Jack the Ripper identiy called into doubt

[dragon]

It was supposed to have been the definitive piece of scientific evidence that finally exposed the true identify of Jack the Ripper after he had brutally murdered at least five women on the streets of Whitechapel in the East End of London, 126 years ago.

A 23-year-old Polish immigrant barber called Aaron Kosminski was "definitely, categorically and absolutely" the man who carried out the atrocities in 1888, according to a detailed analysis of DNA extracted from a silk shawl allegedly found at the scene of one of his murders.

However, the scientist who carried out the DNA analysis has apparently made a fundamental error that fatally undermines his case against Kosminski – and once again throws open the debate over who the identity of the Ripper.

The scientist, Jari Louhelainen, is said to have made an "error of nomenclature" when using a DNA database to calculate the chances of a genetic match. If true, it would mean his calculations were wrong and that virtually anyone could have left the DNA that he insisted came from the Ripper's victim.

The apparent error, first noticed by crime enthusiasts in Australia blogging on the casebook.org website, has been highlighted by four experts with intimate knowledge of DNA analysis – including Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, the inventor of genetic fingerprinting – who found that Dr Louhelainen made a basic mistake in analysing the DNA extracted from a shawl supposedly found near the badly disfigured body of Ripper victim Catherine Eddowes.

They say the error means no DNA connection can be made between Kosminski and Eddowes. Any suggestion therefore that the Ripper and Kosminski are the same person appears to be based on conjecture and supposition – as it has been ever since the police first identified Kosminksi as a possible suspect more than a century ago.

The latest flurry of interest in Kosminski, who died in a lunatic asylum, aged 53, stems from a book, Naming Jack the Ripper, published earlier this year, by Russell Edwards, a businessman who bought the shawl in 2007 on the understanding that it was the same piece of cloth allegedly found next to Eddowes.

A Ripper murder A Ripper murder (Alamy) "I've got the only piece of forensic evidence in the whole history of the case. I've spent 14 years working, and we have finally 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," Edwards told The Mail on Sunday, which serialised his book.

Edwards commissioned Dr Louhelainen, a molecular biologist at Liverpool John Moores University, to carry out a forensic analysis of the shawl, including the extraction of any DNA samples that may be present within the cloth, which had been supposedly stored unwashed all this time by the family of the London policeman who had acquired the artefact.

Dr Louhelainen, who declined to answer questions, managed to extract seven incomplete fragments of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), and tried to match their sequences with mtDNA from a living descendant of Eddowes, called Karen Miller.

Professor Walther Parson of the Institute of Legal Medicine in Innsbruck has echoed Professor Jeffreys' concerns Professor Walther Parson of the Institute of Legal Medicine in Innsbruck has echoed Professor Jeffreys' concerns

The work has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and the only detailed description by Dr Louhelainen comes from Edwards' book. "One of these amplified mtDNA segments had a sequence variation which gave a match between one of the shawl samples and Karen Miller's DNA only; ie the DNA sequence retrieved from the shawl did not match with control reference sequences," Dr Louhelainen writes.

"This DNA alteration is known as global private mutation (314.1C) and it is not very common in worldwide population, as it has frequency estimate of 0.000003506, i.e. approximately 1/290,000. This figure has been calculated using the database at Institute of Legal Medicine, GMI, based on the latest available information. Thus, this result indicates the shawl contains human DNA identical to Karen Miller's for this mitochondrial DNA segment," he says.

But experts with detailed knowledge of the GMI's mtDNA database claimed that Dr Louhelainen made an "error of nomenclature" because the mutation in question should be written as "315.1C" and not "314.1C". Had Dr Louhelainen done this, and followed standard forensic practice, he would have discovered the mutation was not rare at all but shared by more than 99 per cent of people of European descent.

"If the match frequency really is 90 per cent plus, and not 1/290,000, then obviously there is no significance whatsoever in the match between the shawl and Eddowes' descendant, and the same match would have been seen with almost anyone who had handled the shawl over the years," Professor Jeffreys said.

