatives to be valid they must be related in an unbroken female line to common ancestors of either Kosminski or Eddowes as the case may be. I don’t know if that is the case with either Karen Miller or the anonymous relative of Aron Kosminski but if there is any descent through the male line it would immediately and irrevocably invalidate the comparisons.
The only way to prove with 95% confidence (the normally accepted level of statistical proof) that the samples on the shawl came from either Kosminski or Eddowes would be by a direct comparison with samples known to be from either of them. As far as I know such samples are not available. Even then, as in the Cornwell comparisons, there is only a between 0.1 and 10% chance that matching samples came from the same individual. Given a gap of at least 4 generations to common ancestors of either Eddowes or Kosminski, the chances of being able to say with certainty that the mtDNA is definitely that of either of them is even smaller. The population of London in 1888 was about 5 million and therefore a ‘perfect’ mtDNA match with someone alive at the time would mean that it could have come from anywhere between 5,000 and 500,000 other Londoners.
Then there is the question of the epithelial cells. Edwards asserts that they came from Kosminski’s urethra. The urethra is lined with squamous epithelium but so is the skin, the nose and the mouth. Anyone touching or even breathing on the shawl could, and most probably would, have left such cells behind.
Finally the kidney cell. I have a good deal of experience of histology. I certainly could not identify a single cell as having come from a kidney. I would need a cluster of tens or hundreds of such cells to be able to identify their origin as being the kidney.
I will suspend my final judgement until I have read the whole book but I thought it might be of some interest to make a few preliminary observations.
Prosector

forum.casebook.org...

I thought this was an amazing read. Great evidence. To people saying "oh well its just a scarf with blood and semen on it blah blahhhhh pffffft!". There's so much circumstential evidence pointing to kosminski. It had kosminski dna and catherines dna. The cloth came from eastern europe as did kosminski. A police sergeant KNEW it was kosminski and had him under 24hr surveillance in which thereafter the murders stopped THEN kosminski was placed in asylum...in which the murders remained discontinued. Muuuuch more evidence but for brievity sake I'm done. I just think its weird the guy was a hairdresser

Story is on CNN now also, so attacking the source isn't really the way to go. Still, while interesting, I'm not so sure it's conclusive. Still a lot of hearsay on the veracity of the scarf, and of whose DNA would be on it, given the profession of the victim.

I'm not so sure the suspect fits the profile either. Here was a guy boasting of his deeds (Jack), yet when caught, nothing? Seems he would have grandstanded a bit.

The H.H. Holmes idea was always intriguing. As I recall, a handwriting expert claimed a 98% match, or something like that, though of course, this may have been in the employ of the author of the idea. Holmes would certainly fit the profile.

But, he had a daughter during the time of the murders, so unless he was in the habit of going back and forth to England (something there is no evidence of), doesn't seem plausible it was Holmes.

a reply to: Gazrok

The scarf was returned by the Black Museum after it was appraised by Victoria Albert Museum Fabric specialists who said it was from around 1905, about 20 years later than the murders. The museum discounted it as evidence then gave it back to the family who had repeatedly handled it over a century, corrupting any evidence. The owner then sold it to this guy, who is likely trying to recoup his 5-10K quid he spent on it.

The candidate of Kominski is a good one, one of the canonical suspects. But the DNA testing is not certain by any means unless it can be proven to have gone through ALL maternal lines from his sister. At the moment it can match about 400 000 subtypes not one person, nearly half a million people. It is not nuclear DNA.

The scarf should also be discounted as the crime scene was meticulously recorded down to a old mustard lid and a loose ticket stub for used shoes. No mention of a blood soaked scarf owned by the victim or discarded by JTR. No way they would miss recording such a piece of evidence. They weren't complete idiots in their day, they did a very good job on evidence with what they had.

I don't think the scarf is evidence.
Don't think it was ever near Whitechappel in the late 1880s and if they think they can get definitive lines of decent from MtDNA, its ludicrous.

If they provide more detail of the tests for peer review, then he (the JTR yoyo's selling man) can talk

originally posted by: Power_Semi

originally posted by: Meldionne1

originally posted by: paradisepurple
The DNA was from his semen? How on earth does that prove he was the murderer? Am I missing something here?

And I don’t understand how the acting police sergeant was allowed to take the shawl home to his wife… Ok they didn’t have forensic testing in those days but you’d think they would have hung onto it. And can you imagine his wife ‘’wow, thanks hubby, a blood and semen covered shawl, just what I always wanted…’’!

Hmm, this is all very odd, I’m not sure what to make of it to be honest…

Maybe the Sargent was the " ripper" and bringing the shawl home to his wife was a trophy and not a gift to his wife. It would be easy for a policeman , in those days, to get away with it.

