What do you think?
Rate this book
Naming Jack the Ripper: The Definitive Reveal
The incredible story of how the identity of the world’s most notorious serial killer was scientifically proven through DNA.
All the experts we would never know the true identity of the world's most famous serial killer. It took 136 years of theorizing and speculation, plus the determination of Russell Edwards, a twenty-first-century businessman fascinated by the nineteenth-century social history of London's East End, to finally solve the mystery of Jack the Ripper. In February 2014, Russell received the stunning results and revealed the true identity and name of Jack the Ripper. In the decade since, he has continued his quest to prove the identity of the Ripper beyond the shadow of a doubt.
The key to the solution lay in the sole piece of physical evidence to have survived from the murders of five Whitechapel prostitutes by the Ripper in 1888. The story went that in the early morning of Sunday, 30th September 1888, a shawl lay bloodied alongside the body of the Ripper's fourth victim, Catherine Eddowes. A Metropolitan Police officer, PC Amos Simpson, was attending the crime scene as an acting sergeant and was permitted to take the shawl away. It remained in his family until the author bought it in 2007, following a public auction. But could the shawl's provenance be proved? Russell set about authenticating the shawl by commissioning scientists at Liverpool John Moore's University, led by Dr Jari Louhelainen, to use modern forensic techniques to analyze DNA extracted from stains on the shawl – DNA from both Catherine Eddowes and her suspected killer.
In this book, Russell examines the police reports, eyewitness accounts, post-mortems, and all known information on the lives of the victims, in his search for vital clues. Three brand-new chapters detail his ongoing work since 2014, including a formal peer review of Dr. Louhelainen’s analysis, subsequent attempts to exhume the body of Catherine Eddowes' killer, official support from His Majesty’s Coroner, and – for the first time ever – reveal the face of the real Jack the Ripper.
All the experts we would never know the true identity of the world's most famous serial killer. It took 136 years of theorizing and speculation, plus the determination of Russell Edwards, a twenty-first-century businessman fascinated by the nineteenth-century social history of London's East End, to finally solve the mystery of Jack the Ripper. In February 2014, Russell received the stunning results and revealed the true identity and name of Jack the Ripper. In the decade since, he has continued his quest to prove the identity of the Ripper beyond the shadow of a doubt.
The key to the solution lay in the sole piece of physical evidence to have survived from the murders of five Whitechapel prostitutes by the Ripper in 1888. The story went that in the early morning of Sunday, 30th September 1888, a shawl lay bloodied alongside the body of the Ripper's fourth victim, Catherine Eddowes. A Metropolitan Police officer, PC Amos Simpson, was attending the crime scene as an acting sergeant and was permitted to take the shawl away. It remained in his family until the author bought it in 2007, following a public auction. But could the shawl's provenance be proved? Russell set about authenticating the shawl by commissioning scientists at Liverpool John Moore's University, led by Dr Jari Louhelainen, to use modern forensic techniques to analyze DNA extracted from stains on the shawl – DNA from both Catherine Eddowes and her suspected killer.
In this book, Russell examines the police reports, eyewitness accounts, post-mortems, and all known information on the lives of the victims, in his search for vital clues. Three brand-new chapters detail his ongoing work since 2014, including a formal peer review of Dr. Louhelainen’s analysis, subsequent attempts to exhume the body of Catherine Eddowes' killer, official support from His Majesty’s Coroner, and – for the first time ever – reveal the face of the real Jack the Ripper.
375 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2014
139 people are currently reading
1381 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 179 reviews
July 1, 2017
My macabre fascination with the topic of the Ripper murders led me to purchase this book some years ago. It wasn't until a scheduled Ripper walk around London, earlier this month, that I was tempted to pick it up, however.
The history of the murders was recounted in lively detail and I was pleasantly surprised to discover that my walk could provide me with no new information that this book had not already covered. If you have an interest in the subject, much of the first part of the book may provide you with nothing not already recounted in a dozen others on the topic. I found it gorily fascinating and was pleasantly surprised at the unsensational and accessible tone of writing.
The latter portion of this is more personal to this particular book, rather than recounting the more widely-known knowledge, discussed previously. It details how the discovery of an item of clothing on Jack's last victim led the author to discover who the Ripper actually was. Scientific explanation dominated this portion, which was necessary for the author to recount how exactly the conclusive suspect was pronounced, but was a bit dense in parts for me. It was, however, a fascinating and fully explained discovery and gave me full belief that I too now know the true name of the infamous Ripper.
The history of the murders was recounted in lively detail and I was pleasantly surprised to discover that my walk could provide me with no new information that this book had not already covered. If you have an interest in the subject, much of the first part of the book may provide you with nothing not already recounted in a dozen others on the topic. I found it gorily fascinating and was pleasantly surprised at the unsensational and accessible tone of writing.
The latter portion of this is more personal to this particular book, rather than recounting the more widely-known knowledge, discussed previously. It details how the discovery of an item of clothing on Jack's last victim led the author to discover who the Ripper actually was. Scientific explanation dominated this portion, which was necessary for the author to recount how exactly the conclusive suspect was pronounced, but was a bit dense in parts for me. It was, however, a fascinating and fully explained discovery and gave me full belief that I too now know the true name of the infamous Ripper.
November 8, 2015
Rather like the Patricia Cornwell book, “Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper - Case Closed,” this book takes a particular suspect and attempts to build a case around him. The problem with this approach is that you could probably do the same around many other possible suspects and – like the Cornwell book - I remain unconvinced by this book. However, at least the author of this work does attempt to build his case around some kind of evidence and not just supposition and rumour.
In this book, Edwards recounts his interest in the Ripper (this whole book has rather too much about the author for my particular taste, but he does recount the story well and his memories of watching news reports about the Yorkshire Ripper which triggered his fascination were interesting) and his attempt to buy a shawl which was believed to have belonged to one of the Ripper victims, Catherine Eddowes. Edwards was convinced that he knew something about this shawl that everyone else had missed and that it contained incontrovertible proof about the Ripper’s identity.
Much of the first half of this book simply recounts the history of the Ripper and of his murders, including the double murder of Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes. The author then concentrates on the killing of Eddowes and of how the shawl was apparently removed from her body, how it remained within the family and how it was finally sold. Interestingly, Edwards gains his conviction that Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper from a conversation with something at the Black Museum at Scotland Yard; while Patricia Cornwell became equally convinced the murderer was Walter Sickert after a visit to the same place!
Armed with his ‘knowledge’ that the police had, apparently, always known that Kosminski was the murderer, the author takes us through his attempt to link the shawl first to Catherine Eddoewes and then to Kosminski. There is the history of the shawl, his attempts to find descendents of both Eddowes and Kosminski, plus the personal history of both the victim and the assumed killer. However, again, there is the assumption that he IS the Ripper and it is difficult to assess this book without a proper examination of all the evidence and all the other possible suspects - and even that assumes that one of the suspects ARE the Ripper, when it could be somebody entirely unknown.
The author does make a convincing case for his claim though and this was certainly an interesting read. The evidence has been made to fit the case and I doubt it is as clear cut as the author claims, but at least he attempts to give some kind of scientific credence to his theory. I was personally interested to see that Aaron Kosminski was committed to the Colney Hatch Asylum in Friern Barnet, very close to where I live (and the subject of Will Self’s novel, “Umbrella”). This book does have a good sense of place and is well written and, although I remain unconvinced, it was an interesting read.
In this book, Edwards recounts his interest in the Ripper (this whole book has rather too much about the author for my particular taste, but he does recount the story well and his memories of watching news reports about the Yorkshire Ripper which triggered his fascination were interesting) and his attempt to buy a shawl which was believed to have belonged to one of the Ripper victims, Catherine Eddowes. Edwards was convinced that he knew something about this shawl that everyone else had missed and that it contained incontrovertible proof about the Ripper’s identity.
Much of the first half of this book simply recounts the history of the Ripper and of his murders, including the double murder of Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes. The author then concentrates on the killing of Eddowes and of how the shawl was apparently removed from her body, how it remained within the family and how it was finally sold. Interestingly, Edwards gains his conviction that Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper from a conversation with something at the Black Museum at Scotland Yard; while Patricia Cornwell became equally convinced the murderer was Walter Sickert after a visit to the same place!
Armed with his ‘knowledge’ that the police had, apparently, always known that Kosminski was the murderer, the author takes us through his attempt to link the shawl first to Catherine Eddoewes and then to Kosminski. There is the history of the shawl, his attempts to find descendents of both Eddowes and Kosminski, plus the personal history of both the victim and the assumed killer. However, again, there is the assumption that he IS the Ripper and it is difficult to assess this book without a proper examination of all the evidence and all the other possible suspects - and even that assumes that one of the suspects ARE the Ripper, when it could be somebody entirely unknown.
