|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Laura James
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 9:27 am: | 
|
Have any other Ripperologists heard the news that came out on Nov. 3 2005 concerning the Australian scientist who claims that a breathrough in DNA technique will lead to the identity of the Ripper?? I've posted links to the story on my blog http://www.laurajames.typepad.com and am interested in finding out -- Are the letters actually on their way to Australia for testing? Have the descendants of the prime suspects actually provided DNA samples for comparison?
Stunning to think it might lead to something....
Laura James |
allerteuerste
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 1:58 pm: |
|
first of all the writer(s) of the letter(s) must not necessarily be the ripper. come to the that, not even the licker(s)!!!! might as well have been the postman! haha!
apart from that there´s - as you already stated - the immense task of finding descendants of ALL the prime suspects as well as of the lesser known ones.
so all i can say is: happy hunting! |
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1003
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 1:47 am: |
|
I cannot see how it can be done.
isn't this similar to Patricia Cornwell's attempt to link Sickert to the letters? All she did was to demonstrate that the artist might have been a nuisance letter writer - and as I understand it she hasn't PROVED that (though I stand open to correction).
Surely any attempt to show a letter-writer to be the killer has to assume "Jack" wrote at least some of the letters. But that does not link a letter-writer to the crime scenes or the murders themselves "scientifically" - only by deduction. So far as I know, no scientifically useful material has survived from the murder scenes.
The whole thing sounds like an ill-based publicity stunt to me.
Phil |
Spiro
Sergeant
Username: Auspirograph
Post Number: 17
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 4:55 am: |
|
Hi Laura,
It’s great to see you again and hope all is well with you. Welcome to Casebook and thanks for posting this current information on the work of Professor Ian Findlay regarding DNA analysis of the Ripper case.
As much as I welcome the application of forensic technology advances to cold cases, I do share reservations with others on the effectiveness of linking any acquired data with a suspect known simply as Jack in this case.
In the event that any relevant evidence is exhumed by the introduction of modern forensic techniques it stubbornly remains a piece of a larger puzzle. A complete and confirmed solution to the crimes can only be realistically offered by a multi-disciplinary approach to the Whitechapel murders especially in view of the time distance and cultural differences involved.
Having said that, Professor Findlay’s reported claim to have developed a “method, called Cell Track-ID, [that] is able to extract and compile a DNA fingerprint from a single cell or strand of hair up to 160 years old” is certainly impressive. But the claim that he will apply this test to “hair believed to be from Catherine Eddowes” and that “a private collector in the United Kingdom was sending a braid of hair, believed to belong to Ms Eddowes to determine whether it was genuine” will sorely be tested as this isn’t common knowledge.
Though this may say something about Eddowes, what could it tell us of the individual who murdered her? Without enough data results continue to remain speculative yet modern forensic techniques may indeed contribute in pointing towards a solution.
The DNA examination of the Ripper letters also presents similar difficulties as Cornwell’s “Case Closed” has amply demonstrated. Even though Professor Findlay admirably admits that “we try not to think who or what before we do what we do in the forensic lab – we will let the results speak for themselves", what could anyone realistically do with the information extracted. “It could be compared to DNA from the descendants of suspects” says Findlay.
Though Professor Findlay’s breakthroughs in DNA cellular detection methods are certainly an advance on Patricia Cornwell’s mitochondrial approach, there continues to remain considerable gaps in the direction such data could be linked to the many suspects, victims and relatives involved.
Of course certain DNA traces are possibly available from the period and that remains still exist as others were destroyed in the meantime but unless a clear suspect is put forward to match to any results obtained, the experiment on the Ripper case is fraught with further injustices.
This major media announcement then, appears to be a promotional exercise for the launching of what is “believed to be the first forensic laboratory to install a RFID (radio frequency identification devices) electronic tracking and data management system by the “Gribbles Molecular Science” company of which Professor Findlay is it’s Chief Scientific Officer.
Gribbles Molecular Science (GMS), created 6th October 2003, is the biotechnology subsidiary of the Healthscope Group of companies. Healthscope employs over 10,000 people and has laboratories throughout Australia, New Zealand and Southeast Asia.
There are many such companies providing genetic and DNA analysis reports these days and in fierce competition any forensic mystery is fair game to our scientific modern constructs and technological faith.
DNA evidence is certainly useful but highly depended on context, other confirming data and the realistic interpretation of results within the legal and constitutional constraints that regulate playing the game of match the crime to the criminal.
