Slashdot Mirror


New DNA Analysis On Old Blood Pegs Aaron Kosminski As Jack the Ripper

It surely won't be the last theory offered, but a century and a quarter after the notorious crimes of Jack the Ripper, an "armchair detective" has employed DNA analysis on the blood-soaked shawl of one of the Ripper's victims, and has declared it in a new book an unambiguous match with Jewish immigrant Aaron Kosminski, long considered a suspect. Kosminski died in 1919 in an insane asylum. The landmark discovery was made after businessman Russell Edwards, 48, bought the shawl at auction and enlisted the help of Dr Jari Louhelainen, a world-renowned expert in analysing genetic evidence from historical crime scenes. Using cutting-edge techniques, Dr Louhelainen was able to extract 126-year-old DNA from the material and compare it to DNA from descendants of [Ripper victim Catherine] Eddowes and the suspect, with both proving a perfect match. (Also at The Independent.) It's not the first time DNA evidence has been used to try to pin down the identity of Jack the Ripper, but the claimed results in this case are far less ambiguous than another purported mitochondrial DNA connection promoted by crime novelist Patricia Cornwell in favor of artist Walter Sickert as the killer in a 2002 book. Update: 09/07 16:03 GMT by T : Corrected Sickert's first name, originally misstated as "William."

135 comments

  1. Mitochondrial DNA? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Funny

    Jack the Ripper was a fucking Jedi?

    1. Re:Mitochondrial DNA? by Saysys · · Score: 3, Informative

      Jack the Ripper was a fucking Jedi?

      No, He was a human with a mother.

      From Wikipedia:

      In humans, mitochondrial DNA can be assessed as the smallest chromosome coding for 37 genes and containing approximately 16,600 base pairs. Human mitochondrial DNA was the first significant part of the human genome to be sequenced. In most species, including humans, mtDNA is inherited solely from the mother.

    2. Re:Mitochondrial DNA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Midichlorians and mitochondrial... two slightly different words, right?

    3. Re:Mitochondrial DNA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not going to laugh at you, because we've all been there.

    4. Re:Mitochondrial DNA? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Slightly.

    5. Re:Mitochondrial DNA? by Richy_T · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The whoosh is strong with this one.

    6. Re:Mitochondrial DNA? by tshawkins · · Score: 3, Funny

      Jack the Ripper was a fucking Jedi?

      Ohhh come on, we all know he was a godamm sontaran, who else could it have been. Jedi where never anywhere near 18th centry london, sontarans however, whole different kettle of fish... thats where Strax keeps sneaking off to. Dont belive all that bollocks about a mate called Archie from Glasgow.

    7. Re:Mitochondrial DNA? by nuonguy · · Score: 1

      I appreciate the sentiment, but try googling it! The only reason to not google was rushing to get 'frist post'.

    8. Re:Mitochondrial DNA? by maroberts · · Score: 5, Funny

      The whoosh is strong with this one.

      Strong the whoosh with this one is, FTFY

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    9. Re:Mitochondrial DNA? by TerokNor · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry, but Strax has a firm alibi. He was off playing with his grenades or training his laser monkeys.

    10. Re:Mitochondrial DNA? by meerling · · Score: 1

      One of them is both fictional, and causes more groans and horror faces than 2 girls 1 cup, not too mention completely superfluous and unwanted.
      The other is the little chemical energy generators in your cells that you can't live without. (Really lousy description on my part, just go read a wiki or something.)

    11. Re:Mitochondrial DNA? by wylderide · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but he was under telepathic influence regardless. Red Jack Red Jack Red Jack

      --
      This is the best restaurant I ever eat in
    12. Re:Mitochondrial DNA? by TeknoHog · · Score: 5, Funny

      Strong the whoosh with this one is, FYFT

      FYTF.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    13. Re:Mitochondrial DNA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I shouldn't have read that while eating brazil nuts. That was one painful snort. On the plus side, my sinuses are clear and enlarged to about the diameter of a nut.

  2. Both a perfect match by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That just proves they were related.

    1. Re:Both a perfect match by meerling · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Only if you accept that the results are accurate despite the decay and age of the sample that hadn't been stored in an appropriate manner to preserve the integrity of the dna as well as avoid contamination by other source which include bacteria that like to eat it, and that the blood was actually from Jack The Ripper and not from someone else, possible another victim.

      Run on sentence of the year award? Nope, still too short. :P

    2. Re:Both a perfect match by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Not really. But there's a serious question in my mind as to why it is assumed that "Jack the Ripper" was a individual person (though it's reasonable to assume that this was true before the papers picked up the story).

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re: Both a perfect match by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And by "blood", you mean "cum".

    4. Re:Both a perfect match by CaptQuark · · Score: 1

      You mean another victim that was somehow related to Aaron Kosminski? The other victim would need to be related to have a DNA match.

      ~~

    5. Re:Both a perfect match by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering they lived a few streets away, the idea that they might be related is reasonable. Certainly something to ascertain before making claims.

    6. Re:Both a perfect match by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 2

      Possibly because he was seen with Catherine Eddows by Joseph Lawende, Joseph Hyam Levy and Harry Harris less than eleven minutes prior to the murder, among other reasons.

      ~Loyal

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
    7. Re:Both a perfect match by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you are talking about one incident. I'm proposing that several indepent individuals separately perpetrated the crimes that were attribted to one single individual rather than to one individual and a few copycats.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re:Both a perfect match by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 1

      I'm proposing that several indepent individuals separately perpetrated the crimes that were attribted to one single individual rather than to one individual and a few copycats.

      I was basing that on your statement that it is assumed that Jack the Ripper was an individual person. If you include the eighteen alleged victims, then it's false that it is assumed Jack the Ripper was a solitary individual. For example, Emma Elizabeth Smith is one of the eighteen and prior to her death she reported that she had been attacked by three or four men. On the other hand, if you include only Martha Tabram, Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, and Mary Jane Kelly, then one person was sufficient to account for all of the evidence generally available. Some evidence, such as the sighting I mentioned earlier, suggests that one person was necessary. Patterns in the evidence also suggest that it was the same person for those six murders (or five, if you wish to remain canonical).

