This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/09/solving-jack-the-ripper-case-dna

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
No ‘solving’ of the Jack the Ripper case will satisfy our obsession No ‘solving’ of the Jack the Ripper case will satisfy our obsession
(35 minutes later)
The latest development in a near-150-year-old saga has made headlines this week: an armchair detective has used DNA evidence to claim that Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper, the infamous figure who murdered and mutilated women in the East End of London in 1888. A Polish Jew who worked as a barber in the area, Kominski was one of the Met’s suspects at the time, though he was never charged.The latest development in a near-150-year-old saga has made headlines this week: an armchair detective has used DNA evidence to claim that Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper, the infamous figure who murdered and mutilated women in the East End of London in 1888. A Polish Jew who worked as a barber in the area, Kominski was one of the Met’s suspects at the time, though he was never charged.
Popular history has turned Ripperology – the quest to find the identity of Jack the Ripper – into an industry. Donning the mantle of historians-cum-detectives, writers including Patricia Cornwall and amateur investigators such as Russell Edwards have trawled through the Ripper case files and extant material to find “conclusive” proof as to the killer’s identity, and to turn these theories to publishing profit. It seems that this latest breakthrough comes in advance of yet another Ripper book.Popular history has turned Ripperology – the quest to find the identity of Jack the Ripper – into an industry. Donning the mantle of historians-cum-detectives, writers including Patricia Cornwall and amateur investigators such as Russell Edwards have trawled through the Ripper case files and extant material to find “conclusive” proof as to the killer’s identity, and to turn these theories to publishing profit. It seems that this latest breakthrough comes in advance of yet another Ripper book.
These enthusiasts who delve deeply into the newspapers, coroners inquiries and police reports from that autumn and winter of terror, narrate their theories as amazing developments in historical detective work and as scientific discoveries, however potentially tenuous their claims. Jack was a syphilitic Prince Albert. Jack was a woman. Jack was two people. Jack was a doctor. Jack was a butcher. Jack sailed to New York. Jack was Walter Sickert. Jack was the tool of a masonic cabal. Even academic historians have joined the fray: according to historian Charles van Onselen, Jack was a Galician pimp and trafficker named Joseph Lis. Each Ripperologist claims to have solved the crime, but Ripper historians also have a vested interest in keeping the mystery going. These enthusiasts, who delve deeply into the newspapers, coroners’ inquiries and police reports from that autumn and winter of terror, narrate their theories as amazing developments in historical detective work and as scientific discoveries, however potentially tenuous their claims. Jack was a syphilitic Prince Albert. Jack was a woman. Jack was two people. Jack was a doctor. Jack was a butcher. Jack sailed to New York. Jack was Walter Sickert. Jack was the tool of a masonic cabal. Even academic historians have joined the fray: according to the historian Charles van Onselen, Jack was a Galician pimp and trafficker named Joseph Lis. Each Ripperologist claims to have solved the crime, but Ripper historians also have a vested interest in keeping the mystery going.
Of all the fascinating mysteries and unknowns of history, why does Jack the Ripper generate so much popular historical interest? Part of the obsession must stem from the gruesome and sexualised nature of the killings: the Whitechapel murderer eviscerated his victims, removing parts of their organs, especially their uteruses and vaginas. The fact that several of his victims sold sex adds to the fascination. They were the fallen women, the unfortunates who wandered London’s gas-lit streets, who feature, caricatured and stereotyped, in so many historical and fictional accounts. Of all the fascinating mysteries and unknowns of history, why does Jack the Ripper generate so much popular historical interest? Part of the obsession must stem from the gruesome and sexualised nature of the killings: the Whitechapel murderer eviscerated his victims, removing parts of their organs, especially their uteruses and vaginas. The fact that several of his victims sold sex adds to the fascination. They were the fallen women, the unfortunates who wandered London’s gaslit streets, who feature, caricatured and stereotyped, in so many historical and fictional accounts.
Ripperologists and the media attention they garner reinforce the crude taxonomy of “good” and “bad” women that runs like a thread through the murders themselves and their contemporary press reception. It was an attitude which led one letter-writer posing as Jack, to tell the Central News Agency in September of 1888, that he was “down on whores and shan’t quit ripping them til I do get buckled”. Ripperologists and the media attention they garner reinforce the crude taxonomy of “good” and “bad” women that runs like a thread through the murders themselves and their contemporary press reception. It was an attitude that led one letter-writer, posing as Jack, to tell the Central News Agency in September of 1888, that he was “down on whores and shan’t quit ripping them til I do get buckled”.
Whether the letter was fake and whether we are horrified by its pronouncements, Ripper historians and the media reporting of their books consistently reinforce the fact that Jack the Ripper killed sex workers. But the case files very clearly demonstrate that Catherine Eddowes (known in her circles as Kate Kelly, she is the woman from whose shawl the newly discovered DNA was supposedly extracted), most likely did not sell sex. When her partner Thomas Kelly told the coroner she was “walking the streets” that night, he very clearly explained that she had to walk around because she couldn’t afford a lodging house bed. These crucial details, which reach across the century to tell us about poverty, unfair social policies, and of women’s ways of coping with this, are usually lost on most Ripper historians. Whether the letter was fake and whether we are horrified by its pronouncements, Ripper historians and the media reporting of their books consistently reinforce the fact that Jack the Ripper killed sex workers. But the case files very clearly demonstrate that Catherine Eddowes (known in her circles as Kate Kelly, she is the woman from whose shawl the newly discovered DNA was supposedly extracted), most probably did not sell sex. When her partner, Thomas Kelly, told the coroner she was “walking the streets” that night, he very clearly explained that she had to walk around because she couldn’t afford a lodging house bed. These crucial details, which reach across the century to tell us about poverty, unfair social policies, and of women’s ways of coping with this, are usually lost on most Ripper historians.
But in many ways, whether Kate Kelly sold sex or not is besides the point. Because Jack the Ripper didn’t kill sex workers: he killed women, some of whom sold sex sometimes. Jack killed flower sellers. Jack killed charwomen. He killed mothers, daughters, sisters, and wives. The case files that Ripper historians pilfer for clues about his identity actually contain extraordinary details about these women’s ordinary and fascinating lives.But in many ways, whether Kate Kelly sold sex or not is besides the point. Because Jack the Ripper didn’t kill sex workers: he killed women, some of whom sold sex sometimes. Jack killed flower sellers. Jack killed charwomen. He killed mothers, daughters, sisters, and wives. The case files that Ripper historians pilfer for clues about his identity actually contain extraordinary details about these women’s ordinary and fascinating lives.
In these files, I learned about their friends, their lovers, and their children; their love of drink, their quick tempers, and their favourite songs. I have seen pictures of their dead faces, and read coroners’ reports about the weight of their lungs, livers, and hearts. These women are infinitely more interesting to me than the identity of their killer. Finding out about their poverty, their work, and their experiences of injustice and inequality are far more important than their killer’s DNA. They are the real story of the Whitechapel murders. It is time for popular history to think more about them, and less about Jack. In these files, I learned about their friends, their lovers and their children; their love of drink, their quick tempers, and their favourite songs. I have seen pictures of their dead faces, and read coroners’ reports about the weight of their lungs, livers, and hearts. These women are infinitely more interesting to me than the identity of their killer. Finding out about their poverty, their work, and their experiences of injustice and inequality is far more important than their killer’s DNA. They are the real story of the Whitechapel murders. It is time for popular history to think more about them, and less about Jack.