The author does make a convincing case for his claim though and this was certainly an interesting read. The evidence has been made to fit the case and I doubt it is as clear cut as the author claims, but at least he attempts to give some kind of scientific credence to his theory. I was personally interested to see that Aaron Kosminski was committed to the Colney Hatch Asylum in Friern Barnet, very close to where I live (and the subject of Will Self’s novel, “Umbrella”). This book does have a good sense of place and is well written and, although I remain unconvinced, it was an interesting read.
September 12, 2014
While it's true that I devoured this book in a little less than 4 hours (according to time logged on my e-reader) I'm sorry to say it's not because the material was incredibly fascinating. Much of it is repeat information Ripperologists will know by heart (names and backstories of the victims, dates of the crimes committed, etc.) but what should have been the most interesting part--the scientific discovery of DNA evidence linking someone, finally, to the 1888 Whitechapel murders commonly accepted to have been committed by Jack the Ripper--makes for rather mindless skimming owing to the author's oft-admitted lack of expertise in the subject area. The discovery of Catherine Eddowes' shawl at a Bury St. Edmund's auction is the stuff of gripping drama and excitement, and reads like a thriller, much like the in-depth research Edwards was required to do in tracking down descendants; I think this is perhaps because Edwards himself was directly involved in the action. When things shift to forensics and Edwards is out of his element, the story loses its grip. This would have been a better and more even-keeled read had Dr. Jari Louhelainen penned the sections relating to his field of inquiry: forensics and genetics. As it is, every time Dr. Louhelainen steps into his lab, Edwards is out wandering around Liverpool and Manchester, which is not the most exciting stuff to read.
It was also troubling to me that the book featured no footnotes or citations anywhere within the text to reference back to the source material or any other resources, academic or otherwise. One example I can remember is a section about schizophrenia containing claims made about diagnosis and typical behaviour; there are no external citations made, leading one to assume either Edwards is the world's leading researcher on schizophrenia and requires no citations because it's all there in his head to begin with, or he just made it all up as he went along. Very non-academic, and it won't help stop his detractors from painting this as an exploitative money-grab of a book, published without benefit of peer-review or outside verification from any other researchers.
I'll read Dr. Louhelainen's academic paper when it is published, and I'll eagerly await independent verification of the claims Edwards makes regarding the shawl, its DNA evidence, and the identity of the Ripper--because if he's right, this is a very exciting bit of news! I'm just not convinced based solely on the content and presentation of this book.
It was also troubling to me that the book featured no footnotes or citations anywhere within the text to reference back to the source material or any other resources, academic or otherwise. One example I can remember is a section about schizophrenia containing claims made about diagnosis and typical behaviour; there are no external citations made, leading one to assume either Edwards is the world's leading researcher on schizophrenia and requires no citations because it's all there in his head to begin with, or he just made it all up as he went along. Very non-academic, and it won't help stop his detractors from painting this as an exploitative money-grab of a book, published without benefit of peer-review or outside verification from any other researchers.
I'll read Dr. Louhelainen's academic paper when it is published, and I'll eagerly await independent verification of the claims Edwards makes regarding the shawl, its DNA evidence, and the identity of the Ripper--because if he's right, this is a very exciting bit of news! I'm just not convinced based solely on the content and presentation of this book.
October 4, 2015
Fuck it. I tried, but I am not going to fight my way through a book in which the author first spent two chapters on himself before coming to Jack the Ripper. In these chapters, we are entertained with such tragic stories like that time he was on holidays and ran out oft money so he had to work for a while before he could go back. He explains us that this means he can understand the Ripper victims better because they also had no money...no I am not kidding. I mean he also says that he cares a lot more about Jack than the victims so I have no clue why he told that story in the first place...
Anyway I have never read such a self-absorbed piece oft Ripper non-fiction and I have read Cornwell's take in the subject (well tried to but compared to Edwards she's basically Fluttershy) and I just can't anymore...
Anyway I have never read such a self-absorbed piece oft Ripper non-fiction and I have read Cornwell's take in the subject (well tried to but compared to Edwards she's basically Fluttershy) and I just can't anymore...
September 24, 2014
I'd originally posted a huge, and fairly damning review of this massively frustrating book. But I'd rather keep my Goodreads reviews a little shorter. So, if you want the full version, please go to: http://www.spookyisles.com/2014/09/ne...
If you want the shorter version, here it is...
Russell Edwards' proclamation that he has “incontrovertible proof, the kind of proof that would stand up to any cross-examination in a courtroom today" of the Ripper's identity simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Its bad enough he comes across as pompous and arrogant, but his idea of "hard evidence" is a cavalcade of assumptions, supposition, probablys and possiblys.
He continually brushes aside perfectly sensibly arguments, or fails to even consider them, because it's obvious he'd chosen his Ripper and decided to make the evidence fit. This is history, badly done.
The science is intriguing but crucuially, NOT peer reviewed, and while Edwards makes a decent case for Aarom Kosminski being the Ripper, his blinkered view and poorly argued points do him no favours.
An interesting but massively flawed book.
If you want the shorter version, here it is...
Russell Edwards' proclamation that he has “incontrovertible proof, the kind of proof that would stand up to any cross-examination in a courtroom today" of the Ripper's identity simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Its bad enough he comes across as pompous and arrogant, but his idea of "hard evidence" is a cavalcade of assumptions, supposition, probablys and possiblys.
He continually brushes aside perfectly sensibly arguments, or fails to even consider them, because it's obvious he'd chosen his Ripper and decided to make the evidence fit. This is history, badly done.
The science is intriguing but crucuially, NOT peer reviewed, and while Edwards makes a decent case for Aarom Kosminski being the Ripper, his blinkered view and poorly argued points do him no favours.
An interesting but massively flawed book.
October 11, 2018
wow!
first price to the worst non fiction book ever goes to this one! the author should be proud of that, which i am sure he is since he does love not only talking about himself but winning at things that nobody cares about and bragging about it! so here you go! first price it is! i can’t imagine anyone will take it away anytime soon!
how is it possible to write a book about a historic event and spin it so that the author seems himself as the smartest, most brilliant and overall best human ever in existence and make a lot of the historical events somehow relate to himself as of that has anything to do with what this book should actually be about!!
let’s start with the beginning of the book where the authors writes 2 chapters about himself.
is this a biography or a book about jack the ripper?!
the author is clearly in constant confusion about that!
also just because he spend part of his “holiday” working a bit for money does not make him relate or understand the hardships of prostitution in victorian times! or any time!
become a prostiut and than say you can relate! taking on a low paying job at a holiday does not compare!!
still the author does exactly that!
i also really loved (yeah right!) how it was just decided who jack the ripper was and the “evidence” pushed into that direction! just because someone makes it seem as if something fits doesn’t make it true!!
i am pretty sure that there could be at least 20 guys found that fit into similar DNA geographics as the guy the author decided to focus on before even starting his “search”.
i just love to read a book that is supposed to be about facts and evidence and turns not only into a “i am the greatest ever” feast of the author himself while simultaneously just pushing every detail to fit his own theories.
exactly what one looks for when picking up this type of book!
please don’t read this!
not if you actually want something good or even halfway interesting or mostly related to actual facts or... you know molars talking about jack the ripper!
do read this if you love overly pompous authors that feel the need to write themselves into history as if they are in any way an import part of it and as if their option should count more than those of any actual and real experts on the subject!
first price to the worst non fiction book ever goes to this one! the author should be proud of that, which i am sure he is since he does love not only talking about himself but winning at things that nobody cares about and bragging about it! so here you go! first price it is! i can’t imagine anyone will take it away anytime soon!
how is it possible to write a book about a historic event and spin it so that the author seems himself as the smartest, most brilliant and overall best human ever in existence and make a lot of the historical events somehow relate to himself as of that has anything to do with what this book should actually be about!!
let’s start with the beginning of the book where the authors writes 2 chapters about himself.
is this a biography or a book about jack the ripper?!
the author is clearly in constant confusion about that!
also just because he spend part of his “holiday” working a bit for money does not make him relate or understand the hardships of prostitution in victorian times! or any time!
become a prostiut and than say you can relate! taking on a low paying job at a holiday does not compare!!
still the author does exactly that!
i also really loved (yeah right!) how it was just decided who jack the ripper was and the “evidence” pushed into that direction! just because someone makes it seem as if something fits doesn’t make it true!!
i am pretty sure that there could be at least 20 guys found that fit into similar DNA geographics as the guy the author decided to focus on before even starting his “search”.
i just love to read a book that is supposed to be about facts and evidence and turns not only into a “i am the greatest ever” feast of the author himself while simultaneously just pushing every detail to fit his own theories.
exactly what one looks for when picking up this type of book!
please don’t read this!
not if you actually want something good or even halfway interesting or mostly related to actual facts or... you know molars talking about jack the ripper!
do read this if you love overly pompous authors that feel the need to write themselves into history as if they are in any way an import part of it and as if their option should count more than those of any actual and real experts on the subject!
