Jack the Ripper Case Reopened?

Unknown Speaker

Alright, folks, MJ here. And welcome back to MJ on Crime. Today, we’re cracking open a case that’s haunted the streets of London—and, honestly, the world—for over a century. Yup, we are speaking about Jack the Ripper. Yeah, that Jack. But here’s the twist: in 2014, a piece of cloth—a shawl, to be exact—became the center of a whole new investigation. Now, I know what you’re thinking: “A shawl? After all these years?” But stick with me. This isn’t just some dusty relic. This thing was found at the scene of Catherine Eddowes’ murder, one of the Ripper’s victims.

Unknown Speaker

So, Russell Edwards, a guy who’s been obsessed with this case, they call this type of person a Ripperologist, gets his hands on the shawl. He teams up with Dr. Jari Louhelainen, a senior lecturer at Liverpool John Moores University. They go full CSI on it—extracting DNA from blood stains and, uh, semen stains. Not exactly polite dinner conversation, but that’s the facts. Seven tiny DNA segments from the blood matched Karen Miller, who’s a direct descendant of murder victim Eddowes. So, the blood’s legit, right? But here’s where it gets wild: the DNA from the semen matched a descendant of Aaron Kosminski, a Polish barber who’s been a suspect since day one in 1888.

Unknown Speaker

Now, I gotta say, this kind of thing—DNA from evidence that’s, what, over 130-something years old? One hundred thirty-seven years to be exact. I don't think it's unheard of, but it’s rare, you must admit. We have all heard of cases where DNA from years ago was used to solve a cold case, but this is a whole new level: DNA from 1888. But if you are a true crime fan and follow these types of cases, you know sometimes, all it takes is one new or overlooked detail, one new technology, and suddenly the past isn’t so distant anymore.

Unknown Speaker

But here’s the part that gets me. It’s not just about the science. It’s about the people. Karen Miller—Eddowes’ descendant—she’s not looking for headlines. She wants justice. She’s pushing for a new inquest, saying, “People have forgotten about the victims, who did not have justice at the time. Now we need this inquest to legally name the killer.” And she’s not alone. Amanda Poulos, who’s related to Kosminski, is on board too. She says she wants to establish what happened to these women, these victims, all the way back in 1888.

Unknown Speaker

You know, we get so caught up in the legend of Jack the Ripper—the shadowy figure, the mystery, the books, the movies—Like I have said in the past, it's sometimes forgotten that real people lost their lives. Their families are still out there, generations later, fighting for answers. It’s not about the myth anymore. It’s about recognition. Closure. I’ve seen it before—families who want the truth, no matter how much time has passed. They shape the pursuit of justice, even when the system wants to move on.

Unknown Speaker

And, I mean, think about it: how many times do we see families drive these cases forward? They’re the ones who keep the pressure on, who refuse to let the story end with a question mark. It’s a reminder that justice isn’t just a legal thing—it’s personal.

Unknown Speaker

Of course, nothing’s ever simple. Even with this DNA, there’s a mountain of legal and forensic hurdles. For starters, in the UK, you can’t just reopen a case because you want to. The Attorney General has to sign off. And in 2023, the Attorney General, Michael Ellis at the time, said no to a similar request. Not enough new evidence, he said. So, even with all this buzz, the current Attorney General’s position is still up in the air.

Unknown Speaker

Then there’s the science. The DNA findings? They haven’t been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Remember how I mentioned in the past that lab findings and results need to be peer-reviewed and checked multiple times? That means other scientists, as of yet, haven’t had a chance to dig in, check the methods, and poke holes in the results. And, look, I’m not a scientist, but I’ve seen enough cases to know: if you can’t replicate it, you can’t rely on it. Especially when you’re talking about evidence that’s been sitting around since the Victorian era. Who knows what’s contaminated, what’s degraded? We must stick to forensic standards.

Unknown Speaker

It’s the classic cold case problem—bureaucracy versus closure. Cops and prosecutors have butted heads with red tape more times than I can count. We know the system’s there to protect the process. But sometimes it just seems to be there to get in the way of the truth. And with a case like this, where the evidence is old and the wounds are even older and still raw, it’s a tough call.

Unknown Speaker

So, where does that leave us? We’ve got families fighting for answers, new science that could change the story, and a legal system that’s, well, not exactly eager to rewrite history. But that’s the thing about cold cases—they don’t stay cold forever. Not if people keep asking questions. And you can bet we’ll be here, digging into the next twist, the next breakthrough, whatever comes next. Until then, stay curious, stay safe, and remember: every crime has a story. We tell it. Catch you next time on MJ on Crime.