• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Jack the Ripper Identified

Hilander

Free Spirit
Staff member
V.I.P.
Forensic Science Has Finally Identified 'Jack the Ripper'

Never thought this would ever happen but thanks to DNA it did. Turns out its a Polish barber by the name of Aaron Kosminski. Too bad he can't still be punished.

I'm wondering if DNA this old can be trusted.

Thoughts?
 

The_Chameleon

Grandmaster
Sounds hokey to me. Where did they get the test sample from? What did they have of Kisminski's from back then to compare the sample(s) to? And you're right, the integrity of DNA that old is questionable.
 

Doc

Trust me, I'm The Doctor.
V.I.P.
Here's the link to the scientific study: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1556-4029.14038.

I checked and Wiley is the distributor of the very legit Journal of Forensic Sciences. They're saying that they were able to isolate individual cells from both the suspected killer, Aaron Kosminski, and a victim. The scarf was apparently the only known surviving item from the time.

It should be noted that this is almost certainly only possible due to home DNA tests and consenting to allowing companies like 23 and Me and Ancestry trace your genetic heritage for you. They have to have the single largest database of DNA and lineages in the history of mankind. That database is used by the police to track crimes so it can be used for this without violating the privacy notice.

Also, to counter the "DNA that old can't be reliable" argument.. unprotected DNA takes 500+ years to start degrading and, because of DNA's halflife, will take about a million to six million years to be undetectable. It is unusable around a million years old. We know this because we've sequenced DNA that old already and from multiple populations. It's also why a mosquito fossilized in amber cannot possibly have dinosaur DNA.
 

Hilander

Free Spirit
Staff member
V.I.P.
Here's the link to the scientific study: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1556-4029.14038.

I checked and Wiley is the distributor of the very legit Journal of Forensic Sciences. They're saying that they were able to isolate individual cells from both the suspected killer, Aaron Kosminski, and a victim. The scarf was apparently the only known surviving item from the time.

It should be noted that this is almost certainly only possible due to home DNA tests and consenting to allowing companies like 23 and Me and Ancestry trace your genetic heritage for you. They have to have the single largest database of DNA and lineages in the history of mankind. That database is used by the police to track crimes so it can be used for this without violating the privacy notice.

Also, to counter the "DNA that old can't be reliable" argument.. unprotected DNA takes 500+ years to start degrading and, because of DNA's halflife, will take about a million to six million years to be undetectable. It is unusable around a million years old. We know this because we've sequenced DNA that old already and from multiple populations. It's also why a mosquito fossilized in amber cannot possibly have dinosaur DNA.
Thanks, had no idea it took DNA that long to start degrading.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doc

Impaired

Registered Member
Since they can't verify the scarf was really at a crime scene this is just a guessing game.
 

Blur

iPimp
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood But against spirits, principalities, rulers of darkness and wickedness in high places" etc etc Basically f the evil actors and lets get on with exposing the ideals they followed to their crime commissions
 
Top