Dr Louhelainen appears to have made a basic error in calculating the frequency estimate. There are currently about 34,617 entries in the GMI database, and the figure would have been nearer to 29,000 when Dr Louhelainen carried out his research some time ago. So failing to find a match for a non-existent mutation should have given a frequency of about 1/29,000 – an error suggesting that he had placed a decimal point in the wrong place.

"The random match probability of a sequence only seen once [as claimed for the shawl] is therefore roughly 1/34,617. With a database of this size, it is impossible to arrive at an estimate as low as 1/290,000," Professor Jeffreys said.

Other scientists echoed Professor Jeffreys' concerns, including Mannis van Oven, professor of forensic molecular biology at Rotterdam's Erasmus University, Professor Walther Parson of the Institute of Legal Medicine in Innsbruck, and Hansi Weissensteiner, also at Innsbruck and one of the scientists behind the computer algorithm used by Dr Louhelainen to search the mtDNA database.

A spokesperson for publishers Sidgwick & Jackson said: "The author stands by his conclusions. We are investigating the reported error in scientific nomenclature. However, this does not change the DNA profiling match and the probability of the match calculated from the rest of the haplotype data. The conclusion reached in the book, that Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper, relies on much more than this one figure."

link

[Havok]

Man, I don't get this. Who gives a fuck. Jack the Ripper is basically modern mythology at this point.

Say they identify him... then what? Everyone spends the rest of eternity trying to figure out his motivations and he is still Jack the Ripper and he still gets sensationalized, but now he just has an actual name. Which is EXACTLY what happens now. It doesn't fucking change anything.

It's like recently giving Palpatine a first name... So? And? What changed? Nothing.

This is just someone looking for their 15 minutes. This is FattyNerdsTM that can't just let a mystery be a mystery.

[Elheru Aran]

Man, I don't get this. Who gives a fuck. Jack the Ripper is basically modern mythology at this point.

Say they identify him... then what? Everyone spends the rest of eternity trying to figure out his motivations and he is still Jack the Ripper and he still gets sensationalized, but now he just has an actual name. Which is EXACTLY what happens now. It doesn't fucking change anything.

It's like recently giving Palpatine a first name... So? And? What changed? Nothing.

This is just someone looking for their 15 minutes. This is FattyNerdsTM that can't just let a mystery be a mystery.

Think about the JFK assassination. That was... I guess over 40 years ago, and how many people do we still have talking about that?

Same general principle at work here. Historic mystery with a little extra drama in the mix, highly public at the time, theories about whodunit right and left... it was bound to stick around. People love that kind of thing. Even if someone finds out the truth, there's still going to be a lot of other people saying it's not the truth and that either theory X is the truth or that we'll never find out.

I mean, how else do you expect the fan theory that Don Draper from Mad Men is D.B. Cooper? Who remembers D.B. Cooper? Who cares? People who remember shit like that Sure, it's small-time and kinda pointless. But it keeps life interesting, and that's the main thing.

[Zaune]

Did anyone actually believe that 'theory' -which is being rather charitable- in the first place?

[Darth Holbytlan]

Shocking.

[Havok]

Think about the JFK assassination. That was... I guess over 40 years ago, and how many people do we still have talking about that?

I'm fucking sorry, are you comparing Jack the Ripper to the assassination of JFK?

Do you not see the difference between what amounts to at most, a serial killer that no one really cares if we ever find out who he was, because we want to romanticize and fictionalize him more than anything and the assassination of a President that effectively changed how a country thought and altered it's foreign policy that still has repercussions to this day? Not to mention a document in the Warren Report that actually DOES have huge inconsistencies and a "magic bullet" in it as fact?

[Elheru Aran]

I'm fucking sorry, are you comparing Jack the Ripper to the assassination of JFK?