      ~Loyal

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
    9. Re:Both a perfect match by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I meant the 5, and actually I'm only considering a copycat for after the papers had started sensationalizing. Say after #3. (You clearly know more about it than I do.) I *expect* that there was only one perpetrator, but if someone is going to claim to have a proven solution, then one of the things that needs proving is that there was only one perpetrator.

      FWIW, I'm surprized that there were only five. ISTM that some more-recent serial killers have had a larger number of victims, and yet "Jack" lingers as the exemplar of the type.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    10. Re:Both a perfect match by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 1

      I meant the 5, and actually I'm only considering a copycat for after the papers had started sensationalizing. Say after #3. (You clearly know more about it than I do.)

      Thank you for the compliment. You are very kind. I believe the papers started sensationalising after the first murder (Mary Ann "Polly" Nichols). The reason for that is that there were two prior murders shortly before Polly's. They were Emma Smith's and Martha Tabram's, both of whom I've already mentioned. Of the five, only three murders are almost universally believed to have been committed by one person. Those were Polly Nichols's, Annie Chapman's, and Catherine Eddowes's. The reason they were believed to have been committed by the same man is that all three victims had facial or neck bruises, all three had their throats cut, and all three had abdominal wounds. Elizabeth had bruises and a throat wound, but no abdominal wound. Mary Kelly had very extensive injuries, and was the only one murdered indoors. Of those people who believe Stride was a Ripper victim, they explain away the lack of abdominal wounds by the fact that the murderer was quite likely interrupted mid-murder. He simply didn't have time to cause the abdominal wounds. Of those people who believe Kelly was a Ripper victim, they explain the extent of the injuries by the fact that her's was the only one that offered the Ripper extensive time and privacy to accomplish them.

      Of the people who don't think Polly Nichols was murdered by Jack the Ripper, they point to the fact that her murder was the only one committed in the street. Of the people who don't think Annie Chapman was murdered by Jack the Ripper, they point to the fact that her murder was the only one committed in a back yard. Of the people who don't think Catherine Eddowes was murdered by Jack the Ripper, they point to the fact that her murder was the only one not committed in London's East End. So, as you can see, people don't assume that all of the "Jack the Ripper murders" were committed by one person.

      One additional point, if I may. It doesn't make much sense to say that sensationalism happened after the third canonical murder (Elizabeth Stride), because the fourth canonical murder (Catherine Eddowes) was only one hour later. There simply wasn't time between the third and fourth murders for any sensationalism to happen.

      ~Loyal

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
  3. umm not buying it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    did anyone stop to consider this guy was just a john?? he was emaciated and couldn't have had the strength or energy to overpower these hookers...

    1. Re: umm not buying it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He's obviously not a John, he's an Aaron

  4. tldr; why is blood the perpetrator's? by smoothnorman · · Score: 2
    it's probably after the link somewhere, but one useful explanation in this summary would be why DNA analysis of the blood:

    employed DNA analysis on the blood-soaked shawl of one of the Ripper's victims, and has declared it in a new book an unambiguous match with

    wouldn't just reveal the identity of the victim. ("y'see, it was a man's- blood!" "y'see the ripper had cut 'imself shav'n that morning" "y'see the worker girl she had 'er own knife a'course")

    1. Re:tldr; why is blood the perpetrator's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA... the DNA linked to the Kosminski could not have been the victim's -- definitely male.

    2. Re:tldr; why is blood the perpetrator's? by smoothnorman · · Score: 1

      And, of course, it's inconceiveable that there were cross-dressing prostitutes during that period..?

    3. Re:tldr; why is blood the perpetrator's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that, even in the 1880s, someone could examine a corpse and determine if it was male or female.

    4. Re:tldr; why is blood the perpetrator's? by smoothnorman · · Score: 1

      So yer say'n the ripper perferred prostitutes who were formerly choir castrati ...i like the way you think! (that's much more cunning that your theory, Watson, that the pimp got in the way of the ripper's blade)

    5. Re:tldr; why is blood the perpetrator's? by meerling · · Score: 2

      Yes, and as we all know, there were no other missing persons in that region of the country during the time of Jack the Ripper was active and that the only male that could have gotten blood on a shawl obviously had to be Jack.
      I guess Jack sent sent that womans shawl to police after autographing it in his own blood with the words "This is Bloody Jacks, don't touch it gov".
      </sarcasm>

      The provenance of the shawl is very questionable. If it is the shawl found near the body of a ripper victim, it may very well not have been hers. Even if you make the assumptions that it is the one found at the crime scene, and it's hers, you then have to make the huge unsubstantiated conclusion that the blood on it is Jacks.

      Now, you aren't done yet. The DNA analysis is rather unlikely to be able to pin down someone exactly when dealing with someone from many generations ago that you don't have any samples of. About all you can do is follow lineage and say the blood is related to known ancestors of that suspect. Of course, there are bound to be a lot of other relatives that held that mitochondrial dna alive at that time, especially when dealing with close knit communities that intermarry far more than breed outside their group. Something very common, including with Jews in Europe at that time.
      Still worse, the sample wasn't preserved in a fashion to reduce contamination and decay. At an age over a century, it's value for making such wild accusations against another unknown dna is absurd.
      To top that all off, someone else has previously claimed to have done a dna identification, and they fingered an entirely different suspect.

      This whole thing is a farce. It was probably done to sell books or something, because from a scientific evidential standpoint, it's composed more of fiction than Moby DIck.

