'Researchers extracted genetic material from a shawl, allegedly belonging to Catherine Eddowes'Ezra Izer for Varsity
If my time at Cambridge has taught me anything, it’s that there’s a particular comfort in returning to the arms of old fascinations. Despite my academic pivot towards the drier terrain of POLIS papers in my third year, and no matter how much I love to mock the date prospects of medievalists, History – twitching, macabre, and irresistibly pumped with blood – remains my first love, sadomasochistic matron that she is. It was the subject that captured my childhood’s attention with a comically large cartoon net. Nothing quite epitomises that enduring allure like the chilling – both figuratively and literally cold – unsolved case of Jack the Ripper. Only now, I’m obliged to reluctantly put a question mark after the 10th word in that sentence.
“This discovery appears to mark a watershed moment in historical forensics, seemingly offering a resolution to one of history’s most notorious unsolved mysteries”
I remember, with unsettling clarity, the hours spent in Year 8 History – dramatically alternating at my desk between fainting and fixating, as the smartboard carouselled between grainy depictions of the Ripper’s victims in varying states of intactness. As my classmates dissected each crime with a fervour that, in hindsight, definitely should’ve raised more safeguarding concerns, I was preoccupied with committing each variation of intestinal location to memory; powerless to the morbid details making a monopoly of my precious adolescent brain chemistry. Between this, and the frankly unhealthy codependency I developed with Buzzfeed Unsolved’s Shane Madej down the road, I spent an inordinate amount of time convinced that Francis Tumblety (of flamboyant American quack doctor fame, for the inundated) was the true architect of the terror. So it’s safe to say I was a little pissed when those bastards only went and solved it.
Indeed, over a century later, scientists appear to have accomplished what legions of amateur sleuths and true crime podcasters could not: they’ve unmasked Jack the Ripper. A recent forensic breakthrough has rekindled global fascination with the case, pointing, with unnerving precision, to Polish immigrant Aaron Kosminski as the likely perpetrator. If you’ll forgive my crude Sidgewick-addled explanation, the process behind this revelation hinges on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis, a technique particularly suited for historical cases due to the higher copy number and resilience of mtDNA compared to nuclear DNA. Researchers extracted genetic material from a shawl, allegedly belonging to Catherine Eddowes – one of the Ripper’s canonical five victims – using advanced polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods to amplify even the smallest fragments of preserved DNA. The resulting sequences were then compared to known genetic markers from living descendants of both Eddowes and Kosminski, yielding what has been described as a ‘conclusive’ match.
Russell Edwards, the indefatigable researcher behind this morbid quest for absolution, asserts that the genetic evidence is statistically significant, suggesting that the probability of such a match occurring by chance is exceedingly low. The methodology involved stringent contamination controls, including negative controls to ensure no extraneous DNA influenced the results. Presently, descendants of the victims, including those of Catherine Eddowes, are advocating for an official inquest to formally name Kosminski as the killer. For many, this revelation signifies not just historical closure but long overdue justice for the poor women whose lives have been relegated to footnotes in criminology papers and the odd subreddit comment section.
“Scientific advancements not only recalibrate historical narratives but actively restore justice”
On the surface, this discovery appears to mark a watershed moment in historical forensics, seemingly offering a resolution to one of history’s most notorious unsolved mysteries. Yet, as with all inquiries involving the Ripper, this narrative is inextricably layered with complexities that challenge our understanding of how science can retrospectively influence historical discourse. This isn’t the first instance where modern forensic methodologies have sought to resolve – or at the very least, deepen – historical enigmas. The 1935 Jigsaw Murders, for example, revolutionised forensic investigation by employing innovative techniques such as craniofacial superimposition and forensic odontology, which were instrumental in securing the conviction of Dr Buck Ruxton for the brutal murders of his wife and housemaid.
More recently, the exoneration of Anthony Wright through short tandem repeat (STR) DNA profiling underscores how scientific advancements not only recalibrate historical narratives but actively restore justice. This case spotlights how the integration of forensic techniques, particularly next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, can reveal previously inaccessible layers of genetic information, reconstituting both legal and historical interpretations.
“Does the drive to provide historical closure for some justify the risk of imposing an unwanted association on others, whose only link is a common ancestry?”
However, the supposed finality offered by forensic evidence often proves elusive. The provenance of the shawl under scrutiny remains mired in controversy; critics have raised valid concerns about potential DNA contamination over the course of more than a century. Given that modern PCR techniques can amplify even trace levels of contaminant DNA, ensuring sample integrity in historical artefacts demands extreme rigour: an area where this case arguably falls short. Compounding these doubts is the absence of peer-reviewed scientific validation, which remains a critical benchmark for establishing empirical credibility within the forensic community.
Beyond the technical challenges, ethical considerations loom large. While descendants of the victims may find solace in conclusively naming their relative’s assailant, the living family of Kosminski could bear the burden of inherited stigma, an unintended consequence of assigning historical guilt posthumously. This intersection between scientific investigation and inherited legacy raises important ethical questions: does the drive to provide historical closure for some justify the risk of imposing an unwanted association on others, whose only link is a common ancestry?
What emerges from this case is a profound tango between scientific precision and historical context. Historians excavate motive, cultural environment, and societal influence, while forensic scientists provide empirical anchors through methodologies such as mitochondrial haplotyping and allele frequency analysis. Together, they construct a richer, more intricate tapestry – one where objective data and subjective narrative inform each other in equal measure.
For me, Jack the Ripper transcends mere unsolved mystery status; it represents the convergence of scientific innovation and historical curiosity that initially fuelled my fascination with the past. Even as the torrid romance between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown consumes the brunt of my intellectual energy nowadays, the chilling allure of forensic discovery remains. It serves as a reminder that history, with all its complexities and unanswered questions, persists as that same unresolved dialogue between fact and interpretation that struck me when I was small.
Support Varsity
Varsity is the independent newspaper for the University of Cambridge, established in its current form in 1947. In order to maintain our editorial independence, our print newspaper and news website receives no funding from the University of Cambridge or its constituent Colleges.
We are therefore almost entirely reliant on advertising for funding and we expect to have a tough few months and years ahead.
In spite of this situation, we are going to look at inventive ways to look at serving our readership with digital content and of course in print too!
Therefore we are asking our readers, if they wish, to make a donation from as little as £1, to help with our running costs. Many thanks, we hope you can help!