New DNA Findings on Century-Old Artifact Renew Claims of Jack the Ripper’s Identity

December 5, 2025
|In Community, News
|By Prince Ea

For more than 130 years, the crimes of Jack the Ripper have occupied a space between historical tragedy and cultural obsession. The murders of five women in 1888 created a climate of fear throughout Victorian London, and over time they became the subject of endless theories, investigations, books, and speculation. Yet beneath the mythology that formed around the unidentified killer lies a legacy of real violence, real victims, and a justice system that failed to provide answers at the time. Even now, the uncertainty keeps the case alive in public imagination, and every new lead sparks renewed global attention.

In recent years, historian Russell Edwards has reignited the debate by putting forward new DNA findings linked to a shawl connected with victim Catherine Eddowes. He believes this evidence points conclusively to Aaron Kosminski, a suspect already identified by police during the original investigation. While the claim has drawn excitement for its potential to unlock a century old mystery, it has also invited skepticism from experts who question the limits and reliability of mitochondrial DNA. Still, the revelations have fueled calls for the case to be reopened, bringing the focus not only to the alleged killer but also to the families seeking long overdue acknowledgement of what happened.

A Case That Refuses to Fade

The story of Jack the Ripper remains deeply rooted in British history because of both the brutality of the crimes and the lingering uncertainty surrounding them. The five women who lost their lives, Elizabeth Stride, Mary Jane Kelly, Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes, lived in poverty and were widely believed to have been sex workers. Their murders involved extreme mutilation, and the removal of organs left investigators horrified and the public terrified. These events were unlike typical crimes of the era, and they created a sense of collective urgency that ultimately ended with no arrest and no definitive resolution.

The case has continued to fascinate generations, in part because it represents the beginning of the modern true crime era. Newspapers of the time sensationalized the killings, and letters signed “Jack the Ripper” only intensified the fear gripping the city. Over the years, films, documentaries, and theories have transformed the killer into a cultural figure, often overshadowing the lives of the women who were murdered. This persistent attention is what makes any new discovery feel significant, especially one involving scientific analysis rather than speculation.

The endurance of the case is also tied to the sense of injustice lingering around it. With no trial or acknowledgement of guilt, the victims’ families were left without closure. Present day descendants still feel that gap, and the ongoing interest in the case speaks to a collective desire to understand a moment in history that shaped public attitudes toward crime, society, and media.

The Shawl That Sparked a Breakthrough

A renewed wave of interest began in 2007 when Russell Edwards purchased a shawl said to have belonged to Catherine Eddowes. According to reporting from the Mirror, Edwards had the fabric examined through DNA testing, which revealed both blood and semen stains. The blood matched a descendant of Eddowes, while the semen sample reportedly matched a man identified as a distant relative of Aaron Kosminski. These results were presented in Edwards’ book “Naming Jack the Ripper: The Definitive Reveal,” which followed his earlier work “Naming Jack the Ripper.”

Edwards wrote, “He is no longer just a suspect. We can hold him, finally, to account for his terrible deeds.” He continued, “My search is over: Aaron Kosminski is Jack the Ripper.” For him, the DNA testing provided what he believed to be a direct link connecting a confirmed suspect to physical evidence found at the crime scene. This type of forensic approach represented something earlier investigators could never have utilized, offering a modern method for reexamining an older case.

The shawl, however, has long been the subject of debate. Its provenance is not definitively documented, and for a historical artifact to serve as forensic evidence, a clear chain of custody is essential. Still, the findings captured global attention because they presented a possibility that science might finally identify the figure behind one of the world’s most infamous crime sprees.

The Scientific Skepticism

Despite the attention Edwards’ claims have received, experts have raised concerns regarding the reliability of the tests. The primary issue revolves around mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down through maternal lines and cannot uniquely identify an individual with absolute certainty. This form of DNA can confirm that samples come from people who share a maternal ancestor, but it does not provide the specificity needed to isolate a single perpetrator.

Another challenge concerns the age and handling of the shawl. Over more than a century, the garment may have been exposed to contamination, making it difficult to determine whether the samples found on it originated from the time of the murder or were introduced later. Without a verified chain of custody, the strength of any forensic claim becomes uncertain. Some geneticists have expressed doubts about the certainty Edwards places on the findings, arguing that additional testing and independent verification would be necessary before the evidence can be considered definitive.

This skepticism does not eliminate the possibility that Kosminski was involved, but it emphasizes the complexity of using modern science to resolve historical mysteries. The blend of promise and uncertainty is what continues to fuel the debate surrounding this potential breakthrough.

Calls to Reopen the Case

In response to his findings, Edwards expressed hopes that the historical case could be reopened. As reported by Newsweek, a letter was sent to the attorney general requesting permission to present the matter before the high court and begin the legal process. Edwards stated, “We now know the name and we’ve placed the murderer at the murder scene. Now we want that to be public knowledge though, accepted by the courts.” His emphasis lies in moving beyond public discourse and seeking official recognition.

Support for reopening the case has also come from victims’ descendants. Karen Miller, a direct descendant of Catherine Eddowes, told the Daily Mail in January, “The name Jack the Ripper has become sensationalized. It has gone down in history as this famous character.” She added, “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’s perspective reflects a desire for recognition and closure, not notoriety.

Miller further stated, “Having the real person legally named in a court which can consider all the evidence would be a form of justice for the victims.” Her words highlight an important shift in focus. Instead of centering the killer, she emphasizes the women whose stories were overshadowed by myth. As of early 2025, however, there has been no formal decision to reopen the case.

Why This Discovery Matters

The significance of Edwards’ claim goes beyond the question of whether it conclusively identifies the killer. It opens a discussion about how historical crimes are remembered and how modern tools reshape our understanding of the past. The idea of solving a case that has remained unanswered for more than a century brings a sense of possibility that feels both scientific and symbolic.

From a historical perspective, naming a suspect could reshape interpretations of Victorian policing and criminal profiling. From a scientific perspective, it highlights the potential and limitations of forensic testing when applied to aged materials. From a social perspective, it draws attention back to the victims and challenges the ways their stories have been overshadowed by fascination with the murderer.

This renewed attention also raises questions about accountability. Even if Kosminski cannot be legally punished, formally naming him in court would represent a symbolic act of acknowledgement, which could be meaningful for families and historians alike. It allows modern society to reflect on the failures of past systems and the importance of recognizing the humanity of the victims.

The Legacy of Aaron Kosminski

Aaron Kosminski has been considered a suspect since the original investigation, though no charges were ever brought against him. He was a Polish immigrant who worked as a barber and reportedly experienced severe mental health challenges. Police documents from the time noted him as someone they believed likely to have been involved, though the evidence available then was far from decisive.

His proximity to the areas where the murders occurred made him a credible suspect, and some witness accounts provided vague support for the theory. Over time, he became one of the more commonly discussed figures among Ripper researchers. Edwards’ findings revived interest in him, inviting renewed examination of what was once considered incomplete evidence.

Whether Kosminski was the killer or merely a figure whose name reappears through circumstance, he represents the intersection of history, speculation and the limitations of Victorian criminal investigations. His story is now intertwined with the modern quest to resolve a case once thought unsolvable.

Loading...