After like 80 years you probably think you’re safe.
There’s no statute of limitations on murder. In the US. I assume since much of our law descends from British law, it’s much the same there.
He’s safe from execution, at least; the UK abolished it.
TFW you think you got away with it for 137 years but then the cops come knockin
Submitted 8 months ago by sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works to [deleted]
https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/cea61283-1f80-4f68-b6d6-c0750e377abb.png
Comments
sxan@midwest.social 8 months ago
Aggravationstation@feddit.uk 8 months ago
There’s no statute of limitations on any laws in the UK.
sxan@midwest.social 8 months ago
Get. Out. Really? So, if you shoplift a greeting card when you’re in your teens, you have to keep looking over your shoulder and expect a knock on your door even when you’re 80?
AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 8 months ago
There was a self-published book that attempted to make a case for Jack the Ripper having been Lewis Carroll, mostly by taking anagrams of the writings of both.
db2@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Remembered, not as a messenger, remembered not as a reformer, not as a prophet, not as a hero, not even as Sebastian. Remembered only … as Jack.
Makeitstop@lemmy.world 8 months ago
God I love that episode. Just a fantastic performance and great writing. There’s so many layers to it, and in particular I just love how ominous and terrifying the vorlons become the more you think about what they’re doing here.
On the other hand, Star Trek made Piglet Jack the Ripper, and the thought of him in a top hat and mutton chops running around the hundred acre woods stabbing hookers is also quite enjoyable.
streetman@lemmy.world 8 months ago
[yahoo.com/…/jack-ripper-case-identity-breakthroug… ](Article can be found here)
It’s a bit misleading and the tests were performed in 2019 to a disputed shawl owned by the suspect. This wouldn’t hold up in modern court let alone Victorian age court.
BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca 8 months ago
Just to be pedantic, the “let alone” turn of phrase is meant to imply that the second thing has a higher standard. So in this case it should be corrected to “this wouldn’t hold up in a Victorian age court, let alone a modern one.”
dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 8 months ago
Victorian courts have a higher standard because they didn’t allow DNA evidence
unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 8 months ago
What makes you think victorian court has higher standards than modern day ones?
edg@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I think they mean the standards were lower in Victorian times.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 8 months ago
He’s saying they wouldn’t understand the DNA claim in the first place.