|
Post by Pistolenschutzen on Sept 8, 2014 11:11:30 GMT -6
An article appeared on Fox this morning that I found interesting, and I thought others, especially Tranter, might find interesting as well. It seems some new genetic evidence has surfaced regarding the infamous "Jack the Ripper" murders in London's East End during the fall of 1888. Probably nothing will ever be discovered that will positively identify the perpetrator after all this time, but this evidence certainly seems quite strong. As I recall from my readings about the case, the fellow identified by this new evidence--Aaron Kosminski--was strongly suspected by the police at the time of their original investigation, but they could never prove he was the culprit. www.foxnews.com/science/2014/09/08/dna-testing-reportedly-reveals-identity-jack-ripper/?intcmp=features
|
|
|
Post by Nighthawk on Sept 8, 2014 19:04:39 GMT -6
The first thing I thought was what if this dried seminal fluid was from a previous encounter before the time of death. The evidence seems to show a connection between the two, but when the encounter occurred is anyones guess.
|
|
|
Post by Enfield on Sept 8, 2014 19:10:45 GMT -6
Very interesting, something about the case has always captivated me
I remember from years back a friend has an original Police Gazzette, from 1888 with the Miter Square murder on the front page
|
|
|
Post by Pistolenschutzen on Sept 8, 2014 22:15:53 GMT -6
The first thing I thought was what if this dried seminal fluid was from a previous encounter before the time of death. The evidence seems to show a connection between the two, but when the encounter occurred is anyones guess. I think there is no question the new evidence would not hold up in a modern U.S. or U.K. court of law. Any decent attorney or barrister could rip it to shreds as nothing more than circumstantial. As you suggest, there are simply too many other possible ways and times the sample material could have gotten where it was. After all, the murdered woman was indeed a "lady of the evening." Still, it is a useful addition to what is known about the case, and it does point toward a man who was already suspected by the police who investigated.
|
|