    6. Re: tldr; why is blood the perpetrator's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was victims blood. The male was identified through semen stains

    7. Re: tldr; why is blood the perpetrator's? by Artifakt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's the previous DNA analysis that was based on just mitochondrial DNA - This one isn't. It's based on what is allegedly a new improvement in DNA testing, but it involves testing conventional nuclear DNA. Also, given the rest of Kosminski's history, if he was, say, merely a pimp who was wounded at the same time as the death of one of his prostitutes, his subsequent behavior was rather unlikely, to say the least. He was suspected of being Jack while he still lived. I don't know about you, but if the police were looking into the possibility I was Jack the Ripper, and the real Jack had tried to kill me, then proving my own innocence by giving them information that might lead to the real killer looks a lot more rational than shutting up about it. It's pretty much killing two birds with one stone at that point. (As opposed to Jack's method of killing birds, I guess). There are people pointing to K's mental illness history, and how he might not be particulalry rational, but there's a big difference between saying someone is mentally ill, and saying, they were mentally ill, and it was definitely in a way that would make them not do what most people would do here, but definiitely also not in a way that would make them commit murder either.
              People taking the other side have to either beleive this new evidence isn't a real improvement in genetic testing and that claim is essentially false (which is fine by me if they do - time will settle whether it is or isn't), or they have to make some pretty bizarre and often self contradictory claims about the few other items of evidence we have, such as claiming Kosminski was a real bad apple who the police wanted enough for very serious crimes (just what, they never wrote down), that he couldn't have whitewashed his own reputation even by giving them Jack, or that Kosminski had some major underworld contacts who would have paniced if he had gone to the police (but these contacts couldn't take care of the Ripper if Kosminski went to them instead). ,
          Other such evidence that has to be tweaked is there are some good sketches of the crime scenes, and for this one Jack had to, for example, fight Kosminski only in places where it was too dark to see his face, then kill the prostitute and move her body indoors past some well lighted areas without K hanging around to see who the real Jack was, and do it all quickly enough that the real Jack could get out of there before K could have returned with the police. (Or somehow, the real Jack had to know K was not the type to return with police, or something else both odd and very much not in evidence.).
                  There's also the claim which has been around for decades, that the word Jewes in the grafitti scrawled at one crime scene has to refer to some Masonic ritual and not be a misspellling of Jews, and other such things which have always been oddish speculations, but had better be taken as basic assumptions to make it less likely that K did it - people who seriously want to claim there's no other evidence than this 'questionable' DNA test to link Kosminski will just about have to buy into one or another of these oddish assumptions like the "It had to be a Mason" bit, as well. People willing to go down such roads usually end up "proving' that jack was Queen Victoria, or the Loch Ness Monster, or other such candidates.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    8. Re: tldr; why is blood the perpetrator's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're saying an urban mythical character from Captain Pugwash was an eye witness?

    9. Re: tldr; why is blood the perpetrator's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err, why do you assume the ripper and this dude were in the same place at the same time? I do not follow. Why could it not be the case that this guy was a punter who had the services on offer then somehow his blood was spilled - bit his lip, contact made with nose (got rough or just clumnsy) - then subsequently at some later time the victim met with her end at the hands of Jack? He could even have been witness to the prior events. No reason to assume their paths crossed.

    10. Re:tldr; why is blood the perpetrator's? by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      And, of course, it's inconceiveable that there were cross-dressing prostitutes during that period..?

      Huh? Are you suggesting that Catherine Eddowes was a crossdressing male prostitute? Don't you think that may have come out post-mortem?

      OTOH, and upon the assumption of that the shawl was in fact Eddowes' ... What is not inconceivable is that semen found on her clothing might be that of a prior customer rather than her murderer. However the fact that she was a) wearing this at the time of death and b) the match is to a known suspect of all murders, the evidence is fairly suggestive.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    11. Re:tldr; why is blood the perpetrator's? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Maybe they meant Kosminski.

      ---

      That 38 you brought in.
      Yes.
      Its a gun.

    12. Re:tldr; why is blood the perpetrator's? by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 1

      The provenance of the shawl is very questionable. If it is the shawl found near the body of a ripper victim, it may very well not have been hers.

      I haven't seen anything definitive, but if it's the shawl I'm thinking of, then it's very likely that it did belong to Catherine Eddowes. If it is then it was cut from the victim during the murder.

      The shawl is actually an apron-like affair that women of that era commonly wore. Eddowes's apron was cut from her during the murder, and likely used to carry and conceal some of her organs. It was found a couple of blocks away near the famous, "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" graffiti. (Variant spellings are extant in the records.) The cut on the found apron matches the cut on the remaining part of the apron on her body.

      ~Loyal

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
  5. Ted Kaczynski by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if this guy was a distant relation of Kaczynski's (Unabomber). I did a quick search and didn't find anything about Kaczynski's ancestry, though.

    1. Re:Ted Kaczynski by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are serious then you are pretty ignorant. If you are trying to be facetious then you have a lot to learn about being facetious.

    2. Re:Ted Kaczynski by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this guy was a distant relation of Kaczynski's (Unabomber). I did a quick search and didn't find anything about Kaczynski's ancestry, though.

      Most likely he is. And probably Kevin Bacon too. 6 or fewer connections to either.

    3. Re:Ted Kaczynski by disambiguated · · Score: 3, Funny

      But they're both named K-vowel-consonant-consonant-vowel-nski.
      That can't be a coincidence.

  6. forensic 'science' by fermion · · Score: 5, Informative
    This is where I think we get in trouble with forensic science. Certain things, like finger prints and DNA, can exonerate a suspect but we have seen enough analysis around here to know that it is a fallacy to think that these things prove guilt. it only proves guilt if we assume the probability of guilt is 100% initially. When comparing the sample to a database, random error can create a match under certain common circumstances.

    So we can say that DNA evidence is part of a chain that can lead to guilt, and if we assume the known suspects represent the total population of possible suspects, then if the DNA exonerates all other suspects, then there is a case to be made for guilt, but that is a lot of caveats. As we have seen in many cases, obvious suspects are ignored because the authorities jump to quick conclusions. As said, DNA is good for exonerating people, not convicts them.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:forensic 'science' by penix1 · · Score: 1

      It is a chain. One that is used to build a strong case against an individual. It was Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional character Sherlock Holmes that said, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Another Holmes quote which applies here is, "It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment."