September 26, 2017
For some bizarre reason, I like to read about Jack the Ripper. Perhaps it is because the identity of the killer has never been announced. Or perhaps it is due to Scotland Yard refusing to un-seal the almost 130 year-old records. Not really sure why, but that's my explanation for my fascination.
In this book, businessman Russell Edwards provides a new angle to the mystery with some fairly decent back-up research to provide his revelation. In essence, he purchased the shawl which is thought to have belonged to victim Catherine Eddowes, the fourth victim. According to lore, the piece of clothing was taken by a policeman at the scene who thought his wife would like it. Granted, we're talking about different values from a different era, but walking away with a piece of evidence possibly blotted with blood and semen is...yucky. BUT, it is a new path to potential identification, so I was hooked. Would Edwards discover the real killer after all this time?
DNA is the new tool used to determine ownership and I must admit that the author's description of the scientific process was the first time I didn't fall asleep when reading about the mind-boggling back-end labyrinth of DNA determination. Buccal is Latin for 'cheek' and that's where DNA cells are collected. Nice to know. And then there's a simple explanation for natural dyes versus synthetic dyes, another way that was used to identify the shawl.
Then a bit of a twist came in as we learn that Eddowes may not have been wearing the shawl...because of its Russian origin. Did it belong to Jack? Did he leave it there after his foul deed? Does this mean the suspect was of Russian origin or had access to Russian goods? Aha!
I did enjoy the trail and the way this was written. There is, however, a little bit too much of the author talking about the author, although this seems to have been done to explain his preoccupation with the whole Ripper saga. It can come across as egotistical, but I thought it provided a new avenue for the whole I've-brought-you-here-to-name-the-killer thingy.
This was a quick read for me (reading at night which is a no-no especially with the wind blowing) because I really wanted to discover the suspect and why he was considered as such by Edwards. While the evidence seems pretty damning, I'm not sure I bought in to it all. My suspect is never one listed among the others (I always suspect those who conveniently find a body, especially when the body is still warm). Still, this is an interesting read. Now if the police would just release those records...
Book Season = Autumn (murder most ghastly)
In this book, businessman Russell Edwards provides a new angle to the mystery with some fairly decent back-up research to provide his revelation. In essence, he purchased the shawl which is thought to have belonged to victim Catherine Eddowes, the fourth victim. According to lore, the piece of clothing was taken by a policeman at the scene who thought his wife would like it. Granted, we're talking about different values from a different era, but walking away with a piece of evidence possibly blotted with blood and semen is...yucky. BUT, it is a new path to potential identification, so I was hooked. Would Edwards discover the real killer after all this time?
DNA is the new tool used to determine ownership and I must admit that the author's description of the scientific process was the first time I didn't fall asleep when reading about the mind-boggling back-end labyrinth of DNA determination. Buccal is Latin for 'cheek' and that's where DNA cells are collected. Nice to know. And then there's a simple explanation for natural dyes versus synthetic dyes, another way that was used to identify the shawl.
Then a bit of a twist came in as we learn that Eddowes may not have been wearing the shawl...because of its Russian origin. Did it belong to Jack? Did he leave it there after his foul deed? Does this mean the suspect was of Russian origin or had access to Russian goods? Aha!
I did enjoy the trail and the way this was written. There is, however, a little bit too much of the author talking about the author, although this seems to have been done to explain his preoccupation with the whole Ripper saga. It can come across as egotistical, but I thought it provided a new avenue for the whole I've-brought-you-here-to-name-the-killer thingy.
This was a quick read for me (reading at night which is a no-no especially with the wind blowing) because I really wanted to discover the suspect and why he was considered as such by Edwards. While the evidence seems pretty damning, I'm not sure I bought in to it all. My suspect is never one listed among the others (I always suspect those who conveniently find a body, especially when the body is still warm). Still, this is an interesting read. Now if the police would just release those records...
Book Season = Autumn (murder most ghastly)
September 16, 2014
Russell Edwards is an oversharer.
This is not a particularly damning character trait, but it did grate on me as I worked my way through this book. He delves into his childhood, his ancestry, his babies' deaths. No point in his journey is free from his emotional reminiscences. He's so eager for us, the readers, to take him seriously, and to know that he's not some quack. He's deadly earnest that you listen to his story, and that desperation just pours off the page. If this book had a smell, it'd be the perspiration of an unpopular middle-school kid. If it had a voice, it would whine, "Please, be my friend."
And that's a shame, because he's got a hell of a story to tell you. He's identified Jack the Ripper, by physical evidence obtained from the scene of one of his crimes. He links a shawl, long purported to be from the Catherine Eddowes' crime scene, to one of the prime suspects, an Aaron Kosminksi. The chain of custody is not perfect, but the provenance is convincingly laid out. The case is well made- forensic examination, mitochondrial dna testing of the shawl's blood and semen stains, compared with the dna of both victim and suspect via their living maternal line relatives.
The story of how he got hold of this shawl, and his research into its history, is a bit of fascinating detective story. Unfortunately, his explanation of the science behind the tests he has done, leaves me wanting more information- I'm looking forward to the papers Jari Louhelainen will undoubtedly be publishing on the subject.
Edwards would have been better served to allow his partner in crime to write those sections of the book. While he tries very hard to make his explanations user-friendly for the layman, he somehow manages to wring much of the excitement out of these descriptions. The crux of the case is the arterial blood spatter, the semen stains, the epithelial cells... and he somehow makes these bits of the tale much less interesting than they rightfully ought to be.
But they are, in the end, quite convincing. He addresses the likelihood of contamination, he answers all questions about statistical relevance of the results, he even proves the unlikely circumstance that this shawl managed to traverse the decades without ever seeing a washing machine. He can place it chronologically in the existing story, and makes a strong case for the fabric's place of origin, how it came to the scene of the crime, and where it's been in the intervening years. He lays out a case that would certainly get Kosminski an indictment, and perhaps even a conviction.
That alone makes the book well worth the cover price, and he's convinced me he's got the right man. I just wish he'd had a better editor to help him clean up his presentation a bit.
This is not a particularly damning character trait, but it did grate on me as I worked my way through this book. He delves into his childhood, his ancestry, his babies' deaths. No point in his journey is free from his emotional reminiscences. He's so eager for us, the readers, to take him seriously, and to know that he's not some quack. He's deadly earnest that you listen to his story, and that desperation just pours off the page. If this book had a smell, it'd be the perspiration of an unpopular middle-school kid. If it had a voice, it would whine, "Please, be my friend."
And that's a shame, because he's got a hell of a story to tell you. He's identified Jack the Ripper, by physical evidence obtained from the scene of one of his crimes. He links a shawl, long purported to be from the Catherine Eddowes' crime scene, to one of the prime suspects, an Aaron Kosminksi. The chain of custody is not perfect, but the provenance is convincingly laid out. The case is well made- forensic examination, mitochondrial dna testing of the shawl's blood and semen stains, compared with the dna of both victim and suspect via their living maternal line relatives.
The story of how he got hold of this shawl, and his research into its history, is a bit of fascinating detective story. Unfortunately, his explanation of the science behind the tests he has done, leaves me wanting more information- I'm looking forward to the papers Jari Louhelainen will undoubtedly be publishing on the subject.
Edwards would have been better served to allow his partner in crime to write those sections of the book. While he tries very hard to make his explanations user-friendly for the layman, he somehow manages to wring much of the excitement out of these descriptions. The crux of the case is the arterial blood spatter, the semen stains, the epithelial cells... and he somehow makes these bits of the tale much less interesting than they rightfully ought to be.
But they are, in the end, quite convincing. He addresses the likelihood of contamination, he answers all questions about statistical relevance of the results, he even proves the unlikely circumstance that this shawl managed to traverse the decades without ever seeing a washing machine. He can place it chronologically in the existing story, and makes a strong case for the fabric's place of origin, how it came to the scene of the crime, and where it's been in the intervening years. He lays out a case that would certainly get Kosminski an indictment, and perhaps even a conviction.
That alone makes the book well worth the cover price, and he's convinced me he's got the right man. I just wish he'd had a better editor to help him clean up his presentation a bit.