Best wishes
Spiro |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3141
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 7:10 am: |
|
I am struggling to make this compute into my brain.
Firstly - he has Eddowes hair? Here has that been hiding?
"Things are getting strange, I'm starting to worry, This could be a case for Mulder and Scully"
|
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1007
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 7:26 am: |
|
The chain of evidence will have to be VERY convincing - how and when was the lock of hair obtained; how is it associated with Eddowes and by what evidence; who has possessed and how has it been kept since 1888?????
I agree with Jennifer - odd that this has been hiding so long with not a mention, and suddenly a Professor with no known previous interest in the Ripper case (anyone else been aware of him?) obtains it.
Hmmnnnnn.
Phil |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3312
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 8:16 am: |
|
Wow... I had no idea this was in the press. Well, I should be able to shed a little light here.
About two weeks ago I happened to catch an Australian press piece which had an interview with Prof. Findlay. The article discussed his new method of extracting usable DNA samples from old strands of hair (160+ years old). Prof. Findlay happened to mention in the article that he would love to apply this new type of testing to historical cases such as that of Jack the Ripper.
This was of interest to me, because I've recently acquired a plait of hair which was alleged to have been taken from the body of Catherine Eddowes. The hair and other artifacts which accompanied it are discussed in depth in the current Ripperologist, so I won't go into too much detail here, except to say that they all appear to me to have been modern (1960s/1970s) hoaxes.
Regardless, I shared this information with Prof. Findlay, and he said he would be interested in testing the hair to conclusively state once and for all whether or not it was taken from the body of Catherine Eddowes. The hair will be tested against samples we hope to acquire from living Eddowes descendants.
That's about as far as my involvement in this goes. I know Prof. Findlay has asked me several questions about the letters so I presume he is following that line of investigation of his own accord.
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3313
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 8:20 am: |
|
Here's a pic for anyone who's interested:
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3143
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 8:27 am: |
|
ah that makes a lot more sense!
"Things are getting strange, I'm starting to worry, This could be a case for Mulder and Scully"
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 409
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 8:49 am: |
|
Hi,
The trouble with DNA is that like fingerprints it only proves a link with a specific person - it soesn't show what that person did.
I remember having a discussion with a Detective Sergeant once years ago about the then new science of DNA. He was assuring me this would prove invaluable in rape cases as it would show whether or not intercourse had taken place and should make cases involving rape 'open and shut'
What I couldn't get him to see was that it only showed intercourse NOT whether or not that constituted rape!
Still I shall await the outcome of this story with interest.
Bob |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3202
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 9:39 am: |
|
Interesting!
In lots of ways here........ notwithstanding the colour of Kate's hair! Thats lovely and suggests a painting I think
Good luck here chaps will be watching it too! (Click Add favourites Suzi!)
LOL
Suzi |
Maria Giordano
Chief Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 509
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 9:51 am: |
|
Getting DNA out of that sample will hardly solve the crime but if it can be proven to be Kate's then yes, it will at least show us her coloring. I wonder why it's braided when in the mortuary picture it looks like her hair was worn loose?
To "solve" the crime we'd need some kind of DNA from the killer--maybe his blood on the Kelly sheets or even better the bloody apron-- and then we'd have to try to link him to relatives of a WHOLE LOTTA people!
I don't think science will solve the crimes until it invents a time machine.
Mags
|
Ian Findlay
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 10:02 am: |
|
Dear all,
I am the Ian Findlay mentioned in the above message boards. It is certainly true that we have obtained excellent results from very small and very old samples (160 year old single hairs) which predate the Ripper by 30-40 years.
However much of what has been stated has, as often happens in the press, been blown out of proportion. The main purpose of our Cell track technique is in unsolved, old crimes. I was asked by a journalist if since the hairs were before the Ripper whether the techniques could be used on the Ripper case. I replied that if samples were available, it would be great to try. Most of the rest is press embellishment and how DNA can be used to link generations!
Then followed a number of approaches to me including Stephen Ryder.
Basically the position is this. The Cell-Track DNA system is a significant advance over mitochondrial (used by Cornwell) which as others have noted has significant limitations. STR profiling is the standard DNA fingerprinting used worldwide and has much increased specificity to genetically identify the source of small and/or old samples.
