Something stained and silk sat in a private collection for over a century before anyone thought to look closer. When Russell Edwards bought a Victorian shawl in 2007, he didn’t just acquire a piece of fabric. He purchased what might become the most analyzed piece of evidence in British criminal history.

Five women died brutal deaths in London’s East End during the autumn of 1888. Their killer mutilated their bodies, removed their organs, and vanished into fog-shrouded streets before police could identify him. More than 130 years have passed. Cold case files gathered dust. Theories multiplied. Yet no one could say with certainty who committed these murders.

Edwards believed his shawl could change that. Years after his purchase, DNA testing would point to a name already whispered in police reports from 1888. Whether science has finally solved Britain’s most notorious mystery or simply added another chapter to an endless debate depends on who you ask.

Five Women Dead in Victorian London

Elizabeth Stride, Mary Jane Kelly, Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, and Catherine Eddowes all worked as sex workers in Whitechapel during 1888. Each woman met her death between August and November of that year. Investigators found their bodies mutilated in ways that suggested surgical knowledge or at least familiarity with human anatomy.

Organs had been removed from several victims. Cuts appeared deliberate rather than frenzied. Someone killed these women with purpose, though what that purpose was remained unclear. Victorian London’s East End provided perfect hunting grounds for a murderer who knew how to disappear. Narrow alleys, dense fog, and poorly lit streets gave any killer natural advantages.

Police investigated dozens of suspects but never charged anyone. Witness accounts proved unreliable. Forensic science barely existed. By 1891, murders attributed to Jack the Ripper had stopped, leaving investigators with files full of theories and no convictions.

A Bloodstained Shawl Changes Everything

Catherine Eddowes died on September 30, 1888. Reports claimed investigators found a silk shawl near her mutilated body in Mitre Square. How that shawl survived, who preserved it, and how it eventually reached auction in 2007 remains murky.

Edwards, a historian and author, decided this fabric warranted modern scientific examination. He arranged for DNA testing years after his purchase, believing technology unavailable to Victorian detectives might succeed where traditional investigation failed.

Tests revealed biological material on the shawl. Both blood and semen had soaked into silk fibers over a century earlier. If investigators could match that DNA to known individuals, they might finally identify at least one person connected to the crime scene.

Blood and Semen Tell Different Stories

Forensic teams extracted DNA from stains on the fabric. Blood matched genetic markers found in descendants of Catherine Eddowes. Semen matched genetic markers found in relatives of Aaron Kosminski, a man police suspected in 1888 but never charged.

Mitochondrial DNA testing formed the basis of these comparisons. Scientists inherit this type of genetic material solely through maternal lines, making it useful for tracing family connections across generations. Unlike nuclear DNA, mitochondrial sequences can persist in degraded samples.

Results suggested someone related to Eddowes had bled on the shawl. Someone related to Kosminski had left semen on the same fabric. If the shawl truly came from the crime scene, and if contamination hadn’t occurred during 130 years of handling, then these findings placed Kosminski in direct proximity to a victim.

Meet Aaron Kosminski

Aaron Kosminski arrived in London from Poland as a Jewish immigrant fleeing persecution. By 1888, he worked as a barber in Whitechapel, cutting hair blocks away from where Jack the Ripper’s victims died.

Police records from the era list Kosminski among several suspects. At 23 years old, during the murders, he showed signs of severe mental disturbance. Authorities admitted him to Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum in 1891 with diagnoses of paranoia and hallucinations. Medical notes describe a man who refused to wash and wouldn’t eat food prepared by others.

Staff observations indicated that Kosminski posed no violent threat despite his psychological conditions. He spent the remaining years in institutions until he died in 1919. Some police officials later named him as a major suspect, claiming an eyewitness had identified Kosminski but refused to testify in court.

Whether mental illness and proximity to crime scenes made him guilty or simply convenient remained unanswered for over a century.

Edwards Makes His Case Public

Russell Edwards published his findings in books titled “Naming Jack the Ripper” and its sequel. He wrote with confidence about his conclusions. “He is no longer just a suspect. We can hold him, finally, to account for his terrible deeds,” Edwards declared in his work.

Edwards didn’t stop at publication. He sought official recognition through legal channels. In February 2025, he sent a letter to Britain’s attorney general requesting permission to petition the high court. His goal was to have Kosminski legally named as Jack the Ripper in judicial proceedings.

DNA evidence, Edwards argued, placed the suspect at a murder scene. Science had accomplished what Victorian investigators could not. Courts should acknowledge these findings and provide formal closure to a case that haunted British history.

Scientists Push Back Hard

Forensic experts responded to Edwards’ claims with skepticism. Published results in the Journal of Forensic Sciences drew immediate criticism from specialists who questioned both methodology and conclusions.