March 5, 2015
Can a book be interesting and frustrating at the same time? Yes! When the author is so pompous, it makes the book less readable. However, the subject matter and details were fascinating enough to keep me reading. After getting through the first chapter of the author’s wife, kids, vacations, and other personal asides, the book picks up pace and it could have been a very good tale of one man’s journey to find who was Jack the Ripper. But, too many times throughout the other chapters we are reminded by the self-congratulatory author how great he is for ‘solving’ the crime of the century in London.
The problems with this book are numerous. That doesn’t mean it’s a bad read. My biggest problem was that I felt the author was guilty of taking an already decided upon victim and twisting the evidence in such a way to come to his conclusion. The ‘scientific’ evidence is flawed. The author used only a single doctor, Dr. Jari Louhelainen, to test for possible DNA. His report states that a specific mutation in the DNA was rare, happening in 1/290,000. Experts have already stated that the DNA global private mutation in question is not rare at all and happens at a frequency of 1/29,000. So, if we have that serious of a reporting error, I question the validity of the testing. Even if it is only a decimal error, this would have been picked up immediately had the author or the laboratory or the publisher of the book looked to corroborate the evidence and review the results.
Sir Alec Jeffreys, the inventor of genetic fingerprinting said "the match frequency is really 90% 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." He also pointed out that the evidence had not been subject to any peer review. I asked myself, why has Dr. Louhelainen not published his findings in a scientific journal? Is it because the chain of evidence and provenance of the shawl would be called in question? Why has none of the evidence been reviewed by an independent third party? If we truly have identified Jack the Ripper, would you not want independent confirmation of your data?
So, let’s talk about the shawl which is what the author bases the entire book on. The author says he can prove ‘definitely, categorically and absolutely” who Jack the Ripper was, based on this shawl. The shawl was up for auction and allegedly belonged to Catherine Eddowes, a victim of the Ripper. The shawl which went up for auction had very little interest and leading Ripperologists passed on the item. In fact, it didn’t make reserve and was put back into storage. I wondered why no one would purchase what is supposed to be crucial physical evidence left at the crime scene.
The first problem with the shawl is that it was not listed among Eddowes’s effects in the police report. Why not? Because one of the policeman at the scene thought the shawl was of nice material and wanted to take it home to his wife. So, a bloody shawl at a crime scene was free for the taking. I am not buying it. DNA expert Peter Gill said the shawl “is of dubious origin and has been handled by several people who could have shared that mitochondrial DNA profile. After 126 years, I agree.
While the author believes he has solved the case, I am not so sure. He says the killings were committed by a Mr. X. (I don’t want to ruin it for those who haven’t read the book) and that the killings ended once Mr. X was locked up in an insane asylum. The murders happened in 1888 and Mr. X was not put away until 1891. The man was also described as harmless in the asylum and preferred his own language (Yiddish) which suggests his English may have been poor, making it hard to lure women into an alley. FBI profiler John Douglas said that Mr. X was a paranoid individual and would likely have openly boasted of the murders while incarcerated had he been the killer. There is no record he ever did this.
Author Russell Edwards says “only non-believers that want to perpetuate the myth will doubt.” That is not true, either. I know many who would love to know the true identity of Jack the Ripper.
The problems with this book are numerous. That doesn’t mean it’s a bad read. My biggest problem was that I felt the author was guilty of taking an already decided upon victim and twisting the evidence in such a way to come to his conclusion. The ‘scientific’ evidence is flawed. The author used only a single doctor, Dr. Jari Louhelainen, to test for possible DNA. His report states that a specific mutation in the DNA was rare, happening in 1/290,000. Experts have already stated that the DNA global private mutation in question is not rare at all and happens at a frequency of 1/29,000. So, if we have that serious of a reporting error, I question the validity of the testing. Even if it is only a decimal error, this would have been picked up immediately had the author or the laboratory or the publisher of the book looked to corroborate the evidence and review the results.
Sir Alec Jeffreys, the inventor of genetic fingerprinting said "the match frequency is really 90% 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." He also pointed out that the evidence had not been subject to any peer review. I asked myself, why has Dr. Louhelainen not published his findings in a scientific journal? Is it because the chain of evidence and provenance of the shawl would be called in question? Why has none of the evidence been reviewed by an independent third party? If we truly have identified Jack the Ripper, would you not want independent confirmation of your data?
So, let’s talk about the shawl which is what the author bases the entire book on. The author says he can prove ‘definitely, categorically and absolutely” who Jack the Ripper was, based on this shawl. The shawl was up for auction and allegedly belonged to Catherine Eddowes, a victim of the Ripper. The shawl which went up for auction had very little interest and leading Ripperologists passed on the item. In fact, it didn’t make reserve and was put back into storage. I wondered why no one would purchase what is supposed to be crucial physical evidence left at the crime scene.
The first problem with the shawl is that it was not listed among Eddowes’s effects in the police report. Why not? Because one of the policeman at the scene thought the shawl was of nice material and wanted to take it home to his wife. So, a bloody shawl at a crime scene was free for the taking. I am not buying it. DNA expert Peter Gill said the shawl “is of dubious origin and has been handled by several people who could have shared that mitochondrial DNA profile. After 126 years, I agree.
While the author believes he has solved the case, I am not so sure. He says the killings were committed by a Mr. X. (I don’t want to ruin it for those who haven’t read the book) and that the killings ended once Mr. X was locked up in an insane asylum. The murders happened in 1888 and Mr. X was not put away until 1891. The man was also described as harmless in the asylum and preferred his own language (Yiddish) which suggests his English may have been poor, making it hard to lure women into an alley. FBI profiler John Douglas said that Mr. X was a paranoid individual and would likely have openly boasted of the murders while incarcerated had he been the killer. There is no record he ever did this.
Author Russell Edwards says “only non-believers that want to perpetuate the myth will doubt.” That is not true, either. I know many who would love to know the true identity of Jack the Ripper.
November 29, 2015
This was picked by my bookclub and not knowing a huge deal about the murders I was excited to read it.
The author presents his case to name the Ripper revolved around a shawl allegedly taken from one of the victims which came to be in his possession through an auction. His conclusion is backed up with modern DNA forensic testing and a clue about the pattern on the shawl he believes had been missed until he made the breakthrough.
I really enjoyed learning the fine details about DNA testing, tracing and the results and what they mean, it was explained well in simplistic terms.
The pictures inserted on a few pages really set the scene of East End London in the late 1880's where the murders took place.
My main criticism of the book was that it became a bit bogged down with going deep in to the authors life but I felt this was probably done on purpose to try and ease the readers mind of his credibility.
I haven't read enough on the subject to state if I wholeheartedly believe his conclusion and I would expect 'Ripperologists" would pull apart this book but I enjoyed the case presented in front of me and read the whole book over a few hours.
The author presents his case to name the Ripper revolved around a shawl allegedly taken from one of the victims which came to be in his possession through an auction. His conclusion is backed up with modern DNA forensic testing and a clue about the pattern on the shawl he believes had been missed until he made the breakthrough.
I really enjoyed learning the fine details about DNA testing, tracing and the results and what they mean, it was explained well in simplistic terms.
The pictures inserted on a few pages really set the scene of East End London in the late 1880's where the murders took place.
My main criticism of the book was that it became a bit bogged down with going deep in to the authors life but I felt this was probably done on purpose to try and ease the readers mind of his credibility.
I haven't read enough on the subject to state if I wholeheartedly believe his conclusion and I would expect 'Ripperologists" would pull apart this book but I enjoyed the case presented in front of me and read the whole book over a few hours.
March 25, 2016
J'ai vraiment beaucoup aimé ce livre, et c'est un indispensable quand on est intéressé par l'affaire de Jack l'éventreur, et c'est mon cas. L'auteur y dévoile absolument tout, le moindre indice, tous les meurtres sont décrits, et il évoque également la liste de tous les suspects, les théories, et dévoile évidemment la sienne (qui serait la véritable, un test ADN le prouve).
Quelques longueurs parfois quand il parle de sa vie personnelle, ou peut-être un peu trop de détails en ce qui concerne les policiers, mais j'ai adoré, et je n'en savais pas autant sur l'affaire, elle me passionne encore plus maintenant !
Quelques longueurs parfois quand il parle de sa vie personnelle, ou peut-être un peu trop de détails en ce qui concerne les policiers, mais j'ai adoré, et je n'en savais pas autant sur l'affaire, elle me passionne encore plus maintenant !