Do you not see the difference between what amounts to at most, a serial killer that no one really cares if we ever find out who he was, because we want to romanticize and fictionalize him more than anything and the assassination of a President that effectively changed how a country thought and altered it's foreign policy that still has repercussions to this day? Not to mention a document in the Warren Report that actually DOES have huge inconsistencies and a "magic bullet" in it as fact?

Obviously there's people who do care about finding out who did it. It was a highly public, dramatic episode in history, and people have been following it up ever since it happened. There have been theories right and left about it, some of it as far-fetched as the stuff that surrounds the Kennedy assassination (it was a Mason plot! Satanic ritual sacrifices! The Communists did it!).

Meanwhile I'd say the Kennedy assassination didn't have *that* much of an effect on the country. JFK was good at *appearing* progressive, but it's debatable how much of that progressiveness was genuine; Johnson was the true liberal in that pair, and honestly he changed a lot more about the US than Kennedy did. There's just as much wild speculation and uncertainty about JFK as there is about Jack the Ripper.

A big part of this is the fact that the killer was never nicked. JFK has Oswald, but he was killed almost immediately after, which opens up a whole witches' brew of speculation, so it's a similar situation. Ed Gein, Ted Bundy, Dahmer, etc, all got nicked, and who really cares to remember them nowadays until the next serial-killer movie comes out?

Honestly the fact of the matter though is that Jack the Ripper is a niche interest that occasionally pops up in the public eye. Same as the JFK assassination. Same as, I don't know, the Zodiac Killer. D.B. Cooper. Area 51. You can unwad your panties now.

[Havok]

I'm fucking sorry, are you comparing Jack the Ripper to the assassination of JFK?

Do you not see the difference between what amounts to at most, a serial killer that no one really cares if we ever find out who he was, because we want to romanticize and fictionalize him more than anything and the assassination of a President that effectively changed how a country thought and altered it's foreign policy that still has repercussions to this day? Not to mention a document in the Warren Report that actually DOES have huge inconsistencies and a "magic bullet" in it as fact?

Obviously there's people who do care about finding out who did it. It was a highly public, dramatic episode in history, and people have been following it up ever since it happened. There have been theories right and left about it, some of it as far-fetched as the stuff that surrounds the Kennedy assassination (it was a Mason plot! Satanic ritual sacrifices! The Communists did it!).

Obviously you don't see the difference between a myth and an actual historical event.

Despite it's basis in fact, Jack the Ripper is a myth, a legend, folklore etc., and no one really cares about solving it, because solving it does absolutely nothing. It doesn't get someone arrested, it doesn't exonerate anyone, it doesn't bring closure to families or bring justice to the streets of London. They just want to be stamped down in the books along with the myth, to be remembered. As I said, they want their 15 minutes. Some people can certainly be fascinated by it, but no one really fucking cares because it has out grown any facts or truths about it.

If the episode of Star Trek where they find out that Jack the Ripper was a malevolent force of energy hoping from planet to planet turns out to be true, it still doesn't fucking matter.

Meanwhile I'd say the Kennedy assassination didn't have *that* much of an effect on the country. JFK was good at *appearing* progressive, but it's debatable how much of that progressiveness was genuine; Johnson was the true liberal in that pair, and honestly he changed a lot more about the US than Kennedy did. There's just as much wild speculation and uncertainty about JFK as there is about Jack the Ripper.

Are you nuts? I wasn't even talking about Kennedy or his politics, I was talking about how the people started viewing the government after that. It was a huge social turning point in our history as a society when people as a whole stopped blindly believing our government and started questioning everything.

A big part of this is the fact that the killer was never nicked.

A big part of it? Dude, that is THE REASON. If Joe the plumber had been arrested and caught, tried and convicted it would just go down as another serial killer (the first documented?) and it would have none of the romanticism or sensationalism that has kept it alive and driven the legend. Do you honestly think there would be the countless movies, comics, books, video games, cross-over literature, TV shows, plays about Jack the Ripper if he had been caught? C'mon now.