      To be true to the fist quote you would need physical evidence from the other victims to compare DNA. You would have to account for his time during the murders. You would also need to place him at the scene of each murder. Lastly, you would need the motive as well as the means. Without a murder weapon or a motive, there are holes in this story.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    2. Re:forensic 'science' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      In 1987, Ripper author Martin Fido searched asylum records for any inmates called Kosminski, and found only one: Aaron Kosminski.[15] At the time of the murders, Aaron apparently lived either on Providence Street or Greenfield Street, both addresses of which are close to the sites of the murders.[16] The addresses given in the asylum records are in Mile End Old Town, just on the edge of Whitechapel.[17] The description of Aaron's symptoms in the case notes indicates that he was a paranoid schizophrenic, and known paranoid schizophrenics include serial killers such as Peter Sutcliffe.[6] Macnaghten's notes say that "Kosminski" indulged in "solitary vices",[9] and in his memoirs Anderson wrote of his suspect's "unmentionable vices",[18] both of which may match the claim in the case notes that Aaron committed "self-abuse".[19] Swanson's notes match the known details of Aaron's life in that he reported that the suspect went to the workhouse and then to Colney Hatch,[20] but the last detail about his early death does not match Aaron, who lived until 1919.[21

    3. Re:forensic 'science' by Crispy+Critters · · Score: 1

      Agreed. You can't compare to a database of a million individuals. In this case, though, it seems the person fingered was already one of a small number of those suspected. That would eliminate the statistical argument in this particular instance.

    4. Re:forensic 'science' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no 100% certainty in the real world. Forensic proof means beyond reasonable doubt, i.e. the probability of a false positive is very small. If you don't accept this standard, then I don't see how a negative probe could possibly exonerate anybody, because there is always the possibility that the perpetrator chose not to Jack off on the shawl that had the victim's blood on it, or that they tested the wrong spot.

    5. Re:forensic 'science' by perpenso · · Score: 1

      DNA is good for exonerating people, not convicts them.

      With respect to a single match.

      Now if his DNA shows up on multiple ripper victims then DNA can be good for determining culpability.

    6. Re:forensic 'science' by TarPitt · · Score: 2

      There was also an eyewitness who saw him leave a bar with a prostitute hours before the prostitute was horribly murdered. The eyewitness refused to testify in court.

      Story I heard was that the police were very sure this was the guy, but knowing they couldn't convict, they arranged to have him locked up in an insane asylum. The murders then abruptly stopped.

      Source: Recent "Jack the Ripper" tour in London. Not peer reviewed.

      --
      If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
    7. Re:forensic 'science' by queazocotal · · Score: 1

      'This is where I think we get in trouble with forensic science. Certain things, like finger prints and DNA, can exonerate a suspect but we have seen enough analysis around here to know that it is a fallacy to think that these things prove guilt. it only proves guilt if we assume the probability of guilt is 100% initially. When comparing the sample to a database, random error can create a match under certain common circumstances.'

      However, in this case, they were comparing not against a database of millions, but one of several possibilities.

    8. Re:forensic 'science' by westlake · · Score: 1

      When comparing the sample to a database, random error can create a match under certain common circumstances.

      The match has to be plausible.

      The false positives that so agitate the geek are likely to be discarded very early on.

      Because they simply won't make sense when you look at the suspect's age, sex, physical condition, proximity to the victim, proximity to the crime scene and so on.

    9. Re:forensic 'science' by killkillkill · · Score: 1

      The trouble we get in this case is the chain of custody of the evidence. The fact that it past through the hands of a man long obsessed with the case who probably a favorite suspect and theory he would like to be proven correct about. Also, with the new book he stands to profit quite a bit from this evidence being discovered. Good chance it would be thrown out in a court of law, doubt it will stand up to the other "armchair detectives" (who else really cares that much anyway) who believe it to be one of the other suspects.

    10. Re:forensic 'science' by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Certainly it's easier to DISprove something with DNA than it is to prove something, but at a certain point reasonability MUST take a seat in the courtroom as well.

      Are you actually asserting that
      - his blood was proved to be on her shawl
      - he happens to be insane, with homicidal tendencies ...yet that's just coincidental?

      Is there a non-zero chance that these things could be true and him not be Jack the Ripper? Yes.
      Is that chance infinitesimal and not really worth seriously considering? Also, yes.

      --
      -Styopa
    11. Re:forensic 'science' by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      A bit too late to convict anyone at this point don't you say?

      There are problems with many of the forensic methods used. However, eyewitness testimony is even less reliable. The way humans recall events from episodic memory is seriously flawed. Forensic evidence is always circumstantial evidence, and should always be treated as such. That's in addition to any flaws on a particular method.

      As pointed out here, this man was suspected of being the ripper before there was any DNA evidence. DNA evidence just makes the case stronger.

    12. Re: forensic 'science' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And by "his blood", you mean "his cum". That's a fairly good discriminator to exclude the DNA from being the victim's.

    13. Re:forensic 'science' by Thangodin · · Score: 1

      There is also the fact that Kosminski's personality profile fits that of a serial killer, he had a deep hatred of women, and he was a butcher (and had a knife that matched the cuts). Being a Polish Jew, Kosminski was a likely match for the person who left the 'Jewes' graffiti. This being the case, and with the already prevalent anger against Jews and immigrants in the wake of the murder and the news of the graffiti, it seems likely that the police actually knew they had their man, but did not want to prosecute him publicly for fear of starting an anti-Jewish progrom in London. So they locked him away and made certain that he could never get out.

      Shortly after the anniversary of the murders, there was a television special where several experts were asked to weigh in on who the killer was. The most qualified person on the panel, a woman who worked on investigations of serial murderers, said that Kosminski was the obvious suspect, but the audience went with the Queen's Doctor theory because of a TV special that offered that theory--despite the fact that at the time of the murders, said Doctor had already suffered a stroke, and had lost the use of one of his hands. Conspiracy theories always favor the most powerful agencies for events of broad prominence; this is why large government conspiracies are always favored over individual (Lee Harvey Oswald) or small group (Al Quaeda) actors.

  7. I now know what age Russell Edwards is by guises · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is slightly off-topic, but why this?

    ...businessman Russell Edwards, 48, bought the shawl...

    Why do they throw his age in there? Why does it matter? Is that in any possible way related to the story? I'm not calling out this story in particular, I see this all the time. I'd like to know the motivation behind the trend.