If samples (such as stamps, letters) exist, they could be tested for DNA fingerprint. Of course the presence of the DNA fingerprint does not confirm the Ripper - just adds additional supportive info to the puzzle. The DNA fingerprint could be compared to living (or dead) relatives (just need some direct relatives certainly don't need ALL the relatives) of possible suspects to establish links. As the specificity of this DNA fingerprint system is so high (billions to one), then a close link could strengthen the case aganst that suspect.
Of course a hoax, or contamination etc, therefore should not match any descendants.
I should state in response particularly to Spiro that Gribbles is a fully accredited forensic lab -similar high standards to FBI and police labs etc worldwide including US and UK. The difference is that we have a very strong research component hence the advances in RFID and single cell testing.
Hope that clears some things up . .
Ian
PS If anyone does have any interesting samples from the Ripper or other cases, then please give me a shout! |
belindafromhenmans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 9:04 am: |
|
I think it's worthwhile seeing the professor have a go, and I believe his contributions will very probably equate with Patricia's conclusions, i.e. no real telling dna. As we know, the letters have all been treated with specific substances, and it is virtually impossible to get an answer now in this case except, surely, by careful analasis of lots of evidence. Taking a quick and easy 'short cut' route, i.e finding dna will- even the very unlikely event of success,- provide new issues, not the answer to the case. As has been emphasised any number of times, the letters are prank letters, unlikely to have been written by 'the ripper'. Forensic science is not a short cut, but a part of a long, arduous yet interesting process. |
Spiro
Sergeant
Username: Auspirograph
Post Number: 18
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 11:09 am: |
|
Hello Ian,
Thank you for your clarifying thoughts and obvious interest in the case. Best of luck with the project and please keep us informed of your valuable work that can hopefully shed more light on this conundrum.
Welcome also to Australia, hope you're enjoying some of that beautiful Queensland sun.
Spiro |
MTR
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 63
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 11:45 am: |
|
Obviously, if one is trying to build interest in a particular technique then 'identifying Jack' would affect share prices favourably but as has been said above the letters are one thing, the killer is quite another. Glad to see Mr. Findlay acknowledges this. Let's hope that the letterwriter(s) can at least be identified and discredited appropriately.
Mike. |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2239
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 12:13 pm: |
|
Hi Ian
I have been following this thread with interest and it is certainly refreshing to get such a calm and reasoned response as yours to a breaking story. Those of us involved in looking into aspects of the Ripper story are more than a little familiar with the matter of press embellishment!
I do not pretend to understand even the basics of your area of expertise but will be following this with great interest. The whole matter of DNA based investigations into the case have taken a bit of a battering since the Patricia Cornwell book was published but I am sure we will all be interested to see what emerges.
Without wishing to prejudge the outcome of any investigation, the following points come to mind in thinking this through:
1) Personally, I do not think even a successful DNA identification would identify the killer, as I do not believe he wrote any of the letters currently held at the PRO
2) The most potentially interesting letter, in my opinion, - the Lusk letter, sent with the portion of a kidney - is no longer available in the original, but is only known from copies
The braid of hair, allegedly from Catherine Eddowes, is of great interest and its provenance and history would be fascinating, but as this in the hands of a private collector, who would probably be understandably wary of the press feeding frenzy that attends all things Ripper related, it seems unlikely this will be known in the near future.
Good luck again Ian and many thanks for your input.
Chris Scott
(Message edited by Chris on November 06, 2005) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4208
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 12:15 pm: |
|
The interesting thing with this kind of investigation is things like the hair lock that is supposed to come from Eddowes - it probably doesn't, but boy, would that be a thrill!
DNA is unfortunately totally useless as a method of finding the killer, however. Even if we had descendants to or items belonging to some of the suspects, we still have two major problems to face:
1) it is not certain that the known suspects had anything to do with the Ripper case at all; on the contrary, it is quite likely that the Ripper is not among any of the suspects existing on the lists today;
2) even if he were hidden somewhere among the suspects that we know about, then we have nothing physical to extract DNA from. We don't have a murder weapon, we have no remaining clothes from the victims or any belongings. The only things we have are the letters, and they are useless since they probably didn't come from the killer anyway. What we would need is items that we knew really were physical evidence in the case, like a confirmed murder weapon or clothes that either the victims or the killer left behind. We don't. We don't have anything to extract DNA from that is elevant to the case.