September 15, 2014
Since I have been interested in cold cases that are OLD... say, no newer than the Zodiac... Jack the Ripper has been on the top of my list. Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined this case would be solved, but it seems that it has... and in my lifetime! The longer it's been since the murder has happened, the chances of solving it decrease rapidly. Something like 126 years should have made the number to nil. But no - I do believe it has been solved now, and my usually cynical nature (especially towards books of true crime and biographies that claim to tell the "final and ultimate truth) has been convinced. I ain't gonna argue with DNA, and I do not believe in so many co-incidences. I actually believed Patricia Cornwell - or thought her theory was correct - of Walter Sickert, but wasn't 100% sure with her findings. But now I concede - I do believe this book reveals the true killer. Not gonna reveal it if someone wants to read it, though I think the evening papers have done that already. And of course I am proud that it was a Finn who had a crucial part in the process. (No, I don't take credit, I would have messed everything up ;D But I guess there is a tiny bit of a patriotic woman in me... ;))) Plus I liked the author, he seemed like a nice and easy going bloke, who doesn't put up any airs ;)
May 18, 2016
Unfortunately, this is going to be last update on the book. The beginning was boring. I'm not even trying to be mean about it, but I bought the book to learn about Jack The Ripper. Instead, I was introduced to the most irrelevant backstory on the author I've ever been faced with. I'm not just talking about a page or two; I'm talking about at least fifty pages. Then we got to the good part; the history of the Ripper's killings and all of the gruesome details behind them. That was the saving grace of this book. However, once the history was finished, we go back into grudgingly slow details about the author's life. We also run into what I believe to be falsified claims of a respected Scotland Yard officer of the law telling the author "We know who Jack The Ripper is now and they even knew back then but they weren't allowed to arrest the man because of the popularity of the case." This just didn't cut it for me.
February 10, 2017
I knew going in that I wouldn't agree with the conclusions in this book, because I personally think the provenance of the shawl is not very good. I also think that it's been kept in non-sterile conditions, handled by many people, so the DNA evidence is automatically questionable. The fact that it's a new technique that the scientist says is not conclusive, that has not been peer-reviewed, just sticks another nail in the coffin. But I knew that going in. I was fully expecting to enjoy it for what it was though. Unfortunately the tone is sanctimonious and it appears to be a book about it's author rather than Jack the Ripper. So I gave up.
July 2, 2019
Despite the apparently convincing forensic analysis which forms the backbone of the book, I was not completely persuaded. In the end there were too many unanswered questions and rather too many leaps of faith during the investigation. Also I have read an article, written since the book was published, which claimed that at least one of the scientific results claimed for the study, was flawed. However, it was readable and certainly thought-provoking for anyone interested in this historical murder mystery.
August 5, 2018
Some people may say that I have a morbid curiosity into the story of Jack the Ripper. Yes, it may be morbid but seriously, how have we not solved this?
This book goes really in depth about the crimes and the motivations of the killer. It goes into all the tests they conducted on new evidence and how they came to obtain all the necessary DNA for testing. It was a really interesting read and although it had its technical and science bits, it wasn't bogged down with information that was hard to understand. Really good read for anyone with a similar interest
This book goes really in depth about the crimes and the motivations of the killer. It goes into all the tests they conducted on new evidence and how they came to obtain all the necessary DNA for testing. It was a really interesting read and although it had its technical and science bits, it wasn't bogged down with information that was hard to understand. Really good read for anyone with a similar interest
July 29, 2016
I'm always in awe of those meticulous research-gifted people who take an idea all the way to the end of the trail, despite the hurdles. This guy gave unimpeachable evidence that he has discovered the identity of Jack The Ripper even if apparently the police at the time knew who he was too. The mDNA strands match 99.2%/100%. Intriguing!
March 1, 2017
minusta tämä oli mielenkiintoinen kirja. Tapauksesta oli kiehtovaa lukea, koska Viiltävä-Jack on niin legendaarinen.Uskon heidän ratkaisseen syyllisen
November 19, 2014
When I heard the news that they may have categorically proven Jack the Ripper's identity I gave a squeal of excitement. I got my hands on my copy of Russell Edwards 'Naming Jack the Ripper' as soon as it hit shelves, and then proceeded to be disappointed.
Too much of 'Naming Jack the Ripper' is given over to background. Most people picking up this book will have more than a passing knowledge of Ripper history, so all of that is largely wasted space, and could have been condensed in to some key points of historical importance for those without an in depth knowledge.
The fact that Russell Edwards is no scientist, nor even a historian becomes glaringly obvious as soon as we reach any slightly academic sections. There is no footnoting or accurate referencing in text. Allusions are made to high profile case studies, especially in the fields of psychology, and yet there is never any kind of reference to which the reader can track back to read more on any given revelation. Edwards' writing glances over the truly interesting in depth academic parts, which in a forensic revelation of this magnitude would have been the important part for the reader to follow. Instead we end up with rambling exposition which is quite frankly not why I picked up this book.
It is certainly an interesting read if you are interested in Ripper history, but if you're after some good, hard scientific and forensic research this is not the book for you. The parts that the book does well have already been done better, and the forensic revelation seems a little one sided and lacks peer review.
December 29, 2020
I have read over a dozen books on Jack the Ripper and I have to say - this one was my least favorite; (after Patricia Cornwall's about Sickert). The author's tone just really rubbed me the wrong way, and I found myself bored with the play by play of the trials and tribulations of working with DNA samples, and so on. Last - I am not convinced he solved it; which he happily mentions a couple times throughout the book. If anyone wants to discuss this book I'd be happy to.
I am also interested in hearing from someone who liked the book - maybe I need a different perspective? The tone of the author and the retelling of his "feelings" while walking through the East End, etc; I was bored and found him very self absorbed. He wrote this story as a pat on his back," look I solved it" - at least that's what it felt like to me most of the time. It's a story worth telling but the way he went about it did nothing for me and made me want to finish the book as quickly as possible.
I am also interested in hearing from someone who liked the book - maybe I need a different perspective? The tone of the author and the retelling of his "feelings" while walking through the East End, etc; I was bored and found him very self absorbed. He wrote this story as a pat on his back," look I solved it" - at least that's what it felt like to me most of the time. It's a story worth telling but the way he went about it did nothing for me and made me want to finish the book as quickly as possible.
October 7, 2015
Very readable, but Amazon reviewer London Fog nailed it: "Schizophrenics, those suffering from auditory and visual hallucinations, are not normally serial killers, as the author erroneously claims. This fact in particular I had an issue with. Schizophrenics are very troubled individuals, and their ultimate fate is disturbing to think of, but Edwards deliberately attempts to convince the reader by comparing him to homicidal *psychopaths* such as the BTK killer, Ted Bundy, David Berkowitz ("Son of Sam"). He overlooks the fact there is a fundamental difference between schizophrenics and sociopaths/psychopaths. The latter two are personality disorders, the other a mental illness that renders the sufferer unlikely to plot out detailed murders in the manner a psychopath would."
November 23, 2014
I don't doubt the sincerity of all concerned but are we looking at exciting new evidence or rush to print before peer review?
The new evidence (which DNA has failed to be extracted from in the past) is a highly contaminated shawl placed at the scene largely by family tradition.
The rest pretty much we knew.
It makes an interesting enough read just falls considerably short of its sensational claims.
Hopefully though this is just the opening chapter to an interesting new line of investigation.
The new evidence (which DNA has failed to be extracted from in the past) is a highly contaminated shawl placed at the scene largely by family tradition.
The rest pretty much we knew.
It makes an interesting enough read just falls considerably short of its sensational claims.
Hopefully though this is just the opening chapter to an interesting new line of investigation.
December 21, 2016
I really enjoyed reading this book, it was really really interesting and was full of facts about the Jack the Ripper case I never knew! The reason for 3 stars is because I just couldn't follow any of the scientific talk about all the different DNA and how they did it and when they went down into detail which is a shame on my side because it was mostly full of it. All that being said I loved learning about the suspects/victims what actually happened and all about their background.
September 20, 2014
Wow! What a ride! Russell Edwards really did his research and forensic work with Jari.
He traced DNA samples to the real Jack The Ripper and even gave us the name. I did my absolute best not to cheat and check Google for the answer since it was revealed.
The science and Biology talk did start to wear me down after a while, but ultimately, this book was worth every second.
He traced DNA samples to the real Jack The Ripper and even gave us the name. I did my absolute best not to cheat and check Google for the answer since it was revealed.
The science and Biology talk did start to wear me down after a while, but ultimately, this book was worth every second.
September 14, 2015
I'm fascinated by Jack the Ripper and serial killers. It's great reading about scientific evidence that proves who did the killings.
I've read several books that guess at the villain, but this is the only one with DNA evidence. Very interesting.
I've read several books that guess at the villain, but this is the only one with DNA evidence. Very interesting.
December 4, 2014
I don't think he made a very good case. The author was a little to self-congratulatory, and it seemed a too pat.