No it wouldn't.

It drives me nuts that people think 100 years or so ago everyone was a simpleton and things were incredibly lax.

They were probably more stringent than they are now, and I have no doubt at all that the education system for coroners etc was just as good, if not better than it is now.

Some of these people were incredibly intelligent, all you have to do is look at what was achieved without all of the technology we have today to see just how clever they were.

People today kid themselves that they are far more advanced than people back then because they have mobile phones, computers, TV, etc, but the reality is that 99.999999% of people don't have a clue how any of it works, or would have a clue how to fix it if it broke.

All people today are skilled at is pressing buttons, but they kid themselves that they are technologically and intellectually superior.

I can guarantee you that if you could travel back in time with your mobile phone or laptop that anyone back then would be able to press the buttons just as competently, and play angry birds or minecraft just as well as anyone from our own time.

Exactly right. People nowadays think they know it all because they have more technology, whereas basically all that has changed is that we don't have to use our brain. The goal now is to make it all "user friendly" and "dumb proof". People back then had to think during their lives.

Aaron Kominski matches what I thought would be the Ripper. Lived in the area, knew the alleys,streets,knew the place enough to move quickly in the middle of the dark and foggy night. People knew him and he knew the people, he dressed like everybody else there. He was squizofrenic, so he heard voices telling him what to do. As for the anatomical knowledge, there are different opinions. Some say the ripper had to be a doctor or a butcher. Others say anyone could have done it. I don't know about the DNA and the scarf as evidence, but if not him, Jack was surely someone like him.

Fascinating case. The first hype commercial campaign ever (to sell newspapers back then, but it went on for over a century). If you notice, new suspects always come out in august-september, summer season, when there are not many good stories to feed the news.

It is absolutely 100% crystal clear without doubt that the person who committed the crimes :

a) Had a very good knowledge of anatomy of the human body;
b) killed them to remove internal organs;

Why?

1) He didn't just strangle them until they were dead to kill them or cut their throats to kill them, he had a particular method which involved both and was:

i) strangle them until they are unconscious;
ii) then cut their throat once they are unconscious.

If he's just some nutter who wants to kill someone why not carry on strangling until they are dead, and why cut the throat as well?

It is because once they are strangled to the point of unconsciousness their heart is still beating, and they now cannot defend themselves. They can then be moved to a position where the blood spray will be away from him, and once he then cuts the throat the heart will pump away until there is practically no blood left in the body.

He can then enter the body quickly and easily without getting himself covered in blood and can find the organs easier.

It is a very clinical, cold, and methodical way to dispatch someone and then remove organs in a very rapid time.

2) He incapacitated them, killed them, eviscerated then, located the organs, and took them "with one sweep of the knife" as one coroner put it, within 5 minutes or less, in the dark, in the street, all the while looking over one shoulder to see if he'd been caught, and he did it all with one instrument - a long bladed knife.

I would challenge any one of you to perform the same rapid removal of organs from a dead body on a well lit mortuary room table with all of the tools you want in the same time frame.

If you don't know what you're looking for or where it is you have no chance.

More:

www.thewhitechapelmurders.com...

a reply to: Power_Semi

So you definitely think it had to be a doctor/surgeon? or work in a morgue nearby? Would a butcher have knowledge of human anatony?

So you don't think it was Kominski, right?

Okay, I read the title of this thread. But I didn't read the post, or any other. I would love to know if I was right:

Aaron K? The man who was put in the asylum after the murders stopped? Please let me know if I have been right! I've been a fan of this since I was 8 or 9 years old when I saw my first Jack movie on TV.

a reply to: ICallGhosts

Yes.

originally posted by: Virgil91
a reply to: Power_Semi
So you don't think it was Kominski, right?

No - there's far more to it than is being made out.

Kosminski was put forward as a suspect later largely due to something called the Swanson marginalia, and it was a guess by an ex police officer that another police officer suspected him rather than a.n.other jew.

Someone was taken as a suspect to Strides murder to a retirement home / seaside home in Brighton to be identified by a witness who had seen the assailant, but it isn't even clear if that was Kosminski and there is serious doubt whether Stride was a JTR victim.

Kosminski seems to have only been identified later as a possible suspect.

Personally I think JTR was probably someone who has never been considered as a suspect, is probably unknown in the "ripperology" circles, and will probably never be unmasked.

It does seem certain though does it not that he knew what he was doing, and was doing it for a purpose?

So practically certain that he had serious anatomical knowledge and experience - can you imagine trying kill someone silently and efficiently, to chop out a kidney that is hard to find because it's covered by a membrane, in the dark in the street in under 15 minutes with just a knife - etc?

Not possible unless you know what you're doing.