A Scottish newspaper is reporting that a scientist hopes to prove the identity of Jack with newly developed DNA testing.

Ok. Deep breath.

Fine. Worth a shot.

Except. . .

DNA from what?

The letters!

No one has EVER proved that Jack wrote a single letter. Sorry. You can blather on about Cornwell's proof or the kidney sent to Mr. Lusk...doesn't prove a thing.

The news story doesn't help when it states that

"Many of the letters police received signed "Jack the Ripper" are believed to be hoaxes but some, including several which had mutilated body parts enclosed, are thought to be genuine."

Um, no. Only one had a "purported" victim's body part--the so-called "Lusk kidney." People can't even agree that it belonged to one of the victim's, so that's out as far as "conclusive" proof.

And just look at "Wearside Jack" and the bogus tape of the Yorkshire Ripper for proof that people with no connection whatsoever to crimes will insinuate themselves by writing letters (or making tapes) to throw the police off and take the credit. One woman was even convicted during the JTR murders of sending a letter signed by Jack.

The news story also says that they will take the DNA from "selected" letters' postage stamps for analysis and compare it to suspects' ancestors.

Anyone to be first in line to prove your ancestor was Jack? Anyone? Except Tony Williams; you've already thrown your uncle under the bus. Sure, some will look at it as "cool" or whatever to have Jack as an ancestor; the levels people will stoop to never amaze me anymore.

But what if the tests draw a blank? Are those people exonerated? What if the VERY NEXT letter you DON'T test was the one Jack wrote?

Unless there was DNA on a victim or in Mary Kelly's room that was saved for over 100 years, then it's just shooting in the dark.