It is a completely fruitless effort and unless more physical evidence comes to light, DNA is not relevant for solving the case. The only thing we can find out is whether some of the known characters in the gallery of persons or suspects did write any of the letters, but that is in fact quite uninteresting, since the letters haven't been confirmed as true communications from the actual killer. Therefore I couldn't care less who wrote them.
Forget DNA.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 06, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 850
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 2:04 pm: |
|
Ah, Glen, you forget, we do have something to compare it to. We have descendants and relatives. Hypothetical case: Using his microscope Mr Findlay finds one lonely epithelial cell(probably shed skin) tangled in the hair. Comparision with the hair itself shows it came from another person, male.
Next comes the really hard part. Through a masterwork of diplomacy and tact, one of Aaron Kosminski's great great grandnephews is persuaded to open his mouth and let his cheek be swabbed. The dna is compared and Voila! a familial match! We're home!
In fact we could start laying the groundwork for this now. Is there a lawyer in the house? If there is, I have some questions.
If the descendants of JTR cooperated, could the descendants of the victims subject them to any kind of a lawsuit? Wrongful death? anything?
Would any money they made from the revelation be subject to confiscation or some kind of wierd tax that would leave them bankrupt?
Are there any other laws that could jump up and bite them?
How could such individuals be assured they would not be hated, harassed, etc. |
Maria Giordano
Chief Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 512
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 2:18 pm: |
|
Diana,
That would be great if we knew who the descendants of the killer are. But it begs the question--what killer?
First we'd have to establish which victims we're SURE were killed by the Whitechapel murderer. OK, Eddowes seems to be a safe bet, and it's her hair we have.
Then, the provenance of the hair. Has it been kept pristine in a vacuum sealed container since the murder? Then how do we know whose epithelials those are? Could be Spry's.
And just whose descendants do we test? Kosminski? Druitt? Cutbush? Santa? We'd have to get darned lucky to find the right family.
I suppose the phantom DNA might eliminate someone at best, but there are just too many ways for this to go wrong.
Mags
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 852
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 2:42 pm: |
|
Here's a thought. If you accept that the tendency to crime is at least partly genetic, or even if you just accept that criminals breed criminals through the home environment they provide then it stands to reason that if JTR left children, or even if there was only a collateral line, the likelihood of those individuals landing on the wrong side of the law is greater than average. (Boy is that a run on sentence!) My apologies to the wonderful decent children of Dennis Rader. There are exceptions to every rule.
I don't know what the situation is in the UK, but I believe that here in the States we have a DNA database of criminals.
It would be very interesting to take the DNA from our hypothetical epithelial cell, and, instructing the computer to look for a familial match, run it through the database. Suppose we came up with six matches, all of them distantly related to each other (cousins or something). Find the common ancestor and once again we're home. |
Ian Findlay
Police Constable
Username: Ifindlay
Post Number: 1
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 3:29 pm: |
|
Regarding DNA on letters and comparing with descendenats Diana has explained the concept quite well.
I am sorry that that it seems that the actions of Patricia Cornwell seem to have firmly set people against DNA evidence which when done correctly is one of the most powerful forensic tools we have at our disposal.
There are of course significant (perhaps impossible) difficulties in 1. obtaining samples such as letters etc
2. obtaining DNA profiles from samples
3. are the samples genuine
4. finding and persuading descendants to come forward.
As previously mentioned, any results found could provide corroborating evidence re particular suspects.
Ian |
Maria Giordano
Chief Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 516
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 3:29 pm: |
|
We're only home if you can prove that the epithelial cell came from the murderer.
Mags
|
Ian Findlay
Police Constable
Username: Ifindlay
Post Number: 2
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 3:33 pm: |
|
Diana is also quite correct that most jurisdictions have DNA databases.
The first case following Diana's logic has already been done by the UK police to find a close relative of a DNA fingerprint already on the database and hence the suspect which matched DNA at the crime scene.
Ian |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3208
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 3:57 pm: |
|
Now this is INTERESTING.
Maria-I think the hair was 'braided' as you say because if cut off that was the best way to keep it.....tied at both ends too......stops it 'getting away'!
Ian- Thanks for being so tolerant!.we wait for the DNA outcome
Good luck!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3209
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 4:10 pm: |
|
Now this is INTERESTING.
Maria-I think the hair was 'braided' as you say because if cut off that was the best way to keep it.....tied at both ends too......stops it 'getting away'!