    1. Re:I now know what age Russell Edwards is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      It gives you an idea of what generation he is, and therefore what social experience he may have wrt the subject at hand.

    2. Re:I now know what age Russell Edwards is by clovis · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is slightly off-topic, but why this?

      ...businessman Russell Edwards, 48, bought the shawl...

      Why do they throw his age in there? Why does it matter? Is that in any possible way related to the story? I'm not calling out this story in particular, I see this all the time. I'd like to know the motivation behind the trend.

      My first thought when I heard he had the bloody shawl was that he was the Jack the Ripper. Who else would have such a gruesome souvenir? But, then I saw that he was only 48 and not 148, so I now know it wasn't Edwards after all.
      That little fact saved me a lot of time from writing a "I know who Jack is" book. Unless the 48 not 148 was a typo.

    3. Re:I now know what age Russell Edwards is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, too young an age implies inexperience. Second, too old an age implies dementia. Forty-eight is the sweet spot for credibility.

    4. Re:I now know what age Russell Edwards is by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 2

      The more correct facts, however irrelevant, the salesman (journalist) can fit in their marketing (article) the more likely we are to buy the product (story) and not notice any mistakes or inconsistencies.

      --
      The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
    5. Re: I now know what age Russell Edwards is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a way papers added credibility to their stories. By giving exact details they guaranteed that if that person didn't exist someone who should have known him would point that out publicly. In other words it didn't just happen to a friend of a friend.

    6. Re:I now know what age Russell Edwards is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just as useful when they add "million-dollar-home", which in SF and most cities in the US nowadays don't mean jack shit.

    7. Re:I now know what age Russell Edwards is by HugoMMRabson · · Score: 2

      Probably for the same reason that they mentioned that Jack the Ripper was Jewish. They weren't picking on Jews or old people; they merely wanted to include interesting details. At least, I hope that's the reason.

    8. Re:I now know what age Russell Edwards is by rkww · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why do they throw his age in there?

      His age is part of his identity; it helps ensure that friends and family of e.g. businessman Robert Edwards, 33, know the story doesn't refer to 'their' Robert.

    9. Re:I now know what age Russell Edwards is by guises · · Score: 1

      That's likely true - just throw in whatever facts you know in order to flesh out the story a little. I wonder a bit about the interview though which would lead to that question.

    10. Re:I now know what age Russell Edwards is by deuterium · · Score: 2

      Because no one would believe it if he were 9

    11. Re:I now know what age Russell Edwards is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blame Bennett Haselton for the trend of needlessly injecting references to tangentially related parties to a story.

      They do it to feel important.

      You asked the wrong question. It's not why do we know his age, it's "why was he mentioned at all?".

    12. Re:I now know what age Russell Edwards is by guises · · Score: 1

      That's a reasonable point, Russell Edwards doesn't matter to this story. Though it's easy to guess why he was mentioned - he likely wants a little fame / notoriety / credit for his part in this. A journalist can get further by stroking egos than not.

    13. Re:I now know what age Russell Edwards is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Implies he's a guy with a mid-life crisis and had a lot of money to waste. Most are happy with a new car and a new wife.

    14. Re:I now know what age Russell Edwards is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a story like that it's clear you're not 48.

    15. Re:I now know what age Russell Edwards is by superwiz · · Score: 1

      because businessmen and politicians are people. As opposed to scientists and engineers (who are only named in the press based on their nationality, place of residence, and employer name rather than their actual human characteristics).

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    16. Re:I now know what age Russell Edwards is by mschuyler · · Score: 1

      With a story like this, it's clear you are 48.

      --
      How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    17. Re:I now know what age Russell Edwards is by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

      This is slightly off-topic, but why this?

      ...businessman Russell Edwards, 48, bought the shawl...

      Why do they throw his age in there? Why does it matter? Is that in any possible way related to the story? I'm not calling out this story in particular, I see this all the time. I'd like to know the motivation behind the trend.

      I'm going to speculate that you probably don't get much dead-tree journalism in your diet, which is why you seem to think this is some kind of trend. This was Journalism 101 prior to the advent of HTTP. Journalists used the 5 W's -- who, what, when, where, and why -- to establish a consistent framework for their audience. Including the individual's age helps establish the who and (possibly) the why part of the context for the audience. Unfortunately, the context-free environment made possible by HTTP has pretty much rendered conventional journalism protocols moot; establishing a consistent framework for the audience is kinda pointless, if the audience can switch contexts by simply clicking on a link. You can occasionally see some journalism online that still uses pre-HTTP conventions, but it is getting rarer, not more common.

  8. WALTER Sickert, not "William" by carlhaagen · · Score: 1

    You uneducated buffoon, Timothy!

    1. Re:WALTER Sickert, not "William" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Timothy's been posting stories here for over 20 hours at least, cut him some slack, okay? Time for another editor to relieve him?

    2. Re:WALTER Sickert, not "William" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "editor"

    3. Re:WALTER Sickert, not "William" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he can have some slack when he stops slacking. most of his stories have a notable degree of sloppy, no matter if they're posted in the morning or the evening.

    4. Re:WALTER Sickert, not "William" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least it's not a post about something that is based on immediately-obvious bad science.

      And it wasn't speelt wrongly.

      And it didn't assume knowledge of obscure applications.

      And ...

      all the other things that the Slashdot "Editors" do, just to to @#$$ ME OFF.

  9. Bullshit claim. by denzacar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There was no blood other than the victims on the shawl. And even that was only determined to match through mitochondrial DNA.
    What they claim to have matched "definitely, categorically and absolutely" to the murderer are "traces of semen thought to belong to the killer".
    Traces of semen. On the clothes of ONE of the victims. Who was a prostitute.

    Clearly, "Only non-believers that want to perpetuate the myth will doubt."
    Non-believers perpetuating myths? I'm not sure that's how it goes.

    From TFA:
           

    A blood-stained shawl belonging to one of the Ripper's victims bought at an auction in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, in 2007 was used as the basis for the research.
    As well as being soaked in her blood, it was found to have traces of semen thought to belong to the killer.
    Mr Edwards said: âoeI've got the only piece of forensic evidence in the whole history of the case.
    âoeI've spent 14 years working on it, and 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."

