62
Jack the Ripper breakthrough as DNA 'finally unmasks serial killer'
(www.express.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
62 points (65.7% liked)
News
23406 readers
2674 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The DNA match that the author claims is very suspect. Here is a good article about why. The bullet points are:
Shawl: There was no contemporary documentation that the shawl was recovered from the crime scene
There was no contemporary documentation that the Inspector that supposedly took the shawl and gifted it to his wife was at the crime scene
The shawl was silk and had an expensive design making it unlikely that Eddowes would have owned it
DNA: The DNA collected and compared was mitochondrial DNA which is far less unique than nuclear DNA, mitochondrial DNA is generally considered exclusory rather than inclusory
The shawl was not kept free from contamination, descendents of both the identified victim and the identified suspect are known to have handled the shawl prior to testing
On top of the problematic DNA match from his last book the author is now layering on conspiracy theories concerning Freemasons and antisemitism for his new book to draw even more questionable conclusions.
Edited to fix link and spelling
I'm sorry, do you mean shawl? I've been having a hard time reading and understanding things lately, so I tried Googling "shaw" and found a bunch of people named that which is extra confusing in this context
Yes, I edited my comment to fix the spelling. Thanks for letting me know about the error.
Thank you for editing. It is a good comment, sorry I got a little lost on my way through it
They meant "shawl" all 6 or so times they said "shaw", yes.
Op meant shawl like a coat blanket thing
No matter how much evidence and proof you have, half the people will say it wasn't him. Especially historians who are dead set on a different suspect
Reading other sources, I doubt this claim as well.