Ian- Thanks for being so tolerant!.we wait for the DNA outcome
Good luck!
Suzi |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4209
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 5:21 pm: |
|
Ian,
You're totally missing the point. There is nothing that remains from the Ripper crimes in physical form - no murder weapon, not anything wahtsoever. All we have are the letters and they probably didn't come from the killer anyway. So what's the point? All you can achieve is to see if any descendants from some of the suspects - and they may not be the suspect in question anyway - wrote some of the letters. It doesn't tell us who the killer was. And if those are your intentions, then you're doing the same mistakes Cornwell did. I am not disputing that DNA can be extracted - I am disputing what we really can use the result for.
Don't you get it? Extracting DNA from the stamps and letters only tells us who wrote and mailed the letters! It doesn't tell us anything whatsoever about the killer's identity. Most researchers and experts pretty much agrees on that the letters - maybe with the exception of the Lusk letter (but then again, the kidney enclosed with it do not longer exist!).
I'll spell it out for you again, Sir. There exists NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE from the Ripper case from which we can extract DNA, and that we without doubt can link to the killer!!!!!! You don't have any clothes or artefacts from the crime scenes, and you do not have a murder weapon! What is it you have planned to examine, really? As long as no physical evidence remains from either the crime scenes, the killer or the victims, DNA is useless.
Again - WE HAVE NO DNA FROM THE RIPPER CRIME SCENES! And this is where the problem lies! UNLESS - unless, I say - the braided piece of hair really comes from Eddowes. But of course then we have to face other problems, like how many people have been handling it for 117 years.
As for the lock of hair assuming to be from Eddowes - I wish you good luck too. If I recall correctly from Neal Shelden's research, there should still be descendants alive from her. It would be exciting indeed if it really was hers and I await that with great anticipation, although I remain a skeptic.
Diana,
Kosminski? OK, Kosminski. But how exactly does that makes DNA suitable for solving the case? All that tells us is who might be descendants to Kosminski. What exactly had you figured to match the DNA from Kosminski's descendants with (if we can find them and they want to participate)?
We have no physical evidence from the murder scenes to which we can link Kosminski!
Now, if that braided hair would really be from Eddowes and we found DNA on that belonging to descendants to one of the suspects, like for example Kosminski - now, THAT would get us somewhere. But what if the Ripper was someone unknown to us, and we found DNA not belonging to any descendants of the known suspects - or to either Eddowes herself for that matter - but a totally unknown person?
It just isn't that simple.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 06, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3315
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 5:36 pm: |
|
While I agree that its unlikely any conclusive "discoveries" can be made right now via DNA evidence, particularly about the killer's identity, can't we all agree that if there is indeed DNA surviving on any bit of evidence even remotely related to the Ripper case, that there is merit in retrieving, analyzing, and documenting it? Granted we may have nothing valid to compare it to now, but who knows what might pop up in the future?
My understanding of DNA technology is about as immature and underdeveloped as anyone's, but at the very least I think it would be worthwhile to document and record whatever DNA sequences can be discovered before they are lost forever. Store it away in a database somewhere for safe-keeping. Who knows what future generations might do with this information?
I'm not talking about identifying the killer - as Bob said, DNA identifies people, not actions - but there are any number of other minor mysteries which might be solved in this way.
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5242
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 5:50 pm: |
|
Suppose this lock of hair is indeed from Eddowes (it doesn't look like it, but suppose).
Suppose too that a tiny amount of DNA can be extracted by Ian. This may or may not turn out to have a genetic similarity to the DNA of one of the suspects.
It's worth trying, I'd say.
But if we're looking for really minute amounts....then....er.....is the Diary going to be checked?
Robert (ducking as he leaves) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4210
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 5:53 pm: |
|
I agree with that, Spry, but dealing with the letters don't get us anywhere.
Now, the piece of hair is another matter. I agree that is interesting, because if that did belong to Edowes we for the first time could confirm a piece of real physical evidence.
So I find the examination of this really exciting. But trying to solve the case - as was the stated intention in the article - by examining the letters, is pointless.
Now, as far as the letters are concerned, I agree on that it would be interesting to see if DNA from descendants to Bulling or any other person belonging to the Central News Agency would fit those that might be found on the Dear Boss letter and Saucy Jack postcard. That is the only mystery that is interesting to clear up about the letters. Apart from that, they have very little relevance to Jack the Ripper himself.