    BUT WAIT! There is more... it is once again mitochondrial.
    In other words...

    Critics, however, have pointed out that the DNA comparisons focused on mitochondrial DNA, which could be shared by anything from between 1% and 10% of the population, so it was hardly unique to Sickert.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

    It was impossible to extract DNA from the stains on the shawl using the method employed in current cases, in which swabs are taken. The samples were just too old.

    Instead, he used a method he called âvacuumingâ(TM), using a pipette filled with a special âbufferingâ(TM) liquid that removed the genetic material in the cloth without damaging it.
    As a non-scientist, I found myself in a new world as Jari warned that it would also be impossible to use genomic DNA, which is used in fresh cases and contains a humanâ(TM)s entire genetic data, because over time it would have become fragmented.

    But he explained it would be possible to use mitochondrial DNA instead. It is passed down exclusively through the female line, is much more abundant than genomic DNA, and survives far better.

    Making it exactly as valid as the Walter Sickert "evidence" from postage stamps.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Bullshit claim. by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Ah, I had thought the claim was to have a more specifically identifiable form of DNA, without that, this can only be considered a minor bit of evidence for one suspect. I still say we don't even have that for several of the others, but this is not really conclusive.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  10. I now know what age Russell Edwards is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've wondered this over the years, too. In the WSJ, I think it's mostly so people can know where they stand in a certain kind of pissing contest :) ("He was already CEO at 27?! Well, I've got one year to be promoted up from mailboy if I want to keep up ...")

    In stories like this, I think it's largely because it's an easy detail -- might not add much to the story, but then, neither in many cases does knowing *exactly* where something took place, but it helps to flesh out a story, gives you some mental hooks to hang your brain on. It's easier to think of "One-legged clown Bob Snorvliss, 42, of Stoke-on-Trent" being caught trying to bribe children to spray-paint clothes onto nude statues because he has a clothed-statue fetish, rather than just hearing that "A guy, somewhere, did something interesting in a place you don't live."

    It also helps establish identity, since people seem to draw on a fairly small pool of names. Oh, *that* Russell Edwards!

  11. "They'll never believe you." - Bill Murray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I Warned Him!" - Jack

  12. But thanks for all the antisemitic comments, timmy by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Like the one just below...

    Concentrating on the ethnicity of that POLISH immigrant sure will bring more clicks to the topic.
    After all... We haven't had a nice flame war since that last "Misogyny. Misogyny everywhere." story.
    But that was just about women and games and there aren't enough REAL lunatics interested in that.

    We all know, real loonies is where the clicks are.
    So we clearly need the next one to be racial-ethnic-religious with all tangential conspiracy theories as a bonus. And lest we forget... Palestine, Gaza, West Bank, Israel.

    Thanks timothy. :)

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  13. Message to the MPAA by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    That's DNA, not DVD.

  14. I thought, he was supposed to be a Woman? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    I just read somewhere that the DNA evidence so far points to some unnamed woman, who is thought to have masqueraded as a midwife.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  15. Newsflash! The Daily Mail is a tabloid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Worse, it's a tabloid that wants to grow up to be Fox News. It's one of the least trusted "news" sources in the UK.

  16. Latent anti-semitism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " Jewish immigrant Aaron Kosminski"

    If Kosminski had been a Lutheran from Germany, they'd call him a "German immigrant".

    1. Re:Latent anti-semitism by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      There is more to it than that: This is an area which was mainly populated by Jewish Immigrants at the time. If he wasn't one, he would have been more conspicuous as an insider - so it IS relevant.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  17. forensic 'science' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When comparing the sample to a database, random error can create a match under certain common circumstances.

    That's complete bullshit. We're not talking about a match in one short sequence, but unique patterns that arise from different numbers of repeated sequences, and in most modern studies, 100s of thousands SNPs over the whole genome.

  18. Money trail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A guy buys a shawl, buys a study to show it is the real thing, and is now writing a book about it.

    Could be the real thing, but there is a money incentive involved, so let's wait if uninvolved experts agree.

  19. A 'Jewish' immigrant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't immigrate from 'Jewishland', saying he was a Jewish immigrant is useless. Where was he actually from? Israel? Germany? Poland? Ukraine?

    1. Re:A 'Jewish' immigrant? by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Poland, apparently.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  20. some interesting facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1. The blood on the rag was the female's and the semen on the rag was Aaron's.
    2. This doesn't necessarily prove that Aaron was the Ripper, just that he was there. It's possible that someone else killed her and left her for dead. Then Aaron walking by found the corpse and masturbated on it. He was known to have been a sicko who did unspeakable things.
    3. There is a strong case that it was Cohen because he was specifically linked to murders of prostitutes, and the crimes stopped the same year he was confined to the asylum.
    4. There's some suggestion that Cohen was an alias the Asylum used because Aaron's last name was too difficult to pronounce. It may have been the same man.

  21. Re:But thanks for all the antisemitic comments, ti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oy vey! It's another Holocaust(TM)!

  22. Elementary School, my dear Watson. by westlake · · Score: 1

    And, of course, it's inconceiveable that there were cross-dressing prostitutes during that period?

    ---- a fact which would not be discovered in the autopsy of a crudely mutilated victim?

  23. Read, and understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jews are always jews first, citizens of countries second http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    1. Re:Read, and understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, but where immigration is concerned, the person had to have come from somewhere, so contextually, it is the country that is important and not the religion.

  24. Evlis did it. by AndyKron · · Score: 0

    Elvis did it

  25. can't be perfect DNA match by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only way descendants would be a perfect DNA match from samples 120+ yrs ago would be with cloning.
    Unless Jack is immortal and has been hiding by pretending to be his own descendant all these years.....

    A perfect DNA match 5 more generations apart imply faulty/contaminated testing procedures.