JFK has Oswald, but he was killed almost immediately after, which opens up a whole witches' brew of speculation, so it's a similar situation. Ed Gein, Ted Bundy, Dahmer, etc, all got nicked, and who really cares to remember them nowadays until the next serial-killer movie comes out?

The killing of the assassin that killed the President of the United States, on national fucking television, is not even fucking CLOSE to a similar situation as Jack the Ripper. Are you dense?

Honestly the fact of the matter though is that Jack the Ripper is a niche interest that occasionally pops up in the public eye.

Which is my point. No one really cares/

Same as the JFK assassination. Same as, I don't know, the Zodiac Killer. D.B. Cooper. Area 51. You can unwad your panties now.

Uh, sorry, no.

[Gandalf]

Meanwhile I'd say the Kennedy assassination didn't have *that* much of an effect on the country. JFK was good at *appearing* progressive, but it's debatable how much of that progressiveness was genuine; Johnson was the true liberal in that pair, and honestly he changed a lot more about the US than Kennedy did. There's just as much wild speculation and uncertainty about JFK as there is about Jack the Ripper.

Are you nuts? I wasn't even talking about Kennedy or his politics, I was talking about how the people started viewing the government after that. It was a huge social turning point in our history as a society when people as a whole stopped blindly believing our government and started questioning everything.

To flesh this out a bit, here's a link. Not a great article, but it makes its point.

[Havok]

I wasn't even trying to get into any of that. I figured just the social aspect of the change was enough to make it a tad different from 5 prostitutes being killed.

[Zixinus]

What makes you think that Jack the Ripper's story (and by now, yes, his story is more interesting and relevant than the fact of his person) didn't have an impact on people's lives then? For one, it brought attention to the horrible living conditions of the area. There is an arguable effect as well on police and what their duties were, or at least a debate about that.

I do agree however that the people still obsessing over this need to just fucking stop and get over the fact that there is insufficient data. From the quotes, I get the vibe of these people that they think they can solve this mystery. Perhaps they read too many period crime novels and think that this is some sort of crime that only needs a sufficiently brilliant mind to solve.

The fact that they can afford to waste money on this sort of bullshit puts them a bit above FattyNerds though. I can't imagine most people today giving a crap.

[Vendetta]

I wasn't even trying to get into any of that. I figured just the social aspect of the change was enough to make it a tad different from 5 prostitutes being killed.

The Jack the Ripper case hung around in public memory because of the way the gutter press covered it whilst it was ongoing and partly because of its impact on the press.

It wasn't quite the birth of tabloid journalism, but it was one of the leading examples of the perfect storm of salaciousness and grisly criminality that came to categorise the "if it bleeds it leads" set.

So y'know, the social impact might be different to a dead president, but it still echoes in the way criminality makes the front page.

[Thanas]

It isn't a myth anymore than other events of history are a myth. It is history. The event and the resounding social impact makes it a subject worth of study, just like Bram Stoker and his novel are worth studying for essentially inventing modern vampires. What defines us is our culture and events that happen in our lives and history is the study of the same for the past.

It certainly is something worth studying. Heck, one of the things I'd like to teach (and most likely will be teaching within the next year if the schedule allows for it) is the impact of antiquity on modern literature.

[Havok]

I'm not saying it doesn't have value in the academic field nor that is an actual myth, merely that that is how western and especially American culture treats it. It's as real to us as Dracula and it gets treated the same way. It's modern day myth, like Babe Ruth. Yes he was real, but the way we think about him, romanticize and idolize him moves him into an entirely different realm.

[Thanas]

Sure, but then I don't really get your point.

[Elheru Aran]

In a sense you could argue that (to the millennial generation at least) Kennedy is in a similar sphere. They have this vague vision that he was a young, progressive, brilliant President who could've changed the world had he not been so cruelly cut off under highly suspicious circumstances (which merit plenty of stories on their own), when he was in fact a philandering, near-paralyzed high-class waffler who basically got elected because he was a pretty boy and made a lot of big promises that he might not have been able to carry through on his own. Of course, a lot of this can be ascribed to the pathetic American education system...

