Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Money From The Ripper

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lynn Cates
    replied
    final decision

    Hello DGB. Thanks for posting that.

    Wonder when a final decision will be reached?

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • DGB
    replied
    For info, Guardian comment on the proposed museum:

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
    replied
    You are correct about the DNA Stewart

    About the only useful test that could be done, if a significant sample was identified, would be what is known as a Y STR test, which would identify the sample as coming from a male or female donor

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynn Cates
    replied
    bang for the buck

    Hello Stewart. Thanks.

    Of course, it is all moot since:

    1. I have no illusions about the letter being from the killer (although nice to know which prankster was involved).

    2. The letter is no longer with us.

    I agree, though, about the testing--very expensive; results not worth it. As they say locally, "Not much bang for the buck."

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • SPE
    replied
    DNA

    If the original letter were found I doubt that there would be any point in testing it for DNA, an expensive process I believe. For a start there was no envelope with the letter and no stamp has survived, the only real source for DNA being surfaces the sender may have licked.

    As I understand it mitochondrial DNA would be virtually valueless for the following reasons - (i) It is not specific enough (unlike nuclear DNA) as it narrows down the field of possible donors to around 400,000. (ii) Any DNA trace found on the letter could have come from many contaminant sources after the letter was sent and even a saliva trace would be no good without continuity. (iii) Who, suspect-wise, would you compare any DNA with, and where would you get a suspect's DNA from anyway? (iv) The letter is probably a hoax and not from the killer.

    Patricia Cornwell came up against these obstacles when working with the 'Openshaw letter' and there is no answer to them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynn Cates
    replied
    taken aback

    Hello Stewart. Thanks.

    Then that does not include me as I have no claims to make about the Met.

    Frankly, I'm taken aback as the rest. That is why I could not believe what I was seeing.

    And if the REAL letter were in possession, surely it would have been tested by now at least for mitochondrial DNA?

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynn Cates
    replied
    plausible

    Hello Adam. That is a quite plausible suggestion.

    (Wiki is NOT the very best source.)

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • SPE
    replied
    My Remark

    My remark about a bit too much being made of this report was in respect of those who use it as another chance to take a pop at the police and officialdom and make other dark mutterings.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris G.
    replied
    Originally posted by John Bennett View Post
    When I saw the article, I had to admit I groaned somewhat.

    When it comes to all things JTR, the press are as good at messing with our heads today as they have always been.
    Indeed. Well said, John.

    Stewart, thanks for providing the lengthy description of the handling of the Lusk letter and the piece of kidney by the Met and the City Police plus City Police surgeon Dr. F. Gordon Brown's examination of the kidney. Your blow by blow chronology of the known whereabouts of the letter and kidney in 1888 is most informative and appreciated.

    Best regards

    Chris

    Leave a comment:


  • Adam Wood
    replied
    Hello all,

    I suspect that the authors of the Report simply looked at the Wikipedia entry for the Black Museum for background information:



    While there's reference to "letters allegedly written by Jack the Ripper", there's no mention of the Lusk letter being held at the Museum.

    Unfortunately, someone has uploaded an image of that letter for illustrative purposes and it would seem that it has been assumed the letter is part of the collection.

    Adam

    Leave a comment:


  • DGB
    replied
    Indeed Lynn, plus - the fact that the crime museum links featured in the footnotes are out of date (404) - leads to questions over the report itself.

    DavidGB

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynn Cates
    replied
    quoting

    Hello DGB. Thanks for posting that. Looks rather like the reporter may be quoting the letter without checking it out?

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynn Cates
    replied
    hoax

    Hello Stewart. Thanks.

    "Isn't a bit too much being made of a poorly detailed and random press report?"

    Well, I, for one make nothing of it. I read an article claiming that "From Hell" was to be put on display to raise money. Naturally, I was gobsmacked.

    If the reporter got it wrong, so be it. Would not be the first time one misreported on this case.

    As far as theories go, this letter does not now, nor ever has, touched any of mine. I have regarded it as a hoax from day one.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • DGB
    replied
    The newspaper article relates to a report written by a member of the London Assembly. It can be found here:



    Unfortunately, it seems to hold no further information.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Bennett
    replied
    When I saw the article, I had to admit I groaned somewhat.

    When it comes to all things JTR, the press are as good at messing with our heads today as they have always been.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X