  26. Cutting edge techniques by penguinoid · · Score: 4, Funny

    Using cutting-edge techniques, Dr Louhelainen was able to extract 126-year-old DNA from the material

    I hear Jack the Ripper also used cutting edge techniques.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  27. Convenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Born: 1864/5.
    There was no Poland in 1864/5. It was partitioned by Russia (with parts given to Prussia and Austria-Hungary) in late 18th century ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitions_of_Poland ).
    As a side note, Russia has long track record of partitioning other countries, hasn't she?

  28. Re:But thanks for all the antisemitic comments, ti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    first of all, Poland was not existing at the time - it was partitioned and occupied by Russia, Prussia and Austria-Hungary.

  29. Not a great comparison to Moby-Dick. by xmark · · Score: 2

    Moby Dick is fiction, but was highly influenced and factually informed by the tragic events and wreck of the whaleship Essex. Melville was consumed by the stories of the surviving crew, and was inspired by them to write Moby-Dick. It's a fictional work immersed in a strong, accurate nonfiction document.

    The following book about the Essex is superb, for those with further interest. It won a nonfiction National Book Award. You will stay up very late reading it.

                In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex, by Nathaniel Philbrick.

  30. Re:Kosminski was a JEW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what Jews do to animals - God told them to do it!

    http://rabbi.bendory.com/pix/shechita/tn/100_0192.jpg.php

    Any comments?

  31. Nothing here identifies "Jack the Ripper" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There is nothing in the story as published that in ANY WAY identifies Jack the Ripper.

    Even if every word published is true and the science stands up to every scrutiny, all it really shows is that a man and a woman who lived in/worked in/frequented the same areas came into contact at least once during the period between 1888 and 1891 in which Jack the Ripper was active.

    It shows NOTHING more than that.

    Anybody who thinks it does either hasn't read the article (no, they definitely DON'T have a series of hi-res colour photographs or a 1080p video of Aaron Kosminski ripping open the body and no, the victim did not survive long enough to provide the police with her killer's name, address and e-fit nor to pick him out of a police line-up) or possibly just doesn't understand what it means (no, you can't take a random DNA sample from an unreliable source of uncertain provenance, identify it as belonging to a specific person and then TRUTHFULLY say "The fact that this DNA is definitely from person A proves conclusively that person A was in this alleyway between 20.08 and 20.19 on a Sunday evening 125 years ago" - this sort of science simply doesn't have THAT ridiculously specific level of accuracy) and is therefore simply forming an opinion from a position of ignorance.

    In this instance we could simply assume that the author doesn't understand the DNA results (certainly a possibility) but it's also possible that the science is simply being deliberately misrepresented in order to suggest some validity for the book.

    Either way, there's 1 simple fact here - this investigation DOES NOT prove that Kosminski was Jack the Ripper nor does it offer any CREDIBLE evidence to make Kosminski significantly more likely than other suggested perpetrators.

    1. Re:Nothing here identifies "Jack the Ripper" by mcgowanm616 · · Score: 0

      Sorry, this comment was posted by me - I had to create a new account (Slashdot says I don't exist, presumably coz I haven't logged in for a while) and didn't want to lose what I'd written in the meantime so I posted as anonymous coward.

  32. Re:But thanks for all the antisemitic comments, ti by Artifakt · · Score: 3, Funny

    I really doubt the claim that in the victorian era, Poland was literally flooded by jews. Figuratively, maybe, but I do not think that word 'literally' means what you think it means.

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  33. Not blood, semen found on the bloody shawl. by cduffy · · Score: 2

    It's not the bloody that's allegedly the perpetrator's, but semen found on the shawl. I'm surprised nobody else replying to you seems to have done their homework either.

  34. Re: Kosminski was a JEW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, everything is acceptable if I allege that an imaginary being told me to do it?

    If Hitler claimed an imaginary being told him all Jews needed to be extirpated, that would be acceptable to you as well?

    Any rejoinders?

  35. Re: Convenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, he was also apparently insane.

  36. Re:But thanks for all the antisemitic comments, ti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > I really doubt the claim that in the victorian era, Poland was literally flooded by jews.

    Maybe he had something to do with the little boy who put his finger in the dike to plug it up? :)

  37. Re:Convenient by superwiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow. What century is this again? I thought most people who said garbage like this died out a long time ago.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  38. Re: Convenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    which is considered quite normal mental state in Russian Empire.

  39. Re:But thanks for all the antisemitic comments, ti by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 1

    So we clearly need the next one to be racial-ethnic-religious with all tangential conspiracy theories as a bonus. And lest we forget... Palestine, Gaza, West Bank, Israel.

    Well, Jack the Ripper's ethnicity is relevant to the story. The sentiment at the time was that the Ripper's crime was so heinous that he must have been an immigrant since no British person would commit such heinous crimes. The Ripper's ethnicity would be relevant to that sentiment. Similarly for his religious affinity. There was some graffiti found near Eddowes's apron saying, "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing." (Variant spellings are in the records.) Some people hold that the graffiti was not written by the Ripper. Some hold that it was, and expressed Jack's anti-Semitic beliefs. Some hold that the Ripper was Jewish and wrote the graffiti to throw off suspicion.

    ~Loyal

    --
    I aim to misbehave.
  40. Wolf in the Fold by tmjva · · Score: 1

    Redjac will next strike in 2105 on the Martian Colonies.

    (Did a search and could not find the obligatory Star Trek reference in this posting.)

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
  41. From Hell by LienRag · · Score: 1

    If true, that would invalidate Alan Moore's theory...
    I'm not knowledgeable enough about the era or the facts to have a definitive opinion about the validity of his interpretation, but I do have to say that if the next-to-last victim was using the name of the last victim for her nickname (as Moore says), it is indeed a strong indication that the murders were not random.

  42. No. It is not. In any way. by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Well, Jack the Ripper's ethnicity is relevant to the story. The sentiment at the time was that the Ripper's crime was so heinous that he must have been an immigrant since no British person would commit such heinous crimes.

    First off, now is not "at the time".
    Nor is any rationale provided for why would such labeling be of any importance now, nor why would ANY ethnic or religious attributes be relevant to either murders or the identification of the murderer EVER.

