Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Michelle Tellez's avatar

Not a fan of what I call,”murder and mayhem, I really enjoyed your work. Victim shaming is real and as old as mankind. Because women have the potential to bear children, they are held to a different standard. These victims have always been throwaways in the story; drunken prostitutes who got what they deserved. Their murderer has been mythologized, deemed so cunning and clever the only explanation was he was of royal birth. The hard truths are societal values and inhumanity. Bravo on your fresh perspective.

Expand full comment
Sarah henry's avatar

I love seeing the Ripper’s victims given the humanity they deserve, but I still say we will not be able to definitively ever say “this is who Jack the Ripper was.” Is it more than likely, with the evidence we do have, knowing he was a major suspect, that it was Kominski? Absolutely. However, what we have is A shawl that we believe to have been Eddowes that had both their (families) DNA on it. A shawl that wasn’t handled as carefully as we would handle evidence now. Matter of fact it ended up in private hands immediately as it was a cop who snagged it. We have no idea of what could have happened to that shawl, no idea when that DNA ended up on that shawl, or even if there is a legitimate reason for it having been there as we don’t know for sure if she was or was not, a prostitute. If she was, that semen DNA (which is what they found) could have been there legitimately and from who knows when, and not because Kominski killed her.

We have a single piece of evidence that is damning, but we can prove nothing around it, we can’t even prove it was hers.

So while it is more than likely Kominski was Jack the Ripper, what we have as proof would never be able to condemn a man today as it was never handled correctly. Maybe had the shawl been taken into evidence and we dug it up years later hidden away in the police station… but it wasn’t. We have a shawl a we’ve been told was taken from Eddowes, that was in private hands, that anything could have happened to.

Can you imagine if we had that as evidence now? Something stolen from the scene of the crime, not handled carefully, and then privately tested. Privately tested, and can only prove that DNA from the same family was on it? Not like we have known samples from each person and can perfectly match it to having belonged to Eddowes and Kominski.

The shawl evidence does not 100% prove who the Ripper was, it can’t, it can only prove its highly likely that Kominski was the killer. It’s almost the best evidence possible in this situation, and yet it was handled so badly we can’t rely on it.

It’s a shame, but unless we can prove the shawl was absolutely Eddowes, that there was no legitimate reason for his dna to be on it, and that no one did anything to that shawl while it was in private hands… we can’t rely on it as proof.

Expand full comment
35 more comments...

No posts