Another interesting little task would be to see if DNA from descendants of Maybrick (if those exists) fits any DNA found in the Diary.
Yes, those are the things we with a lot of nearly impossible efforts and a great deal of luck might be able to achieve in a 117 year old case with so little remaining evidence. But that is as far as it goes. Might be earth-shattering enough for some, though, but hardy exciting for the context of the whole Ripper case as such.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 06, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4211
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 5:58 pm: |
|
Yes, Robert...
SUPPOSE that piece of braided hair came from Eddowes... now THAT might lead somewhere. But just might.
As far as I am concerned, it would be exciting enough to find that it actually was Eddowes real hair. That would be shivering.
And maybe we could find another DNA on it. And MAYBE we are lucky enough to find DNA from one of the known suspects.
Too many maybes. If not - again - how do we know an unknown DNA found on the hair would come from from the killer and not from staff in the mortuary or other people unknown to us who might have handled it throughout the years?
Regarding the Diary... you beat me to it.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 06, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1107
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 6:01 pm: |
|
Hi Ian,
I wonder if you can tell us, besides establishing a familial link, what else might your analysis of hair tell us about the donor--i.e. general health, diet, etc. I don't know anything about it, but isn't a lot of information stored in hair? I think victim research is every bit as rich as Ripper research.
Although I place a lot of weight in Stephen's opinion that this is most likely a hoax, I'm glad you're testing for a conclusive answer (pending the cooperation of relatives). I hope it all works out for you.
Dave |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1663
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 6:05 pm: |
|
Hi Ian and Stephen
As with Ms. Cornwell's investigation, I applaud the attempt to bring modern forensic techniques to our famous "cold case." The trouble is that Ms. Cornwell's assumption that the Ripper letters are from the killer ("90%" of such letters, as she has stated) makes for a very shaky hypothesis. The probability is that, as most of us who have studied the case agree, those letters didn't come from the killer. They were written by people wanting their 15 minutes of fame, just like "Wearside Jack" in the Yorkshire Ripper case -- and just as distracting.
It would be possible, yes, to make a DNA profile from the spittle used to lick a stamp on one or more of the envelopes, as Cornwell did, but most likely it would be the DNA of a letter hoaxer, not the killer. And then probably you would not have a control sample to compare it to, to know whose DNA it is, unless that is you want to go out on a limb and choose a suspect such as Walter Sickert, as Ms. Cornwell did, against the indications that the artist was totally innocent of the murders. Interesting, yes, but in the scheme of things, not too important in our study of the case.
All the best
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4212
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 6:12 pm: |
|
Dave,
"I wonder if you can tell us, besides establishing a familial link, what else might your analysis of hair tell us about the donor--i.e. general health, diet, etc. I don't know anything about it, but isn't a lot of information stored in hair? I think victim research is every bit as rich as Ripper research."
A good point. I agree with that. I think you could tell a lot of those things from DNA analysis, but I am not expert enough on the technical side of it. I agree, that might give us some interesting information from a social and historical point of view.
Chris George,
An excellent post.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 06, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5243
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 6:16 pm: |
|
Glenn, I'm just saying that if the hair is proved to be Kate's and if they find, say, Druitt-related DNA on the hair, then that would be something.
If no DNA found on the hair matches that of any of the suspects, that wouldn't exonerate them, but it wouldn't implicate them.
It's worth doing in the sense that you might get something out of it, though it's unlikely that you will. And if you get nothing, then no harm done.
Whether or not it's financially worth doing, or a good use of money - I pass on that one. It won't be my money that's used. 
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2783
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 6:21 pm: |
|
Yarrow was used to treat pneumonia, nephritis, and Bright's disease in the LVP, the problem being that it made your hair curl.
I note from Eddowes mortuary photos that she has short curly hair. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4213
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 6:39 pm: |
|
True, AP, but you must also take into account that her hair is wet on the mortuary pictures from the traditional washing.
This usually makes the hair curl quite a bit.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1108
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 6:40 pm: |
|
Thanks, Glenn. I don't know if anything about health can be determined by forensic analysis of hair, but it would be interesting to know. It might be that you'd need a sample from close to the scalp or something--I don't know if long, grown-out hair would be relevant, or if any hair would be relevant other than determining general race or something like that.