    There was never any evidence or testimony of any ethnic or religious identity of the murderer.
    Nor were murders ever explained as a religious or ethnic ritual - other than in completely made up conspiracy theories involving everything from royal family, through obligatory masonic this or that, to Lewis Carroll.
    Because he wrote weird books. Clearly, Alice was written in code, describing his murders.

    The whole "connection", including the graffiti you mention, boils down to "some people were very anti-Semitic back then".
    Which provides as much reasoning to prominently point out the ethnicity of a supposed "proven" murderer as it would to point out the ethnicity of any famous murderer.

    Try it like this...
    Do articles about John Wilkes Booth start with the mention of his ethnicity and religious affiliation?
    How about Lee Harvey Oswald?
    How about John Wayne Gacy?
    Theodore Robert Bundy?
    Charles Milles Manson?

    Here's an easy one... Adolf Hitler. Do articles on Hitler start "Adolph Hitler, a Catholic dictator..."?

    What you are providing up there is not a valid reason but RATIONALIZATION of one's either deliberate attempt at sensationalism or utter lack of tact or reason.
    I'll exclude the possibility of racism cause that would be beyond retarded.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:No. It is not. In any way. by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 1

      First off, now is not "at the time".

      How very curious! I wonder why you singled (well, doubled) out ethnicity and religion. Why not sex? What I mean to say is that you had no invective to spend on their identifying Jack the Ripper as a man, nor their identification of his victims as women. Jack the Ripper was a man "then and not now," and his women were victims "then and not now." By your logic that shouldn't have been mentioned. Nor did you decry the listing of their professions. The Ripper as a murderer, and his victims as prostitutes. I, for one, would be highly amused to read more articles about Jack the Ripper that didn't mention the suspicion that he was a murderer.

      Nor is any rationale provided for why would such labeling be of any importance now, nor why would ANY ethnic or religious attributes be relevant to either murders or the identification of the murderer EVER.

      His religious affiliation is relevant because it erodes the theory that Kosminski was the murderer, and that he wrote anti-Semitic graffiti near where the evidence was found. His ethnic affiliation is relevant because it credits all the people who had teased that out of the evidence, and discredits those who opposed the idea.

      John Wilkes Booth...Lee Harvey Oswald...John Wayne Gacy...Theodore Robert Bundy...Charles Milles Manson

      I suppose that's because the evidence of their murders weren't found near anti-Semitic graffiti suspected to have been written by the murderer.

      ~Loyal

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
    2. Re:No. It is not. In any way. by denzacar · · Score: 1

      How very curious! I wonder why you singled (well, doubled) out ethnicity and religion. Why not sex?

      Now you're just being a troll.
      Same reason I didn't "single out" height or weight - IT IS NOT THE ISSUE BEING DISCUSSED.

      What you are doing is called ignoratio elenchi.

      His religious affiliation is relevant because it erodes the theory that Kosminski was the murderer, and that he wrote anti-Semitic graffiti near where the evidence was found. His ethnic affiliation is relevant because it credits all the people who had teased that out of the evidence, and discredits those who opposed the idea.

      Which is still completely unrelated to the case as it was back then BECAUSE - it does not relate to the case in any way.
      Not as evidence for or against ANY OF THE SUSPECTS, not related to victims OR the murders.
      Again, it relates ONLY for conspiracy theorist who have an axe to grind with Jews.
      And we know who they are because...

      I suppose that's because the evidence of their murders weren't found near anti-Semitic graffiti suspected to have been written by the murderer.

      Aaaaand that's a bingo! Thank you for taking part in "Spot a racist!"
      Once again, the old proven rule of "just let them talk" has proven true.

      In this case, the racist only sees the need to state "ethnicity and religious affiliation" if it is related to Jews in some way.
      Even when the only relation is through something that is of no merit to the case, except in their minds.
      In comparison... Here's how a non-racist might have phrased a similar sentence HAD the Ripper's murders been in ANY way, shape or form marked with religious and/or ethnic markings or motives.

      I suppose that's because the evidence of their murders wasn't in ANY way, shape or form marked with religious and/or ethnic markings or motives. Well, except for Hitler, but he was motivated by religion/ethnicity of the victims, not by his own.

      Thank you for watching and now a word from our sponsors... Troll-a-Way.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    3. Re:No. It is not. In any way. by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 1

      Same reason I didn't "single out" height or weight - IT IS NOT THE ISSUE BEING DISCUSSED.

      Neither was ethnicity or religion, yet you seemed to find it suitable for discussion. Let me make it plain: In an article about Jack the ripper, the author mentioned the alleged perpetrator's religion, ethnicity, sex, and vocation. You became incensed at his listing the alleged perpetrator's religion and ethnicity, but find his sex and vocation beneath discussion. Why?

      Which is still completely unrelated to the case as it was back then BECAUSE - it does not relate to the case in any way.

      Evidence about a murderer is unrelated to the case in any way? I'm afraid your theory of crime analysis is quite far out of the mainstream.

      Aaaaand that's a bingo! Thank you for taking part in "Spot a racist!"

      I'm a racist? Constable Alfred Long reported that it read "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." Detective Constable Daniel Halse reported that it read, "The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing." City surveyor Fredrick William Foster reported that it read, "The Juws are not the men To be blamed for nothing." Police Superintendent Thomas Arnold had the graffiti erased because he thought that it would cause a riot.

      Here's how a non-racist might have phrased a similar sentence HAD the Ripper's murders been in ANY way, shape or form marked with religious and/or ethnic markings or motives.

      So, I write like a racist and you don't? Would you care to explain the difference to me?

      ~Loyal

      p.s. I have since read the article and find that the "shawl" and the "apron" are not the same thing.

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
    4. Re:No. It is not. In any way. by denzacar · · Score: 1

      You're still wasting time on this? Good.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    5. Re:No. It is not. In any way. by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 1

      You're still wasting time on this? Good.

      Happy to oblige.

      ~Loyal

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
  43. Re: The Guardian called for all Jews to be arreste by gelfling · · Score: 0

    And to the person who downmodded me fuck you die screaming, faggot.

  44. Ripping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For "blood" please substitute the word and read as "sperma frost"