Walther Parson, a forensic scientist at the Institute of Legal Medicine at Innsbruck Medical University, challenged how authors presented their data. Hansi Weissensteiner, an expert in mitochondrial DNA at the same institution, pointed out fundamental limitations of the genetic testing used.

“Based on mitochondrial DNA one can only exclude a suspect,” Weissensteiner explained. Mitochondrial sequences shared among thousands of people in Victorian London meant the shawl’s DNA could have come from Kosminski or from countless others with similar maternal lineages.

Genetic testing might prove someone wasn’t at a crime scene. Proving someone was there required more specific evidence than mitochondrial DNA could provide.

Missing Data Fuels Controversy

Scientists reviewing the published study found something missing. Instead of actual genetic sequences, authors displayed colored boxes on charts. Where boxes overlapped, matches allegedly occurred. Where they diverged, sequences differed.

Jari Louhelainen and David Miller, who conducted the analysis, cited UK Data Protection Act restrictions. Publishing genetic sequences of living relatives would violate privacy laws, they claimed.

Forensic experts dismissed that explanation. Mitochondrial DNA poses no privacy risk because it reveals nothing about individual traits, diseases, or personal characteristics. Thousands of people share identical mitochondrial sequences. Publishing such data couldn’t identify specific individuals.

Without access to raw genetic data, independent scientists couldn’t verify findings. Peer review depends on reproducibility. Colored boxes don’t allow other researchers to check calculations, confirm matches, or identify potential errors.

Was the Shawl Really at the Crime Scene?

Historians questioned the shawl’s provenance long before DNA results emerged. No documented chain of custody connected the fabric to Catherine Eddowes or to Mitre Square in 1888.

Victorian police records don’t mention recovering a silk shawl from the crime scene. How the fabric survived 130 years without official documentation raised doubts about its authenticity.

Contamination presented another problem. Multiple people had handled the shawl over more than a century. Each handler potentially left biological material. DNA from blood relatives of both Eddowes and Kosminski living in London during any decade since 1888 could have transferred to the fabric through innocent contact.

Without proving the shawl came from the crime scene and remained uncontaminated, DNA evidence couldn’t definitively connect anyone to the murders committed in 1888.

Families Want Legal Recognition

Karen Miller, a direct descendant of Catherine Eddowes, watched Edwards’ claims with interest. She wanted courts to examine evidence and make official determinations about her ancestor’s killer.

“People have forgotten about the victims, who did not have justice at the time. Now we need this inquest to legally name the killer,” Miller told reporters. Sensationalized stories about Jack the Ripper overshadowed the women who died. Entertainment replaced remembrance. Victims deserved more than becoming footnotes in murder tourism.

Miller advocated for reopening the case not because she trusted DNA evidence completely, but because formal legal proceedings would at least honor victims with a serious examination. Courts could weigh all available evidence and make determinations based on established standards rather than book sales.

Attorney General Petition Goes Nowhere

Edwards’ February 2025 letter to Britain’s attorney general sought permission for high court review. Legal processes that would allow judicial examination of evidence and potentially name Kosminski as Jack the Ripper required government approval to proceed.

Months passed without action. As of late 2025, no indication suggested authorities planned to reopen a case closed for over a century. Legal systems rarely revisit historical crimes without compelling new evidence that meets rigorous standards.

DNA from a shawl with questionable provenance, analyzed using methods experts criticized, apparently didn’t meet those standards. Jack the Ripper officially remains unidentified.

Human Need for Answers Drives the Search

Every generation revisits Jack the Ripper, seeking to name the nameless killer. DNA technology gives us tools Victorians never had, yet definitive proof remains elusive. Our drive to solve murders from 1888 reflects something deeper about human consciousness and how we process evil without resolution.

We want killers caught and named because it restores order to chaos. When Catherine Eddowes died in 1888, her family had no answers. Karen Miller, her descendant living 137 years later, still seeks that closure through courts and science. Whether Kosminski was truly guilty matters less than what the search reveals about us.

We push boundaries of forensic science not just to solve crimes but to affirm that justice can reach across centuries. Every attempt to name Jack the Ripper says we refuse to let brutality win through anonymity. DNA breakthroughs teach us that truth has patience, even when certainty stays just beyond our grasp.

Perhaps the lesson isn’t about solving cold cases at all. Maybe our obsession with identifying Jack the Ripper reflects a fundamental human need to believe that truth eventually surfaces, that evil can’t hide forever, and that victims matter regardless of how much time passes. We want to prove that consciousness itself demands accountability, that our sense of purpose includes remembering those who suffered and naming those who caused suffering.

Scientific limitations might prevent us from ever knowing with absolute certainty who killed five women in Victorian London. But our refusal to stop searching says something profound about who we are as a species. We build better forensic tools, analyze century-old fabric, and petition courts not because the answer will change history, but because the search itself affirms our commitment to justice across any span of time.

Loading...