Ripper finally identified!

[mr newzealand]

well pine if ever that woman was found thanks to current uk law legally no one would be able to trace such info until the 100 year privacy time, regardless of what year it happened in the privacy law would have to be respected, after all at one time or another she was a living person entitled to privacy

[pinefamily]

Probably a good thing, even after all this time. A royal scandal is a royal scandal, regardless of the date.

[Regorian]

Back to square one I suppose . My own prime suspect was MJ Druett. Recently, someone wrote a book 'proving' MJD couldn't have done it, public school and a keen cricketer, hmmm!

I seem to remember he was also choice of Daniel Farson who produced a television programme. Poor Daniel Farson has come in for a lot of stick since. 

MJD was either a paedophile or gay which was social suicide then. He was dismissed from his position as a school master and wouldn't have got a reference, so, no more work, if the Law Society had got to hear of it, (he was a lawyer) probably would have got struck off.

Commited suicide, buried at Wimborne (I think), Dorset. His father was an eminent doctor and family lived there. According to one of the senior police commanders, his own family thought MJ was the Ripper. I was down there about 4/5 years ago. I did make a half hearted look for his grave, but it was a cold drizzly day although height of summer. Suicides were not usually buried in consecrated ground. 



 

[a-l]

I think that no matter who the Ripper was, claimed to have been or dna proven ,people won't believe it anyway.No doubt after a short time the results would be proven wrong .                  Sue

[mr newzealand]

well sue as per the saying dna never lies the relatives of the victims more than likely are glad to know who ended the lives of their ancestor,theres already many a puzzle regarding mary jane kelly no doubt that will be the next thing to come to light, the people who looked at kosminski's records should eb formally charged for violating the privacy laws regards of when it came into action normal folk don't have that right so why should anyone else

[Guy Etchells]

well pine if ever that woman was found thanks to current uk law legally no one would be able to trace such info until the 100 year privacy time, regardless of what year it happened in the privacy law would have to be respected, after all at one time or another she was a living person entitled to privacy

What 100 year privacy time.
Here in the UK there is NO, repeat NO law of privacy.
Some in the PC brigade try to bend different laws to include privacy but it seldom works for living people and never works for dead people.

Some archives have office policies not to disclose information under 100 years old but that is completely different from there being a law to prevent it.

The reason the census was not released before 100 years is because there between 1966 and 2000 there was a statutory instrument (repealed in 2000 that prevented the early release).
Incidentally only census from 1981 onwards carried the claim that the census would confidential for 100 years

However a point that is never mentioned by those supporting the so called 100 year rule is the Census (confidentiality) Act 1991 amended the Census Act 1920 and that makes it an offence to ever release the data without there being a change of law.
Not in 100 years, not in 1,000 years not in 10,000 years, never.
Cheers
Guy

[mr newzealand]

well actually there is a type of privacy law hence why we cannot yet see the 1921 census , only  one chap brought out the 1911 census using the fact any law regarding a census was done after 1911, also  with tna not just anyone can walk in & asked to see ie a war record, in america certainly Some archives have office policies not to disclose information under 100 years old but that is completely different from there being a law to prevent it.,that is a privacy act ie restricted access, but beyond all doubt kosminski was the ripper

[Ruskie]

.... as per the saying dna never lies ....

Um, don't think I've heard that one before. 

I think there are a few question marks over the DNA in this case .... with it's accuracy being questioned.

[mr newzealand]

well in this case dna doesn't lie, they have tested direct descentants of both peoples, Dr Louhelainen is expert who know his stuff he cant lie nor can the dna the testing is 100 per cent spot on also this :Dark green chintz skirt, 3 flounces, brown button on waistband. The skirt is patterned with Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies,k you now tell me that very pattern doesnt match the said shawl with the dna on it, it is 100 per cent correct due to eddowes female  relative who gave dna