Jack the Ripper finally identified by dna.

"Possibly"

Mebbe.

Who knows, maybe it's you and you're just making a misdirection here ;)

Sometimes.

It is a meaningful data point whether the crimes had a sexual element involved in them or not. If not, then all the association tells us- assuming all the associations are in fact correct, and given that Kosminski's identity had some iffyness associated with, we can't necessarily be certain of that- is that the individual had some sexual involvement. Y'know, with a prostitute living within the same district [though admittedly, with an estimated 1200 prostiutes within the district, it'd be quite a coincidence for the two to be associated], in an era with very limited forms of entertainment.
You could use it as supporting element for validation, but as far as "identifying" goes, it's still more in the realm of "plausible conjecture" rather than "overwhelming evidence".

AllTrac has expressed some problematic sentiments in the past, but I'm not seeing any basis for hostility towards this particular comment, even if it does have some poorly phrased elements. I mean, it's entirely possible that they meant the comments to be dismissive of prostitutes. However, AllTrac did properly follow-up in correlating his comments to his basis, that without a clear sexual association in the crimes, all we know is that two people from the same district had sexual contact and were both related to the same murder case. Suspicious, definitely [especially given the odds involved], but not as emphaticly definitive as the OP states it to be.

Back when this conjecture was first introduced back in 2014, there were a lot of dubious, unprofessional, and unscientific elements to how it was presented. The individual make the claims at the time came across as rather untrustworthy, to put it very mildly. Now, we've got a second group who've analyzed the same shawl and claimed the same thing- but again, it's not something that is being taken seriously, other than by the most careless of news sources.
We're talking a shawl of uncertain origin, that has been handled by countless people (and moreover has been handled in the presence of the very individuals who the DNA tests claim to be comparing against), with unclear analysis points [it's only an assumption of blood and semen, and they can't be sure to whom either belongs to, thus their basing all results off of testing against descendents], in regards to an individual that has long been thought to have been misidentified, processed through two DNA tests that both have given strong indication of having been handled improperly (and which have failed to present even the most basic information about their process, further throwing their quality into suspicion).

Questioning the conflict with the previous perception of the killer's MO seems completely reasonable- though, frankly, perhaps a bit superfluous, considering everything else. Similarly, while the choice of phrasing could have been better, it's complely fair to state that no part of this matter is giving us any grounds to firmly accuse anyone of anything.

That said, Phoenix Wright vs Undead Jack the Ripper does make for an intriguing game concept, and arguments are just that much easier to put up with when you can express your discontent by throwing giant red Objection!s out at one another.

What? No, he's saying that rape wasn't recorded as part of the killer's modus operandi, so any semen recovered probably belonged to one of the sex worker's customers, who all paid to release semen in her presence, not her killer.

I never said that prostitutes can't be raped, I said that the doctors checked all of the victims of this killer and never found any signs of rape.

I also understand that a killer can leave semen without raping, but considering that the killer has not shown any signs of sexual gratification or left semen at any other of his killings and this semen was found with a prostitute, it is much more likely that the semen was from a previous customer of the prostitute. The shawl could have easily been hers. How do you know she doesn't use it to clean herself after meeting a customer and then wash it, this was in 1888.

Saying they are not convicting or trying anyone is just semantics. Maybe that wasn't the best word to use, but gathering evidence to prove who committed a crime is basically convicting someone. I was simply saying that this evidence that they are presenting would not hold up in a court of law to convict this person in this case.

It seems like this story is being hyped up and now everyone is saying that they used DNA to find out who the Jack The Ripper killer was, but that is not true at all. This adds another piece to the puzzle, but the case is still open and the killer is not known.

In fairness, you never really should have made the presumption in the first place. There was a paragraph, man. They are constructed (good ones anyway) with each sentence intended to inform upon the last in pursuit of an ultimate conclusion. The answers to your questions are already elaborated by the statements that follow them.

I know in the next post you admit he "probably meant," though the context of the information presented should've set the odds for "probably" so close to "undoubtedly" that nothing even need be asked. Other interpretations require tossing out existing context to project an inference which otherwise could just be expressed directly if actually intended.

Just generally, I think whenever you've gotta break something up piecemeal to address, you're probably at greater risk of having gotten at least some part wrong already. Well, or dealing with some poorly constructed paragraphs.

😊 Thanks! 😉

I remember that series, I enjoyed it but I never finished it. I should go back and give it another go.

Wow that sounds crazy! haha

It's a story from one of books about Jakub Wędrowycz, "Zagadka Kuby Rozpruwacza".

Yes, but i don't think barbers even then had much coins to spend, and i doubt he would still get access like that because if any sadist could just get in and someone found out would cause a big ruckus.

XDDDDDD