January 30, 2015
Beginning at the end of the 2014 news story that underpins this book, Dr Louelainen - Russell's Edwards's scientific associate - made a scientific error in recording and analyzing DNA analysis results. The scarf that is the star of this book cannot in fact be linked by DNA to the Riper victim Catherine Eddowes.
I pre-ordered this book on my Kindle and read it cover to cover inside seven hours.
`Naming Jack the Ripper' is over 300 pages in length and fairly well trips along with background details of the Ripper's killings, the times he murdered in and the unfortunate social circumstances of his victims. At face value, I very much like the book and I like the author's voice. Its well written and will undoubtedly sell well.
The story in this book is essentially that the author - Russell Edwards, who is a businessman - obtained a shawl at the reserve price after it failed to sell at auction. The scarf was blood-stained, supposedly with the blood of the Ripper's victim Catherine Eddowes. To cut to the chase, DNA analysis of the scarf purportedly found that stains on it matched the DNA of Ripper suspect Aaron Kosminski and one of his victims named Catherine Eddowes.
However, there are some big problems with this book. Those problems all stem from the fact that many key scientific protocols seem to have been non-existent in the handling of the scarf and the modern DNA samples used to establish the provenance of supposedly old 19th century DNA on it. In this respect I am reminded of what led scientists astray in the case of the Piltdown Man fraud.
The author, Edwards, frequently has the entire shawl in his lone and sole possession along with modern DNA samples that are used to match allegedly old DNA samples on the shawl. Surely, with the shawl, being in two pieces, he should have begun from the start by securing one piece away with a trustworthy independent third party (such as a highly notable and entirely independent solicitor at the very least, but an independent and esteemed academic body at best). Furthermore, Edwards, the author, should not have been the one to collect and be in possession of the DNA samples from the victim's and suspect's modern day genetic descendants. Why Edwards's scientific collaborator, Dr Louhelainen, failed to stop this scientific faux pas requires public explanation. Because, most unfortunately, we learn, it is the author himself who collects a DNA swab from a surviving genetic descendant of Eddowes and also from the surviving genetic descendant of the author's sole chief suspect - Aaron Kaminski. Moreover - to repeat the essential point for emphasis - it is the author who has these DNA swabs and the shawl in his possession together for some time before handing them over to Dr Louhelainen to see if the blood on the scarf contains DNA matching that of Eddowes' modern genetic descendant, and the same for Kaminski's. The author clearly says he would not trust the SUSPECT's decedents DND sample to the post: see here https://kindle.amazon.com/post/HI1aOb... and earlier he wrote that he had the VICTIM'S descendent's DNA in his own domestic freezer for several weeks at the same time he was in possession of the shawl - see here:
https://kindle.amazon.com/post/R2CcFG...
I'm no expert on DNA analysis, but since we are told that Dr Louhelainen took samples of his own DNA and Edwards's in order to rule them out, it seems that he was unable to tell the age of the DNA he was examining. If so, then this means that we cannot rule out the possibility that the author - Edwards - could possibly have taken small amounts of DNA from Eddowes's descendant's sample and used it to contaminate the blood stain on the shawl before he handed both over to Dr Louhelainen to examine. Moreover, since research proves that scientists do - most unfortunately - commit science fraud far more frequently than we would wish or imagine - we cannot rule out the possibility that Dr Louhelainen (who we are informed was working on the shawl alone and in his own time) might have deliberately or accidentally contaminated the blood stain on the shawl with the DNA sample taken from the victim's living descendant.
When it comes to the DNA sample from an unnamed descendant of the Ripper suspect - Aaron Kaminski - the book becomes rather unclear. We are told that a number of microscope slides taken from the shawl were collected from a possible semen stain that contained no sperm. The slides do nonetheless contain cells that may or may not have come from the inside of a male urethra at ejaculation, or else some other unrelated part of their body. We are told that one cell found, amongst others, on these slides was a very significant match to the DNA of Kosminski's surviving genetic descendant who gave the author, Edwards, a DNA sample.
Most importantly, what we are not told in the book, however, is whether as part of this analysis Dr Louelainen needed to take other samples from the shawl after Edwards was in sole and lone possession of both it and the modern Kosminski's genetic descendant's DNA sample. Moreover, we are not told whether or not it would have been possible at any time for the author to contaminate any of those slides, anyway, with modern Kosminski descendant DNA.
Finally, since Dr Louelainen was working in his own time and alone, we cannot, I'm afraid to say, rule out the possibility that he deliberately or accidentally contaminated the slides with modern DNA.
Acknowledging the possibility that the author committed a research fraud, or that his scientific associate did the same - or negligently contaminated the entire shawl - is not an act of character defamation. On the contrary, it is a reflection of the demands placed upon scientific discovery by the orthodox scientific community. Nullius in Verba is the motto of the Royal Society. It means we should not take the word alone of anyone that something is true. Researchers create or adopt specific research designs in order to ensure that their findings can be independently replicated. What concerns me - from what the author writes in his book - is that the question of contamination with modern DNA may now always hang over the shawl. If that is indeed the case (and of that I am far from certain) then the claimed results in this book cannot be independently replicated if expert DNA scientists cannot distinguish between modern and Victorian DNA.
I was drawn to read the book because Edwards himself and his scientific associate - Dr Jari Louhelainen - relied in no small part on the 'big data' science that facilitated the DNA checks, identification of victim and suspect modern day descendants and related research around the textile industry, fabric dying and other facts. I am, for reasons of my own recent research endeavours that underpin my own recent book - Nullius in Verba - Darwin's Greatest Secret
very interested in the role of big data analysis in solving problems - including the detection of crimes. Consequently, I very much wanted to find that Edwards really had unquestionably cracked the case of who was Jack the Ripper. Unfortunately, the book has raised a number of questions that need answering before I am in a position to raise a glass to Edwards and Louhelainen. But I sincerely hope that one day I will.
In the meantime, whilst I most certainly recommend you buy and cherish this book, our skeptical alarm bells should sound, because in his quest for modern DNA to detect the Ripper Edwards most "fortunately", it so rapidly turned out, initially set about solely looking for a suitable genetic descendant of Aaron Kosminski - a Polish Jew who has been favored by only some Ripperologists, and allegedly others in the police service named by Edwards, as the most likely person to have been the Ripper. Edwards makes a fairly plausible case (in places creative, insightful unusual but not at all irrational) for why he focused first on Kosminski - and I won't give too much about that away here (you should read the book) - but, unfortunately, his initial choice of suspect should not be enough to allay our suspicions in light of the unfortunately undeniable multiple opportunities for science fraud that I believe existed.
I apologize profoundly to both Russell Edwards and Dr Jari Louhelainen for pointing my finger of suspicious skepticism their way. I sincerely hope that neither committed any kind of science fraud. Moreover, I sincerely hope that the forensic tests used were done properly and will be considered reliable by the expert scientific community under peer review.
Meanwhile, we have some facts that might allay all my horribly nagging suspicions if more research is undertaken. Firstly, we are left with the fact that Edwards tells us that before he bought the shawl that Scotland Yard's "Black Museum" took a sample of stained cloth from it. Secondly, we are told that, also before he bought the shawl, two other samples of fabric were cut from it and have been framed and that they remain in the possession of other parties known to the author. These "independent" other samples from the shawl provide one possible route for scientists to conduct a second round of tests, in properly controlled scientific conditions, to rule out the possibility of fraud or other route of contamination of the old stains with modern DNA from the genetic descendants of Eddowes and Kosminski. Until such analysis is conducted, I am afraid that we cannot yet safely concur with the final words of Edwards's otherwise excellent book: "Aaron Kosminski is Jack the Ripper."
In sum, this story - as it currently stands- is potentially (at least) not too dissimilar to the story of Charles Dawson supplying, by various clever contrivances, Arthur Smith Woodward of the British Museum with absolutely ALL of the forensic physical evidence - which he obtained and solely possessed - for Piltdown Man. And just look how badly that turned out. History has some hard lessons to teach us. We would be foolish to ignore them.
I pre-ordered this book on my Kindle and read it cover to cover inside seven hours.
`Naming Jack the Ripper' is over 300 pages in length and fairly well trips along with background details of the Ripper's killings, the times he murdered in and the unfortunate social circumstances of his victims. At face value, I very much like the book and I like the author's voice. Its well written and will undoubtedly sell well.
The story in this book is essentially that the author - Russell Edwards, who is a businessman - obtained a shawl at the reserve price after it failed to sell at auction. The scarf was blood-stained, supposedly with the blood of the Ripper's victim Catherine Eddowes. To cut to the chase, DNA analysis of the scarf purportedly found that stains on it matched the DNA of Ripper suspect Aaron Kosminski and one of his victims named Catherine Eddowes.
