Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
She was a prostitute and it says he lived nearby and implies he was a bit of a sex weirdy. Suggesting because his DNA was on a scarf that he killed everyone is a bit of a jump. Doesn't even *necessarily* mean he killed her.
Seems strange a policeman would nick the evidence at the scene of the crime as well - they couldn't have known how big a thing Jack the Ripper would become so it can't have been for a souvenir or anything.
Plus, here's a non-Daily Mail link for anyone feeling queasy about clicking: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/has-jack-the-rippers-identity-really-been-revealed-using-dna-evidence-9717036.html
Also, as far as I understood it, despite all the victims being prostitutes, they weren't really sex crimes as such. Whoever did it just seemed to be all about the butchering rather than anything sexual. Or maybe I'm wrong about that. But the semen stain doesn't seem consistent with what I thought was the "style" of it all
as mysteries go it feels kind of mundane. Seems like every couple of years someone writes a book with irrefutable proof on who it could have been and all have left me with the feeling of *shrug*. It just seems like it could have been any one of a bunch of psychos, none of them particularly interesting, theres not even a wider conspiracy or anything.
to keep Lucien ticking over between kite festivals.
but the impact of the murders was huge, and the fact it was never solved means it will always interest people. I don't think it ever will be conclusively proved, and this latest theory is no more compelling that the rest of them.