Say, wasn't Eddowes graying? If you look at the mortuary photograph of her leaning against the wall, it looks like she's graying at the crown. I would also expect for a braid to have sat in the puddle of blood and serum that was underneath her. Then again, I seem to remember that they washed her hair. Whatever, I still hope they test it.
Dave |
Ian Findlay
Police Constable
Username: Ifindlay
Post Number: 3
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 7:26 pm: |
|
Dear all,
Regarding what other information we could find from any DNA in samples. If we can obtain the DNA, and dependant on amount of DNA available then we could may also be able to determine the blood group (ABO and rhesus factor) of the individual.
Of course we don't know what we'll get and what the ramifications will be until we give it a try.
Regarding "the diary", as I know little about this, can someone emlighten me.
Ian |
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1109
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 7:34 pm: |
|
"Regarding "the diary", as I know little about this, can someone enlighten me."
Run. Run as fast as you can, and don't look back. |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 855
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 7:55 pm: |
|
Most experts consider it a hoax. It was discovered in the early 1990's.
It claims to be the diary of James Maybrick, a businessman in Liverpool, who had a less than happy marriage. This part is true: Maybrick died of arsenic poisoning and his wife Florrie was accused, tried, and convicted, then pardoned.
The diary was supposedly written by Maybrick and it claims that he was Jack the Ripper.
Tests on the ink have shown that this kind of ink was not manufactured till after Maybrick's time.
It was after the news about the ink that most Ripperologists discarded belief in the diary, however there are some diehards who cling to the possibility that James Maybrick was Jack. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1664
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 7:55 pm: |
|
Hi Ian
The so-called Maybrick "Ripper Diary" is of even less consequence than the Ripper letters. It is a modern hoax with no provenance.
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 205
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 2:53 am: |
|
The only documentary evidence that might be of value,I believe it still exists,is the Hutchinson statement.He signed that statement so part of his hand would have come into contact with the paper.Iv'e no idea whether that would leave traces,the experts might know.
Of course other people also handled the document,but if a trace matched a letter DNA,then that would be of help. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4214
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 4:12 am: |
|
Hi Dave,
Yes, somehow I can't help feeling that that braided hair is too red and seems to belong to a younger woman. Still, I am not counting anything out until we see the result. At least one thing we could find out through DNA is how old the hair piece is, that is, if it is from 1888 or later (or earlier).
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 492
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 5:22 am: |
|
Hello Ian,
Thanks for contacting Casebook and providing us with your balanced explanation and for demonstrating a will to engage in discussion on the Ripper.
I note your comment that any mention of using DNA in testing for Ripper suspects came first, not from you, but from a journalist.
So, in other words, it was not your original intention when you announced your company's development of a more accurate DNA test, that you intended to use it to try and "solve" the Ripper case.
And it was good of you to admit your limited knowledge of just what Ripper case exhibits still existed, which could be tested. I think you were interested in "cold Cases" from about two centuries ago, for which reliable testable items still existed?
Several clever people above have pointed to aspects of the huge tangle of Ripper theories which might benefit from DNA examination.
It is refreshing to deal with a scientific expert who appears to have an open attitude to this particular "cold case".
I can see you have made a quick exploration of the Casebook:Jack The Ripper Website. Please do so more because I think you will be as impressed as we are at Stephen P Ryder's vision and adaptability in showing -in my opinion- one of the most ideal uses of a Web Site to store, exhibit, discuss ..and yes, socialise!...I have yet seen.
Who knows? Perhaps you may absorb some of the innovations and adaptations exhibited on Casebook to chronicle your own exciting journey towards the twenty second century...
Well done to you Ian, more strength to your arm,
and three cheers for Stephen P Ryder and his grand army of helpers!
JOHN RUFFELS, Australia. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4216
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 5:45 am: |
|
Oh come on, John... That was a bit over the top, wasn't it?
Sure, DNA is very helpful in 'cold cases' but it's not like we're talking about a cold case here from the 1970s. We are talking 1888, with no remaining physical evidence to extract DNA from. Not even the crime scene looks the same as they were.
So - although some people here, myself included, have pointed at some small tasks that might be possible to achieve - it is perfectly clear that DNA can't help us in any way in order to reveal anything extraordinary for the case as a whole. In very old cases like this one, the benefits of DNA are VERY limited. You can't create DNA from nothing.
And in general I am very skeptical against using modern forensic methods on an old case like the Ripper. Modern forensic methods requires that a lot of physical evidence and other material exists and in the Ripper case that leaves us with very little to go on.
