Jack The Ripper - Whodunnit?

[peter]

Interesting follow on from a thread I was wathching in the comic/graphic novel section of the Watch a while ago - I was talking abot Alan Moore graphic novels, and checking these out later discovered that he had done one called 'From Hell' from which a film starring Johhny Depp was later made.

Moore in this GN concetrates on the royalty/masonic [conspiracy] theory and, in usual Moore fashion geos into great depth and detail about the events and mystery surrounding them. It transpires that the name 'From Hell' comes from the eponymous 'From Hell' letter, purporting - and generally believed - to be from 'Jack himself, to members of a vigillante organisation set up to patroll the streets of Whitechapel at the time of the murders.

I followed it on with a little 'JTR' reading and discovered that there is far from total agreement that 'Jack' even exhisted. Brutal murders of prostitutes were not uncommon in the day, and of the so called 'cannononical five' that are generally agreed to be by a single killer, there was dispute even at the time that they were the work of one man. It appears the myth of 'JTR' may have coalesced around a group of similar murders and, due to press sesationalism, gradually a story and edifice built up around this idea of one maniacle and develish killer roaming the streets of East-London. As time progressed the story gained weight and sucessive generations have continued to put flesh on the bones of the original sketchy evidence. So it appears that 'Jack The Ripper' may not have existed as a historical charachter any more than say Robin Hood or Prester John. Well - if you choose not to acept this theory [and I hope you do in a way] there's plenty of options to go for; I think at the last count there was something in excess of 100 putative candidates for the post. Perhaps with the wealth of collective intellect we at the Watch posess we can bend our minds to shedding some light on this time-aged chestnut. Anybody up for it?

[I'm Murrin]

From Hell is a great graphic novel. One of the more interesting parts of it, I think, was the appendix at the end where he included the research and evidence he'd based his version on, detailing the major suspects and motives. Interesting reading.

[Vader]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX4q1cIDDRY

[peter]

Against all expectations it appears that the identity of Jack [in at least one of the murders] may have been established.

The body of Catherine Eddows, found murdered on 30 September 1888 was wrapped in a shawl from which semen matching the DNA of one of the contemporary suspects, Aaron Kominski, has been isolated. Kominski was held briefly at the time before being released and was a Polish emigree who worked as a hairdresser in Whitechapel. He died in a lunatic asylum in 1919. Maternal DNA from the sample recovered from the shawl exactly matches that sampled from a direct descendant of Kowalski's sister, giving a 100% identification of the semen at least.

It's a rather prosaic result given some of the more fancifull theories to have been proposed - but one that is reflective of much of life in it's ordinariness and banality. No doubt many [most?] 'Ripperologists' will deny the conclusion and of course it does leave room for doubt [perhaps Kowalski was having sex with Eddows the night before] but it's a fairly good indicator at least, that the culprit has been identified.

[I'm Murrin]

Many people have pointed out that the Ripper case gets "solved" every few years. I don't think a semen stain on the clothing of a working prostitute is in any way conclusive.

[peter]

Not if a link between the pair can be established - but in the absence of such it becomes a rather startling coincidence don't you think?

[wayfriend]

Everyone knows that H.G. Wells caught Jack the Ripper in 1979 San Francisco. It turned out he was David Warner all along. It also turned out that H.G. Wells was really Malcom McDowell.

[Vraith]

Everyone knows that H.G. Wells caught Jack the Ripper in 1979 San Francisco. It turned out he was David Warner all along. It also turned out that H.G. Wells was really Malcom McDowell.

I had forgotten about that. At some point he must have taken a little side-trip to plant the sample from this other guy.

[Cagliostro]

I love that movie.

[sgt.null]

Everyone knows that H.G. Wells caught Jack the Ripper in 1979 San Francisco. It turned out he was David Warner all along. It also turned out that H.G. Wells was really Malcom McDowell.

awesome movie.

[michaelm]

I have a friend who describes himself as a "ripperologist". He devours everything related to the case, and in his opinion it is probably never going to be solved. I asked him about that last one with the semen stains (wasn't that a character from Captain Pugwash?) and his answer was the same as Murrin's.

[peter]

But.....[splutter, cough].....it was reported in the press. The press, Sir!

[michaelm]

But.....[splutter, cough].....it was reported in the press. The press, Sir!

The other comment my friend made was that the guy is throwing a bone out but not giving much more detail - when he gets to that point he says "You'll have to buy my book"...

[peter]

Surely Scotland Yard would have to be the ones behind an investigation of this sort? Does it not still rank as an open case?

edit; In an article my step-son read it is claimed that the link between Catherine Eddows and the shawl is tenuous at best. Apparently it is claimed to have been removed from her body [by a police constable at the scene I believe] but with little corroborative evidence to support this other than hearsay. Once again Jack, it appears, slips through the net. [Still perhaps we must wait for the inevitable book to come out before making full judgement.]

[michaelm]

Surely Scotland Yard would have to be the ones behind an investigation of this sort? Does it not still rank as an open case?

Working from memory here, but I think cases are closed after a certain time if they're not solved and have to be reopened if new evidence is brought up.

I know the UK is different from the US in this and I'm uncertain of the difference, but I think the law in the UK around murder cases is different from all others in some way that makes it easier to reopen them and prosecute someone (although the latter part is obviously not applicable in this case)

[peter]

A further little chink in the story appears to be that mDNA [mitochondrial DNA that is inherited only down via the female line, ie there is no paternal genetic shuffling as occurs in ordinary nuclear DNA], which was the type identified on the shawl, is identifiable only to groups of individuals rather than a specific one. Hence the 100% DNA match proposed [it would appear] is no such thing.

[The technical details were all passed to me by someone who had read a critique of the claims, so do not come with any stamp oh authority as being correct]

[Vraith]

is identifiable only to groups of individuals rather than a specific one. Hence the 100% DNA match proposed [it would appear] is no such thing.

I believe, though, that if it wasn't his, it had to be a near male relative of his [a brother, an uncle or cousin on the mother's side, or somesuch].

All in all, it seems to me, and I ain't gonna buy a book to find out, that it's the strongest circumstantial case that exists. But nothing like proof.

[peter]

One fish that won't be taking the bait then V.

There's a bit of me that would actually like to see the identity of JTR established, but I suspect like a magic trick, much of the allure [wrong word but you understand] of the case would be gone if the mystery were solved.