|
|
Post by wvengineer on Sept 8, 2014 3:08:24 GMT
Some scientists are claiming that they may finally know the identity of one of history's most infamous criminals. They are claiming that by using DNA evidence from several sources, including modern relatives, they are saying that Jack was in fact Aaron Kosminkski, a Polish immigrant to England who would eventually die in an insane asylum in 1919. He was a suspect in the murders back in 1888, but there was never enough evidence to bring him to trial. www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/identity-of-notorious-serial-killer-jack-the-ripper-finally-unveiled-9716900.html |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 8, 2014 9:19:25 GMT
Fascinating as it is, and it is, him still dead?....
This news is hiding the fact that they are making great progress with use of DNA.
|
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Sept 8, 2014 16:00:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 8, 2014 18:26:03 GMT
Snopes is saying "not so fast."The person making the claim is authoring a book about the matter, leading to the prospect of a financial motive being involved in making a firm claim. Further, even if we have a guarantee of the suspect's blood being on the shawl, it only proves him culpable for that one specific killing.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 8, 2014 19:24:12 GMT
and as I said in the other thread it was mentioned in "I say I am right, and if you challenge it I accuse you of being an accomplice" automatically deducts credibility in my book. if he is so confident in his result, he should not be so afraid to have it challenged.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 9, 2014 1:49:23 GMT
Question; How and where did they get a sample of the suspects DNA to match the sample with?
|
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Sept 9, 2014 5:38:50 GMT
Question; How and where did they get a sample of the suspects DNA to match the sample with? They found the some of the suspect's relatives. Since related people share common DNA elements, they could determine those and that's what they matched against the sample. It's a good indicator but far from absolute proof, especially since the provenance of the sample on the shawl is so questionable. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 9, 2014 8:16:07 GMT
Him still dead?.
And who knows, it could have been the suspects [Brother--- insert any other family member as required]?...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 9, 2014 9:04:33 GMT
Question; How and where did they get a sample of the suspects DNA to match the sample with? They found the some of the suspect's relatives. Since related people share common DNA elements, they could determine those and that's what they matched against the sample. It's a good indicator but far from absolute proof, especially since the provenance of the sample on the shawl is so questionable. They are claiming a '100%' match, which is impossible if you are comparing to relatives. More likely is that they were testing mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down though the maternal line. However this raises a few more questions; It is claimed that the testing was done blind, and without any knowledge of the Ripper case. However in order to test mitochondrial DNA you'd have to track down any maternal relatives, which means you'd have to start by knowing who the suspect was. It was also noted that there were two samples one of which 'they knew came from the victim'. Mitochondrial DNA can only tell you the maternal line, not the gender of the individual. In the same vein getting a mitochondrial DNA match just tells you that the individual belongs to a particular maternal line, not who that individual is/was. For example I share my mitochondrial DNA sequence with one cousin, one aunt, two uncles, my grandmother and of course my mother - these being the people I KNOW I happen to share mitochondrial DNA with off the top of my head. However they are not the only people in the world I'd share M-DNA with, as my grandmother had siblings, including a sister, and HER mother also had siblings...which included sisters. This could just be bad reporting rather than bad science. But as noted the individual making this claim has written a book on this therefore some question as to how impartial they would actually be in reporting their findings has to be raised. Likewise they claimed that the had never heard of the Ripper case before, yet getting DNA samples to compare would require detailed research into family lines AND starting with a suspect who's DNA you want to compare any samples to. These are things that the layman wouldn't think of, and in most cases wouldn't even be aware of. Since the media (and law enforcement) likes to present DNA evidence as being as conclusive as you can get. |
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Sept 9, 2014 16:27:23 GMT
and as I said in the other thread it was mentioned in "I say I am right, and if you challenge it I accuse you of being an accomplice" automatically deducts credibility in my book. if he is so confident in his result, he should not be so afraid to have it challenged. is where the other discussion on this starts. Unsure if Cyber or someone can merge the two, maybe move those posts into this thread? {Post/Thread moved. Merging threads is done in order of posting date, so the post in question is further up the page rather than at the bottom - CM} |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Sept 25, 2014 10:45:27 GMT
As I said in the other thread, there is no proof of provenance for this shawl anyway, and it was not kept in sterile conditions so any results may not be valid anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 21, 2014 1:04:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 21, 2014 5:40:23 GMT
what was it I said about him not being confident enough to allow his work to be challenged?
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 27, 2014 13:13:37 GMT
As soon as I saw the "You may not challenge me" statement, its obvious he is hiding something.
No one says anything like that unless they are hiding something.....
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 27, 2014 18:18:56 GMT
As soon as I saw the "You may not challenge me" statement, its obvious he is hiding something. No one says anything like that unless they are hiding something..... or at least hiding a lack of something. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 28, 2014 8:51:32 GMT
As soon as I saw the "You may not challenge me" statement, its obvious he is hiding something. No one says anything like that unless they are hiding something..... or at least hiding a lack of something. Hiding a lack of evidence, a missing something, flawed research, zero research, or just plain lies damn lies and video tape. |
|
