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.
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.
There is literally no evidence that the shawl was Eddowes’, was found near the body, and the DNA evidence is laughably bad, including mislabelling of the sample, handling by naked hands for many years. There is literally no evidential support for Kosminksi being the murderer.
DNA analysis, once the crowning glory of forensics, is becoming less and less credible. The number of people now proven to have been falsely sentenced based on DNA “evidence” is growing at an alarming rate. DNA labs, when pushed, produce poor results incredibly often. There is questioning going on if DNA science may be junk science. After all no one has ever seen the so-called DNA molecule. It’s 99% computer models.
Sorry but DNA proof over 100 years old is not credible
In Australia, we convicted a woman of murdering her baby, based on a forensic expert's claim that splatter in a car recess was the baby's blood. It was later confirmed as rubber sealant, not blood.
The dingo really did do it.
Criminal forensics is often invaluable, thank goodness, but sometimes the failures are shameful.
Interesting but I find it odd and a bit critical that the behaviors of the women are listed as if that had anything to do with a psychopath being a psychopath. Women don’t make murderers murderers. That’s their own doing. These were vibrant people who were stolen by someone who was so out of control they couldn’t see straight and became deranged in their own self absorption and psychotic story. And they become criminals when they act on their hurtful delusions.
That said, I am grateful you concluded this riveting piece about a mass murderer by exonerating them from the critical judgment of such lunatics as those who wish to blame and shame victims for their own psychosis.
Ted Cruz. He’s the Zodiac Killer, Ted Manson, Ted Wayne Gacy, and Jack (short for Ted) the Ripper.
He is also famed drag queen Rachel Sloppyuphagus, but that’s another story involving a 55 gallon drum of Astroglide and a taxidermied capybara. Sick bastard.
I’m afraid the theory you mention isn’t valid; the DNA found was actually a typo and relates to roughly 99.99% percent of the European population at the time and could have been anyone.
In 2014, DNA analysis tenuously linked Kosminski with a shawl said to have belonged to victim Catherine Eddowes,[31] but experts—including Sir Alec Jeffreys, the inventor of genetic fingerprinting—dismissed the DNA-based claims about Kosminski as unreliable. This was because the genetic match, determined from maternal descendants of Eddowes and Kosminski, was based on mitochondrial DNA. Mitochondrial DNA can be shared by thousands of individuals and, therefore, can be reliably used in crime analysis only to exclude suspects, not to implicate them.[32][33] Many consider it conjecture without substantial evidence that the shawl, allegedly taken from the crime scene by police constable Amos Simpson, even belonged to Eddowes—who was impoverished and arguably could not have afforded to purchase it herself.[34] In March 2019, the Journal of Forensic Sciences published a study[35] that claimed DNA from both Kosminski and Eddowes was found on the shawl.[36][37][38] A 2019 BBC documentary entitled Jack the Ripper: The Case Reopened, broadcast and presented by Emilia Fox, concluded that Kosminski was the most likely suspect.[39] Other scientists cast doubt on the study,[40] and the journal printed an expression of concern after the authors were unable to produce the original data.[41]
Elsewhere in the article it also says that Kominski while insane was not violent when in the asylum.
He still may be the best suspect, but the case hardly appears to be closed.
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.
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.
There is literally no evidence that the shawl was Eddowes’, was found near the body, and the DNA evidence is laughably bad, including mislabelling of the sample, handling by naked hands for many years. There is literally no evidential support for Kosminksi being the murderer.
Well that's a buzz kill
DNA analysis, once the crowning glory of forensics, is becoming less and less credible. The number of people now proven to have been falsely sentenced based on DNA “evidence” is growing at an alarming rate. DNA labs, when pushed, produce poor results incredibly often. There is questioning going on if DNA science may be junk science. After all no one has ever seen the so-called DNA molecule. It’s 99% computer models.
Sorry but DNA proof over 100 years old is not credible
In Australia, we convicted a woman of murdering her baby, based on a forensic expert's claim that splatter in a car recess was the baby's blood. It was later confirmed as rubber sealant, not blood.
The dingo really did do it.
Criminal forensics is often invaluable, thank goodness, but sometimes the failures are shameful.
Interesting but I find it odd and a bit critical that the behaviors of the women are listed as if that had anything to do with a psychopath being a psychopath. Women don’t make murderers murderers. That’s their own doing. These were vibrant people who were stolen by someone who was so out of control they couldn’t see straight and became deranged in their own self absorption and psychotic story. And they become criminals when they act on their hurtful delusions.
That said, I am grateful you concluded this riveting piece about a mass murderer by exonerating them from the critical judgment of such lunatics as those who wish to blame and shame victims for their own psychosis.
This has been debunked over and over.
Why do you spread such lies?
Ted Cruz. He’s the Zodiac Killer, Ted Manson, Ted Wayne Gacy, and Jack (short for Ted) the Ripper.
He is also famed drag queen Rachel Sloppyuphagus, but that’s another story involving a 55 gallon drum of Astroglide and a taxidermied capybara. Sick bastard.
I’m afraid the theory you mention isn’t valid; the DNA found was actually a typo and relates to roughly 99.99% percent of the European population at the time and could have been anyone.
Is it Hillary Clinton?
Wikipedia:
In 2014, DNA analysis tenuously linked Kosminski with a shawl said to have belonged to victim Catherine Eddowes,[31] but experts—including Sir Alec Jeffreys, the inventor of genetic fingerprinting—dismissed the DNA-based claims about Kosminski as unreliable. This was because the genetic match, determined from maternal descendants of Eddowes and Kosminski, was based on mitochondrial DNA. Mitochondrial DNA can be shared by thousands of individuals and, therefore, can be reliably used in crime analysis only to exclude suspects, not to implicate them.[32][33] Many consider it conjecture without substantial evidence that the shawl, allegedly taken from the crime scene by police constable Amos Simpson, even belonged to Eddowes—who was impoverished and arguably could not have afforded to purchase it herself.[34] In March 2019, the Journal of Forensic Sciences published a study[35] that claimed DNA from both Kosminski and Eddowes was found on the shawl.[36][37][38] A 2019 BBC documentary entitled Jack the Ripper: The Case Reopened, broadcast and presented by Emilia Fox, concluded that Kosminski was the most likely suspect.[39] Other scientists cast doubt on the study,[40] and the journal printed an expression of concern after the authors were unable to produce the original data.[41]
Elsewhere in the article it also says that Kominski while insane was not violent when in the asylum.
He still may be the best suspect, but the case hardly appears to be closed.
Thank you for that excellent article.
Excellent article! I wrote something similar about the topic s few years ago.
For me, I think the most compelling remark is that Robert Anderson and others were convinced it was Kosminski at the time.
https://www.corey-evans.com/post/meet-the-theologian-who-almost-caught-jack-the-ripper
Equine do do.
Thanks for this interesting and informative memorial to the victims, as well as the solution to the mystery of the Ripper.
Your writing touched me. That doesn’t happen often enough. Again, thanks.
The bastard's lucky there weren't cell phones and a security camera every 10 feet back then.
Interesting but not closed yet… DNA is too old and not tied directly to him.