However, there are some big problems with this book. Those problems all stem from the fact that many key scientific protocols seem to have been non-existent in the handling of the scarf and the modern DNA samples used to establish the provenance of supposedly old 19th century DNA on it. In this respect I am reminded of what led scientists astray in the case of the Piltdown Man fraud.
The author, Edwards, frequently has the entire shawl in his lone and sole possession along with modern DNA samples that are used to match allegedly old DNA samples on the shawl. Surely, with the shawl, being in two pieces, he should have begun from the start by securing one piece away with a trustworthy independent third party (such as a highly notable and entirely independent solicitor at the very least, but an independent and esteemed academic body at best). Furthermore, Edwards, the author, should not have been the one to collect and be in possession of the DNA samples from the victim's and suspect's modern day genetic descendants. Why Edwards's scientific collaborator, Dr Louhelainen, failed to stop this scientific faux pas requires public explanation. Because, most unfortunately, we learn, it is the author himself who collects a DNA swab from a surviving genetic descendant of Eddowes and also from the surviving genetic descendant of the author's sole chief suspect - Aaron Kaminski. Moreover - to repeat the essential point for emphasis - it is the author who has these DNA swabs and the shawl in his possession together for some time before handing them over to Dr Louhelainen to see if the blood on the scarf contains DNA matching that of Eddowes' modern genetic descendant, and the same for Kaminski's. The author clearly says he would not trust the SUSPECT's decedents DND sample to the post: see here https://kindle.amazon.com/post/HI1aOb... and earlier he wrote that he had the VICTIM'S descendent's DNA in his own domestic freezer for several weeks at the same time he was in possession of the shawl - see here:
https://kindle.amazon.com/post/R2CcFG...
I'm no expert on DNA analysis, but since we are told that Dr Louhelainen took samples of his own DNA and Edwards's in order to rule them out, it seems that he was unable to tell the age of the DNA he was examining. If so, then this means that we cannot rule out the possibility that the author - Edwards - could possibly have taken small amounts of DNA from Eddowes's descendant's sample and used it to contaminate the blood stain on the shawl before he handed both over to Dr Louhelainen to examine. Moreover, since research proves that scientists do - most unfortunately - commit science fraud far more frequently than we would wish or imagine - we cannot rule out the possibility that Dr Louhelainen (who we are informed was working on the shawl alone and in his own time) might have deliberately or accidentally contaminated the blood stain on the shawl with the DNA sample taken from the victim's living descendant.
When it comes to the DNA sample from an unnamed descendant of the Ripper suspect - Aaron Kaminski - the book becomes rather unclear. We are told that a number of microscope slides taken from the shawl were collected from a possible semen stain that contained no sperm. The slides do nonetheless contain cells that may or may not have come from the inside of a male urethra at ejaculation, or else some other unrelated part of their body. We are told that one cell found, amongst others, on these slides was a very significant match to the DNA of Kosminski's surviving genetic descendant who gave the author, Edwards, a DNA sample.
Most importantly, what we are not told in the book, however, is whether as part of this analysis Dr Louelainen needed to take other samples from the shawl after Edwards was in sole and lone possession of both it and the modern Kosminski's genetic descendant's DNA sample. Moreover, we are not told whether or not it would have been possible at any time for the author to contaminate any of those slides, anyway, with modern Kosminski descendant DNA.
Finally, since Dr Louelainen was working in his own time and alone, we cannot, I'm afraid to say, rule out the possibility that he deliberately or accidentally contaminated the slides with modern DNA.
Acknowledging the possibility that the author committed a research fraud, or that his scientific associate did the same - or negligently contaminated the entire shawl - is not an act of character defamation. On the contrary, it is a reflection of the demands placed upon scientific discovery by the orthodox scientific community. Nullius in Verba is the motto of the Royal Society. It means we should not take the word alone of anyone that something is true. Researchers create or adopt specific research designs in order to ensure that their findings can be independently replicated. What concerns me - from what the author writes in his book - is that the question of contamination with modern DNA may now always hang over the shawl. If that is indeed the case (and of that I am far from certain) then the claimed results in this book cannot be independently replicated if expert DNA scientists cannot distinguish between modern and Victorian DNA.
I was drawn to read the book because Edwards himself and his scientific associate - Dr Jari Louhelainen - relied in no small part on the 'big data' science that facilitated the DNA checks, identification of victim and suspect modern day descendants and related research around the textile industry, fabric dying and other facts. I am, for reasons of my own recent research endeavours that underpin my own recent book - Nullius in Verba - Darwin's Greatest Secret
very interested in the role of big data analysis in solving problems - including the detection of crimes. Consequently, I very much wanted to find that Edwards really had unquestionably cracked the case of who was Jack the Ripper. Unfortunately, the book has raised a number of questions that need answering before I am in a position to raise a glass to Edwards and Louhelainen. But I sincerely hope that one day I will.In the meantime, whilst I most certainly recommend you buy and cherish this book, our skeptical alarm bells should sound, because in his quest for modern DNA to detect the Ripper Edwards most "fortunately", it so rapidly turned out, initially set about solely looking for a suitable genetic descendant of Aaron Kosminski - a Polish Jew who has been favored by only some Ripperologists, and allegedly others in the police service named by Edwards, as the most likely person to have been the Ripper. Edwards makes a fairly plausible case (in places creative, insightful unusual but not at all irrational) for why he focused first on Kosminski - and I won't give too much about that away here (you should read the book) - but, unfortunately, his initial choice of suspect should not be enough to allay our suspicions in light of the unfortunately undeniable multiple opportunities for science fraud that I believe existed.
I apologize profoundly to both Russell Edwards and Dr Jari Louhelainen for pointing my finger of suspicious skepticism their way. I sincerely hope that neither committed any kind of science fraud. Moreover, I sincerely hope that the forensic tests used were done properly and will be considered reliable by the expert scientific community under peer review.
Meanwhile, we have some facts that might allay all my horribly nagging suspicions if more research is undertaken. Firstly, we are left with the fact that Edwards tells us that before he bought the shawl that Scotland Yard's "Black Museum" took a sample of stained cloth from it. Secondly, we are told that, also before he bought the shawl, two other samples of fabric were cut from it and have been framed and that they remain in the possession of other parties known to the author. These "independent" other samples from the shawl provide one possible route for scientists to conduct a second round of tests, in properly controlled scientific conditions, to rule out the possibility of fraud or other route of contamination of the old stains with modern DNA from the genetic descendants of Eddowes and Kosminski. Until such analysis is conducted, I am afraid that we cannot yet safely concur with the final words of Edwards's otherwise excellent book: "Aaron Kosminski is Jack the Ripper."
In sum, this story - as it currently stands- is potentially (at least) not too dissimilar to the story of Charles Dawson supplying, by various clever contrivances, Arthur Smith Woodward of the British Museum with absolutely ALL of the forensic physical evidence - which he obtained and solely possessed - for Piltdown Man. And just look how badly that turned out. History has some hard lessons to teach us. We would be foolish to ignore them.
June 12, 2020
En ole mitenkään suuresti perehtynyt Viiltäjä-Jackin tapaukseen, mutta ei voi kieltää, etteikö tapaus aina silloin tällöin pompsahda jostain framille. Tällä kertaa mielenkiintoa herätti se, että mukana oli suomalainen tiedemies Jari Louhelainen ratkaisemassa tieteen keinoin tuntemattoman sarjamurhaajan henkilöllisyyttä.
Tämä tietokirja oli yhtä paljon Russell Edwardsin (kirjailijan) elämäkertaa, tunteiden kuvaamista ja oman itsensä kehumista, Viiltäjä-Jackin historian ja ajankuvan kertomista sekä lopun dna-testien ympärillä käytyä jännitysnäytelmää. Pienen osan saa tutkija Louhelainen, mutta hän ei suinkaan ole yksi kirjan "päähenkilöistä", vaikka toki onkin.
Vakuutuin kyllä tieteellisestä todistusaineistosta ja hämmästyin joistain johtopäätöksistä, joita ei ilmeisesti kukaan ollut aiemmin tullut ajatelleeksi. Vaikkapa koskien kyseistä, pääosaa esittävää shaalia. Uskoakseni nyt on vihdoin todistettu, kuka oikeastaan oli tämä kuuluisa sarjamurhaaja, sillä esille tulleet yhteesattumat eivät voi muuten olla mahdollisia. Monet mielikuvat, jotka ovat kulkeneet aina tänne nykypäivään todistettiin vääriksi, kuten vaikkapa se, että murhaajan on täytynyt olla anatomiaa tuntenut kirurgi, sillä niin taitavaa silpominen oli kuulemma ollut. Tämä kyllä oli aikoinaan torpattu viimeistään viimeisen uhrin kohdalla, joten en toivottavasti tullut paljastaneeksi liikaa.
