Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Stamp and DNA

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

  • #16
    As to the organ removal if you remember I don't support the old accepted theory that the killer removed the organs from Chapman and Eddowes.
    The very old and very much accepted theory that this occurred. The medical men at the time seem to have been quite satisfied that (a) the killer was responsible and (b) there was nothing in terms of the time and light available which precluded this possibility.

    Whilst I admire your willingness to "think outside the box" (ghastly management term though that is) I'm left wondering why you need to introduce an added complication in such circumstances (unless you have a new suspect in mind?).
    "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
      The very old and very much accepted theory that this occurred. The medical men at the time seem to have been quite satisfied that (a) the killer was responsible and (b) there was nothing in terms of the time and light available which precluded this possibility.

      Whilst I admire your willingness to "think outside the box" (ghastly management term though that is) I'm left wondering why you need to introduce an added complication in such circumstances (unless you have a new suspect in mind?).
      There is no added complication, the old accepted facts are there to be proved or disproved, not readily accepted as being correct because we now know that many of those old accepted facts have now been disproved, and that much of what the Victorian doctors said back then has now been proved to have been nothing more than guesswork.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • #18
        Assuming that you could prove JtR sent the letter, licked the stamp and there was a good sample to compare it with, at this remove being at all helpful. Even under ideal conditions, saliva samples are only supposed to be good for about 30 years before they can't be used for identification purposes or so I've read anyway. At best you might get broader uses like confirming gender with presence of corrupted chromosome or something like that but nothing anywhere near finger pointing good.
        Though I admit that I could be completely wrong but I'm skeptical that DNA from a stamp would be helpful at this remove.
        Iím often irrelevant. It confuses people.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Shaggyrand View Post
          Assuming that you could prove JtR sent the letter, licked the stamp and there was a good sample to compare it with, at this remove being at all helpful. Even under ideal conditions, saliva samples are only supposed to be good for about 30 years before they can't be used for identification purposes or so I've read anyway. At best you might get broader uses like confirming gender with presence of corrupted chromosome or something like that but nothing anywhere near finger pointing good.
          Though I admit that I could be completely wrong but I'm skeptical that DNA from a stamp would be helpful at this remove.
          I never heard about a 30-year time limit and, evidently, neither did a microbiologist named Yang. His subject disappeared more than 30 years ago.

          http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...aliva-science/

          I am not convinced that this letter was not just another hoax.

          Comment


          • #20
            The link, above, mentions a possible secretary as opposed to Amelia's own spit. If the writer of the Openshaw letter had a secretary, he would have to be a man of some position. On the other hand, as I wrote in a previous post, the author would not want a second party to see the letter because such letters wound up in the paper and someone might connect the writer to the address on a letter. As in "My boss just wrote a letter to Openshaw. What if he's the Ripper? I must report him."

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
              There is no added complication, the old accepted facts are there to be proved or disproved, not readily accepted as being correct because we now know that many of those old accepted facts have now been disproved
              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              As the opinions are those of contemporary medical men they should be accepted unless and until there is good reason to do otherwise.

              , and that much of what the Victorian doctors said back then has now been proved to have been nothing more than guesswork.
              Do you have some examples of occasions where Victorian doctors' opinions have been proven to be guesswork? I'm aware that you think the mutilations & extractions in the cases referred to couldn't have been performed in the time available but, even if you're right about that, isn't the simpler and more likely explanation that the timings are out - that (for example) the Lawende sighting was of someone other than Eddowes? If that possibility is conceded there would be a window of 30-35 minutes in which the grisly 'work' could be accomplished.
              "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

              Comment

              Working...
              X