Not really -- all the article says is that a person claims to have identified the "real" Jack the Ripper, using what sounds like pretty persuasive evidence. But

Not really -- all the article says is that a person claims to have identified the "real" Jack the Ripper, using what sounds like pretty persuasive evidence. But would that evidence convict him today, in Britain? Or would it only show that he had a contact with the victim? He was known to patronize prostitutes.