Tämä lukukokemus oli lievästi sanoen ristiriitainen, sillä kirjailija oli varsin mahtipontinen , suorastaan pöyhkeilevä, niin kertoessaan omasta elämästään kuin omasta osuudestaan tämän arvoituksen ratkaisussa. Toisaalta se oli mielenkiintoisen huvittavaa, ei se minua oikeastaan harmittanut, arvaan kuitenkin, että monia muita se varmasti harmittaa. Jos aihe kiinnostaa ja olet valmis lukemaan epätieteellistä, jutustelevaa kerrontaa, niin suosittelen lämpimästi.
Tämä tietokirja oli yhtä paljon Russell Edwardsin (kirjailijan) elämäkertaa, tunteiden kuvaamista ja oman itsensä kehumista, Viiltäjä-Jackin historian ja ajankuvan kertomista sekä lopun dna-testien ympärillä käytyä jännitysnäytelmää. Pienen osan saa tutkija Louhelainen, mutta hän ei suinkaan ole yksi kirjan "päähenkilöistä", vaikka toki onkin.
Vakuutuin kyllä tieteellisestä todistusaineistosta ja hämmästyin joistain johtopäätöksistä, joita ei ilmeisesti kukaan ollut aiemmin tullut ajatelleeksi. Vaikkapa koskien kyseistä, pääosaa esittävää shaalia. Uskoakseni nyt on vihdoin todistettu, kuka oikeastaan oli tämä kuuluisa sarjamurhaaja, sillä esille tulleet yhteesattumat eivät voi muuten olla mahdollisia. Monet mielikuvat, jotka ovat kulkeneet aina tänne nykypäivään todistettiin vääriksi, kuten vaikkapa se, että murhaajan on täytynyt olla anatomiaa tuntenut kirurgi, sillä niin taitavaa silpominen oli kuulemma ollut. Tämä kyllä oli aikoinaan torpattu viimeistään viimeisen uhrin kohdalla, joten en toivottavasti tullut paljastaneeksi liikaa.
Tämä lukukokemus oli lievästi sanoen ristiriitainen, sillä kirjailija oli varsin mahtipontinen , suorastaan pöyhkeilevä, niin kertoessaan omasta elämästään kuin omasta osuudestaan tämän arvoituksen ratkaisussa. Toisaalta se oli mielenkiintoisen huvittavaa, ei se minua oikeastaan harmittanut, arvaan kuitenkin, että monia muita se varmasti harmittaa. Jos aihe kiinnostaa ja olet valmis lukemaan epätieteellistä, jutustelevaa kerrontaa, niin suosittelen lämpimästi.
January 2, 2022
"... We can hold him, finally, to account him for his terrible deeds. My search is over: Aaron Kosminski is Jack the Ripper."
Okay, you see this? It's exactly how the book ends. If you're expecting a neutral point of view of the author, you're going to be disappointed. That's my main issue with this book.
Although Russell Edwards clearly puts his heart and soul into this research, he couldn't convince me ( and lots of people apparently ), I mean, if you take a look at the case, it could be resumed in 'we have alleged semen on an alleged shawl allegedly found by Amos Simpson who was allegedly at the Mitre Square crime scene despite the fact that he was a Met officer stationed 25 miles away and this was a City of London crime scene', in addition to the issues with the mtDNA test ( that cannot match a suspect, since it's used for elimination purposes ), and the fact that it was only tested against Kosminski's relatives too. You have tons of suspects , like Druitt, Chapman, Lechmere... I think Edwards simply wanted to build a case around Kosminski, since it was his favourable suspect and tell through scientific 'facts' that he was the murderer.
From The Times of Israel (2014):
About the book itself, it's enjoyable, but at times it can be SO BORING , because in 30% of this book, it's just the author telling about his life/family or him messing around while Dr. Jari is doing the tests in his lab. The start is slow, but eventually it gets to the good parts about the Ripper and the victims ( if you're studying about the case, or you're a member of the casebook forum like me you won't really be surprised, it's just the same stuff about the murders + some interesting info about witnesses/suspects ) , until it gets to what I call the "science stuff" chapters, where he explains ( s l o w l y ) what happens with the shawl, the tests they do and the base of their research, and then the big finale where Edwards thinks he solved this mystery once and for all. ( haha no he didn't )
Giving it a 3 stars since I actually enjoyed reading this as a 'can we use new techniques to restore ancient dna' study , but wouldn't really recommend it.
Okay, you see this? It's exactly how the book ends. If you're expecting a neutral point of view of the author, you're going to be disappointed. That's my main issue with this book.
Although Russell Edwards clearly puts his heart and soul into this research, he couldn't convince me ( and lots of people apparently ), I mean, if you take a look at the case, it could be resumed in 'we have alleged semen on an alleged shawl allegedly found by Amos Simpson who was allegedly at the Mitre Square crime scene despite the fact that he was a Met officer stationed 25 miles away and this was a City of London crime scene', in addition to the issues with the mtDNA test ( that cannot match a suspect, since it's used for elimination purposes ), and the fact that it was only tested against Kosminski's relatives too. You have tons of suspects , like Druitt, Chapman, Lechmere... I think Edwards simply wanted to build a case around Kosminski, since it was his favourable suspect and tell through scientific 'facts' that he was the murderer.
From The Times of Israel (2014):
About the book itself, it's enjoyable, but at times it can be SO BORING , because in 30% of this book, it's just the author telling about his life/family or him messing around while Dr. Jari is doing the tests in his lab. The start is slow, but eventually it gets to the good parts about the Ripper and the victims ( if you're studying about the case, or you're a member of the casebook forum like me you won't really be surprised, it's just the same stuff about the murders + some interesting info about witnesses/suspects ) , until it gets to what I call the "science stuff" chapters, where he explains ( s l o w l y ) what happens with the shawl, the tests they do and the base of their research, and then the big finale where Edwards thinks he solved this mystery once and for all. ( haha no he didn't )
Giving it a 3 stars since I actually enjoyed reading this as a 'can we use new techniques to restore ancient dna' study , but wouldn't really recommend it.
September 5, 2018
Waah selesai juga aku membacanya.
Buku ini bukan kisah fiksi dan membuatku seolah-olah menutup mata dan tak ingin melanjutkan membaca lagi. 😂
Dari awal bab, aku sudah merasa seperti itu. Namun, ketika sudah mencapai kisah di mana Jack The Ripper beraksi barulah mata ini terbuka lebar lalu menutup kembali di bab selanjutnya. Huh 😥
Buku ini menceritakan sebuah perjalanan sang penulis dalam mengungkap identitas Jack the Ripper melalui selendang peninggalan salah satu korbannya yg dibeli penulis setelah acara pelelangan.
Butuh bertahun-tahun lamanya demi melakukan riset dengan selendang yg berusia ratusan tahun serta penelitian dengan teknologi canggih di jaman sekarang. Untung saja penulis memiliki seorang teman dan pandai bergaul demi menuntaskan hasratnya yg menggebu demi sebuah selendang. Cukup kagum dengan sang penulis yg memiliki teman seorang peneliti dibidang sains yg hebat. Namun, tentu saja dibalik semua proses yg dilakukannya ada halang rintang yang harus dihadapinya.
Sayangnya, penulis menulis seperti menulis novel. Yah tak apalah ya, walaupun terlihat seperti buku catatan atau diari dari isi hati dan pikiran penulis.
Buku ini bukan kisah fiksi dan membuatku seolah-olah menutup mata dan tak ingin melanjutkan membaca lagi. 😂
Dari awal bab, aku sudah merasa seperti itu. Namun, ketika sudah mencapai kisah di mana Jack The Ripper beraksi barulah mata ini terbuka lebar lalu menutup kembali di bab selanjutnya. Huh 😥
Buku ini menceritakan sebuah perjalanan sang penulis dalam mengungkap identitas Jack the Ripper melalui selendang peninggalan salah satu korbannya yg dibeli penulis setelah acara pelelangan.
Butuh bertahun-tahun lamanya demi melakukan riset dengan selendang yg berusia ratusan tahun serta penelitian dengan teknologi canggih di jaman sekarang. Untung saja penulis memiliki seorang teman dan pandai bergaul demi menuntaskan hasratnya yg menggebu demi sebuah selendang. Cukup kagum dengan sang penulis yg memiliki teman seorang peneliti dibidang sains yg hebat. Namun, tentu saja dibalik semua proses yg dilakukannya ada halang rintang yang harus dihadapinya.
Sayangnya, penulis menulis seperti menulis novel. Yah tak apalah ya, walaupun terlihat seperti buku catatan atau diari dari isi hati dan pikiran penulis.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 179 reviews