[Havok]

Sure, but then I don't really get your point.

My point as I stated in my original post is it doesn't fucking matter. We treat it as a myth even though it is a factual event. So aside from the academic side of things, solving the case isn't going to change anything about it. It's a pointless endeavor that is solely for garnering '15 Minutes' for someone. And to sell some books.

[Isolder74]

You know one of the sad things about the history of the Jack the Ripper case is that unless you have a Blue Phone Box or a Delorean you won't be able to actually be able to find a definitive answer to the question. The fact that he was never caught it one of the things that turned Jack the Ripper into a legend to begin with.

It's just like the same myths that got built up about Gacy the killer clown too only with a bit more of a closer as he was caught(and in his case the clown part would have remained unknown).

[Havok]

Yeah, I've said that multiple times. It's the fact that he was never caught and got the best serial killer name of all time, that turned this into a modern day myth. Otherwise, it would be a much smaller footnote in the 'history of serial killers' file.

[Ziggy Stardust]

So aside from the academic side of things, solving the case isn't going to change anything about it.

I guess I (and other people) are a little confused by the vehemence of your position because the academic side of things IS the only reason this is ongoing. I mean, the entire reason this thread exists, and the entire reason the article in the OP exists, is because of the academic interest in the genetic forensics involved. It's basically just a toy example to test out new methods and techniques. It's the same reason any math or science textbook you care to name will have dozens of rather silly or seemingly pointless examples taken from various old studies in it (for example, my generalized linear models textbook has a bunch of examples from a paper about the proper dosages required to poison beetles with carbon dioxide).

So I guess it's just a little weird that when someone posts an article about an academic interest in a niche topic, you complain about how outside of that academic interest the topic is pointless.

[Phillip Hone]

Sure, but then I don't really get your point.

My point as I stated in my original post is it doesn't fucking matter. We treat it as a myth even though it is a factual event. So aside from the academic side of things, solving the case isn't going to change anything about it. It's a pointless endeavor that is solely for garnering '15 Minutes' for someone. And to sell some books.

Does it matter whether a particular king died of leukemia or not? Because this is the type of thing that historians and people who like history are interested in sometimes. It's neat when science can clear things up like this because history usually entails a lot of uncertainty.

[Havok]

Well to me academic means papers that remain relatively in the academic community and what this was from my memory, which may be off, was a book you would get at Barnes and Noble in the non-fiction section. Not really academic and as I have said, just a money maker and piggybacking on to the Ripper mythos to get your 15 minutes.

But even as an academic exercise only, it still doesn't change my points.

[Havok]

Sure, but then I don't really get your point.

My point as I stated in my original post is it doesn't fucking matter. We treat it as a myth even though it is a factual event. So aside from the academic side of things, solving the case isn't going to change anything about it. It's a pointless endeavor that is solely for garnering '15 Minutes' for someone. And to sell some books.

Does it matter whether a particular king died of leukemia or not? Because this is the type of thing that historians and people who like history are interested in sometimes. It's neat when science can clear things up like this because history usually entails a lot of uncertainty.

No it doesn't, just like I said how it won't matter if they definitively figure out who Jack was. Not in the way the public, which has driven the Ripper story and lore, care.

[Irbis]

The irony here is, had the authors of the book bothered to ask Polish linguist about accused's name they would know there would be very high probability Kośmiński had non European mitochondrial DNA. In fact, common European mutation might specifically exclude him. But then again, ignorance about Poland in UK, nothing new under the sun

[Thanas]

I think there is already a perfect subject for the identity of the serial killer who best fits the facts - not the Polish one. Will it ever be proven? No, but Tumblety is a very good match for all the facts of the case.

I wouldn't convict him on it but he is the best subject there is.