As far as intrigue goes, few stories possess the same amount of this as the tales of Jack the Ripper. For this reason, when Russell Edwards released his claims that he had, after over 120 years of investigation, identified the man responsible for the brutal murders and mutilations of at least five prostitutes in Whitechapel in London in 1888, the world gasped. Who was he? According to Edwards, Jack the Ripper was a man named Aaron Kosminski who was a barber in Whitechapel at the time of the murders. Kosminski was an original suspect in these crimes but the lack of forensic technology in Victorian times meant that neither he, nor anyone else could be directly linked to the murders.
Enter modern DNA technology. This combined with a shawl that Edwards acquired in an auction in 2007 purportedly belonging to one of Jack the Ripper’s murder victims called Catherine Eddowes and voila! We have our murderer. Or do we? Jack the Ripper has been named the worst Briton in history and so, just as a forensic professional would be careful in accusing a modern day suspect of such crimes, care must be taken not to label Kosminski as this vicious criminal. So here we discuss from a forensic and scientific perspective the four key reasons why we think that Edwards can’t say for sure that Kosminski was Jack the Ripper
1. The provenance of the shawl.
Edwards states that he acquired the shawl from an auction. The shawl was supposedly handed down through the generations from Amos Simpson who was a police officer at the time of the murders who took the shawl from the crime scene as a gift for his wife. No official documentation has been provided verifying the shawls history and provenance.
Obviously this is a historical murder case and therefore the strict rules and regulations relating to modern evidence don’t apply. However, it is important to say that evidence, no matter how important or damming, without the proper documentation or provenance would not see the inside of a courtroom in today’s world. In this case, the questionable provenance of the shawl creates the very important questions; did the shawl even belong to Catherine Eddowes? And why did Simpson keep it? Why didn’t he wash it? These questions are all left crucially unanswered.
2. The DNA evidence.
Upon examination by Dr Jari Louhelainen at Liverpool John Moores University, two bodily fluids were identified on the shawl; blood and semen. DNA profiling of the blood sample linked it to descendants of Catherine Eddowes. DNA evidence from the semen was linked to descendants of Kosminski. Bearing in mind that the shawl was stained over 120 years ago, one has to call into question the quality of the DNA sample. Scientists have certainly been able to recover DNA from samples older and so the likelihood that some DNA was extracted from these samples is not unbelievable. However, the issue remains that Edwards does not acknowledge the natural degradation and destruction of these molecules over time.
Furthermore, there is the major issue of DNA contamination. In other words, the transfer of DNA between samples is not addressed. It is bizarrely easy for DNA to be transferred between people and objects and there is, in fact, a photo of Edwards himself handling the shawl with his bare hands, something that as a forensic scientist makes me shudder! Next thing we know he’s going to be implicating himself in the murders due to his carelessness.
Russell Edwards holding a 120 year old artefact with his bare hands
Also, it is highly likely that the shawl was kept in imperfect conditions prior to Edwards purchasing it which would again negatively impacts the quality of the DNA results.
Identifications using mitochondrial DNA, as was done here, are far less specific and often it is difficult or impossible to successfully identify a single individual. In fact, many people share mitochondrial DNA patterns so more specific patterns are needed to pinpoint an exact person. Fun fact: mitochondrial DNA is not accepted as a proper form of evidence in American courts due to the fact it produces ambiguous and unspecific results.
Recently, it has actually come to light that the DNA mutation that was used by Edwards, Dr Louhelainen and their science minions to identify Kosminski as the murderer is actually shared by approximately 99% of European people. Meaning the Kosminski could be linked to the murder, so could I, so could you, and so could 99% of people of European descent.
3. The semen.
The core of these accusations against Kosminski rely on the DNA results from a semen sample found on the shawl. No insight is given into the plethora of other possible explanations why this sample might be there.
Starting with the most obvious; Catherine Eddowes was a prostitute. In fact, I’m surprised there were not more semen stains found on the shawl! However, if there were more samples, I guess we’d expect to hear Edwards shouting that she was murdered by a group of men.
Far too much weight is put on this one piece of evidence. Edwards himself boasts that he holds the only piece of evidence from the Jack the Ripper crimes. If this were the case, and even if the provenance of the shawl was confirmed, this still isn’t something I, as a scientist, would be shouting from the rooftops because this is very limited evidence.
“I’ve got the only piece of forensic evidence in the whole history of the case”
4. The publication choice
If Edwards had published his research and work in a peer reviewed scientific journal I doubt I would be so quick to criticise his research. These publications are peer reviewed and the methods and conclusions in these are usually accepted by a group of representatives from the scientific community.
I’m not the first one to question why Edwards went straight to mainstream media instead of the more scientifically respected route. I have a couple of theories. Firstly, the peer review process can take time and if Edwards was looking for quick publicity with even an quicker pay out, then an academic publication was not the route to go. It’s insane the amount of attention he has received as of late and no doubt this great publicity has come with even greater pay cheques.
Another theory I have is that Edwards had a clue that his research would not stand in academic circles, for the reasons I outlined above. As a businessman and self proclaimed armchair detective, he likely had a suspicion that his research may be questioned in the early days and didn’t want to risk the fall out. At least now, once he has his name and his book out there, he can adopt the mantra that “no publicity is bad publicity”. For example, even though I highly question his methods and results I was seconds away from purchasing the book to see what the hype was about. That’s until I saw the price which reflects a smart business man indeed.
Overall, what irks me the most is Edwards’ confidence that he has made history by identifying Jack the Ripper. In fact he is so sure of himself that he says anyone who disagrees with him (he has labelled us “non-believers”) only disagree because we want to continue to believe in the legend of the anonymous Jack the Ripper.
“We have definitely solved the mystery of who Jack the Ripper was. Only non-believers that want to perpetuate the myth will doubt. This is it now – we have unmasked him”
What is obvious to me is that Edwards wanted to believe that Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper and so has clung on so tightly to this idea, despite the many indicators that his research is flawed. All I can say is good for him and for his success, and good for me and whoever else who has the common sense to question it.
Bits and bones 