Search results

Yep, that was it thanks! You don't know where I've left my bloody car keys do you?

Oh yes, I had forgotten about that. That was interesting; at the the time I found fault with what she'd said about the DNA, but can't now remember what my problem with it was.

yes, it does. It was a good gag too, especially as the names were correct generationally. You're right, of course. It would matter to the families. I was thinking more about why the topic stills holds such fascination for amateur sleuths so long after the case. I'm not pointing the finger...

Of the half dozen or so Ripper books I've read, hers was, without doubt, the least well-researched and her conclusion that Sickert was the Ripper was based on the flimsiest of evidence. One of the key pieces of "evidence" is that one of his paintings looks a bit like one of the murder scenes...

Be a bit of a bugger getting the Ripper's mitochondrial DNA from any of that lot though, wouldn't it? On topic - Kosminski has always been a prime suspect, and for many Ripperologists, the prime suspect. Quite apart from it probably being impossible to prove who it was (to criminal conviction...