3 ms·
What, no? Or have you heard of any DNA being extracted from the evidence and compared with living relative, recently?
by kyberias 12y ago
What, no? Or have you heard of any DNA being extracted from the evidence and compared with living relative, recently?
- the_af 12y agoI share the opinion of the parent post. It seems every once in a while a "Ripperologist" (yes, there is a name for this) comes up with a new, definitive and conclusive theory about the identity of Jack the Ripper, and you must buy the book to find out. Patricia Cornwell comes to mind, she "proved" that it was Walter Sickert, and the killings were apparently caused by Sickert having some flaw in his genitals (not making this up). The DNA stuff would NOT prove -- even if there were no contamination of evidence, no fakery and no misreading of the evidence -- that this guy was the Ripper. At best it proves he had sexual intercourse with the victim. This isn't a bad lead, but it doesn't "prove" anything about the identity of the killer.