I do wish Ian good luck, though, but please please don't overestimate the value of DNA in an old case displaying such problematic circumstances as the Ripper case.
And forget the letters!
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 07, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2285
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 6:08 am: |
|
Hi Chris G,
...but most likely it would be the DNA of a letter hoaxer, not the killer.
But what if the DNA matched a named suspect not previously associated with the letter(s)? I think that would be highly intriguing, and we'd see sparks fly between those whose favourite suspect is implicated and those who will never believe he was Jack.
Hi Diana,
This part is true: Maybrick died of arsenic poisoning and his wife Florrie was accused, tried, and convicted, then pardoned.
Not quite true - Florie wasn't pardoned; she served 15 years for attempted murder because in the end the murder conviction which would have earned her the death penalty was considered unsafe. Not enough arsenic was found in Maybrick's body to confirm a fatal dose, and up until his last few days he was in the habit of taking doses that would kill a non-addict.
So Florie was finally condemned for being an adulteress and an incompetent would-be murderess.
Tests on the ink have shown that this kind of ink was not manufactured till after Maybrick's time.
And what 'kind' of ink would that be?
One testing organisation concluded that chloroacetamide was in the ink: a substance which has been found in preparations dating back as early as 1857, but not known to have been used in ink manufacture at the right time. But its correct identification has been seriously questioned ever since the test was commissioned in 1994. No other testing organisation has come up with anything like a conclusive result showing a post-1889 date for the ink.
Hi again Chris G,
It is a modern hoax with no provenance.
Now you should know better than to make such a statement of opinion as if it is established fact.  Please show some respect for Ian who, as a professional scientist, has to keep his mind firmly open while any testing process is ongoing. And the diary testing process is as ongoing as they come!
Hi Ian,
The diary has not been proved a modern artefact (and for reasons too complex to go into here, 'modern' in this case means post-1987). It hasn't been dated at all yet.
And because its provenance is not known to Chris George, he concludes, somewhat illogically and pompously, that it cannot possibly have one. It's like someone saying there can be no new planets out there if the experts have not found and named them yet.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1868
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 6:49 am: |
|
Well, you all knew that was coming.
Ian, the diary was not written by James Maybrick.
It's not even in his handwriting (or anything remotely close to it -- and we have plenty of authentic samples).
The text clearly and repeatedly indicates that it was most likely composed in modern times and it makes numerous simple, historical errors.
Still, it would be nice if someday it was thoroughly tested professionally (it's thirteen years later and we're all still waiting, just as we're still waiting for the results of some secret investigation that's supposedly taking place according to one poster here. It's been over a decade -- that book's taking longer to write than Ulysses).
But you said the following concerning testing:
Of course we don't know what we'll get and what the ramifications will be until we give it a try.
I agree completely. Of course, that's not the most popular view in some circles.
Anyway, I'm sure this will bring the inevitable response. I won't write again here as I don't want to see this thread completely hijacked.
So take care and good luck,
--John |
Spiro
Sergeant
Username: Auspirograph
Post Number: 19
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 9:11 am: |
|
Well, that's not quite true Caz,
The Maybrick Diary is dated. The date it was published and contrived to induce hair-splitting debate. Granted, it's a good bed-time read on a cold and stormy night...
Enough research and tests have already been done to give us reasonable doubt of it's provenance. I suppose one more won't hurt.
Unless your ongoing research involves proving authenticity it's a dead horse as far as the Whitechapel victims are concerned. History is a fascinating subject and sure, I would also like to know the how, why and if of it all.
BTW, the planet Pluto was discovered in 1930, as was Neptune in Victorian times, by mathematical projections of their unseen positions.
It's truly a miracle the sky doesn't fall down Chicken Little.
With my admiration
Spiro
Back to Catherine's hair-piece! |
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 32
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 9:17 am: |
|
A previous suggestion was made that Hutchinson's signed statement may still be in existance, and I would cheerfully endorse the view that this piece of evidence would be a good starting point for the purposes of DNA extraction.
Many "ifs" abound here, of course. IF the plait of hair does indeed belong the Eddowes, IF it is possible to extract non-Eddowes DNA from the sample, and IF such an extract can be positively matched with the Hutchinson statement, THEN we might get somewhere.
I still say it's worth it, "ifs" notwithstanding.
Best Regards,
Ben |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
