Talk:Jack the Ripper

This article uses British English dialect and spelling. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. Note: The official spelling of the formal name is correct with the -ize ending, which had been discussed in the past.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2014

“Dear Boss, I keep on hearing the police have caught me but they wont fix me just yet. I have laughed when they look so clever and talk about being on the right track. That joke about Leather Apron gave me real fits. I am down on whores and I shant quit ripping them till I do get buckled. Grand work the last job was. I gave the lady no time to squeal. How can they catch me now. I love my work and want to start again. You will soon hear of me with my funny little games. I saved some of the proper red stuff in a ginger beer bottle over the last job to write with but it went thick like glue and I cant use it. Red ink is fit enough I hope ha. ha. The next job I do I shall clip the ladys ears off and send to the police officers just for jolly wouldn't you. Keep this letter back till I do a bit more work, then give it out straight. My knife's so nice and sharp I want to get to work right away if I get a chance. Good Luck. Yours truly Jack the Ripper

Dont mind me giving the trade name

PS Wasnt good enough to post this before I got all the red ink off my hands curse it No luck yet. They say I'm a doctor now. ha ha” George Montgomerie (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No request for changes to the article; nothing to be done here. Huon (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper was CAUGHT in 1889!

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/local/door-county/news/2014/07/25/traveling-back-advocate-archives-july/13191327/

July 27, 1889 • In London, England, the Whitechapel murderer, better known as “Jack the Ripper,” has finally been caught. He gives his name as William Brodle and confessed he is guilty of the crimes as charged. He was remanded to jail for a week and will doubtless swing in time.

172.242.144.89 (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

William Brodie sailed for South Africa in early September 1888 and returned to Britain in July 1889, so he was abroad for most of the killings. In his statement to police, he claimed to have walked from London to Cornwall and back in 30 minutes. He was either drunk or mad. Either way, he wasn't the Ripper. DrKiernan (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper Actually a Nurse from Outer-space

Why is the theory that Jack the Ripper was actually a midwife brought into London by a UFO during 1888 not advanced in this article? It is cited by Sugden and others as a nonsense theory but it deserves to be included under speculation about Jack the Rippers identity section.--Ordessa (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason to pick out one particularly ridiculous theory out of the dozens of other ridiculous theories. References to much better known suspects and theories were already removed on that basis (by others not me). This particular one is not notable enough to feature in the main article. DrKiernan (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

DNA evidence confirms identity of The Ripper

DNA taken from a shawl found at one of the victims crime scenes contained mitochondrial DNA from the woman and cells and semen from the perpetrator. They have even tracked down decendecedents of both and gotten 100% matches. DNA evidence proves Aaron Kosminsky, an eastern European Jewish immigrant IS "The Ripper." [1]

Cashdds (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Cash, Jeffrey W.Cashdds (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

So says the Daily Mail. Let's wait until other sources provide commentary on this. The Candlemas shawl story is a little wacky. Shii (tock) 01:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"So says the Daily Mail". It's a world exclusive from them themselves. And it confirms it in there. Wikipedia prefers primary referencing, and as that is the primary source itself, should be used. We can't just use secondary referencing that copied from the Daily Mail just because those are more akin to wikipedia. And also people always mentioned it isn't reliable for wikipedia, where exactly is the list to back this up? Charlr6 (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of being on a "list". Anyone with common sense would be able to tell you that "identifying Jack the Ripper beyond all doubt" is an enormous claim and requires multiple sources backing it up. Daily Mail alone is not sufficient. Kindly undo your edit. Shii (tock) 01:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding the 'list'. You want multiple sources, which I bet you won't be happy with either. Here you go... Charlr6 (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you even read the articles you are linking to? "a British businessman claims that he has ascertained" ... that's what the Raw Story article says. It's just another claim. There are hundreds out there. Shii (tock) 01:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, as a matter of fact, I happen to be someone with "common sense" and a biology major. The techniques used to extract and multiply the DNA samples is extremely accurate and accepted in a court of law as admissible. Perhaps you feel more comfortable with the premise that he was actually a "nurse from outer space?" I would suggest you brush up on your biology, reread the article and then post your comments. The daily mail was the first to post this I could find, but scrutiny of it will prove it and the techniques sound. Cashdds (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Cash, JeffreyCashdds (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I really hope, for your sake, that you never try to use the Daily Mail in a court of law. Please check out this article from another newspaper. Shii (tock) 01:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

AND... SEEING AS at 1:19 I posted this, and your rebuttal came at 1:22, I doubt if YOU read the the article...Shii... Cashdds (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC) J. CASH

In fact... I read the article first, then came to the Wikipedia page afterwards! This talk page thread directed by M. Night Shylalanaman Shii (tock) 02:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC

In addition, the "business man" did not perform the DNA analysis. Daily Mail or Medical journal...this is the "read" section, not Wikipedia proper. The submission was to show that a new, more scientific, approach was used than swabbing envelopes with Agatha Christy. Please feel free to grab your cell phone, take a ride with Jules Verne and let us all in on the truth. Cashdds (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)J. Cash

Wikipediots, it's not us to decide who the Ripper is. We report on what the sources say. The sources say this guy did it. Cla68 (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

What sources? The only source used in our article is the Daily Mail. Also, why was the claim added to the WP:LEDE, but not to the body of the article? Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Cla68. My point exactly. Reporting in the talk section merely let's people know what IS being said/presented in the media. I didn't expect it to immediately be stuck in the main article...if anything, only mentioned in "controversies. "Cashdds (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)J. Cash

Question: While we can all debate whether the scientific process of extracting DNA from the shawl provides Jack the Ripper's identity accurately or not (for all we know, Ms. Catherine Eddowes might have simply had a nightly ordeal with Mr. Aaron Kosminski before being murdered by Jackie), why not simply put it in the page as a businessman named Mr. Russel Edwards bought the shawl, asked his friend Dr. Jari Louhelaine to examine it, with the results having found DNA of the new suspect on Ms. Eddowes shawl strongly suggesting him? This would seem to be both honest and reliable information providing a compromise between those that believe Jackie IS Mr. Kosminski and those that question the actual identity of Jackie still. Furthermore, it would still leave the door open for additional information of fraud (if ever discovered), mistakes made by the research and also anything that helps confirm the information. It would also show that Wikipedia keeps information updated on important historical factors. This I think, would help Wikipedia's reputation.No name74331 (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Just came to point this same thing out. I have another link regarding the topic. Perhaps not the most reliable, however, something additional we can source. At that I agree with the above individual. Even if proven to be false, unreliable, or otherwise, it should be noted in the article, even if only from a historical perspective. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

There are loads, loads of RS out there for this fact. To omit it from the article is rather disengenious. Check out Google News "Jack the Ripper". Tutelary (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

There are probably thousands of sources that identify the Ripper. There is no reason to select this particular suspect over all the others. The so-called "evidence" is just as silly as in the other hundred "identifications". DrKiernan (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well this one has DNA evidence backing it up, and as I said before, there's more than loads of RS for this. Per WP:DUE, it deserves a mention. Tutelary (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

We exclude Sickert for example on the same basis. The DNA analysis in all these cases is clearly flawed and there's no reason to select this one from the others. It is actually undue to take a sensational ephemeral tabloid piece and blow it up into something it isn't. DrKiernan (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see the grand statement "After 126 years of debate, Jack the Ripper was positively identified as Aaron Kosminski through DNA testing." removed from the intro of the article, at least. Sure it is better to put that it has been claimed to. I think this article by the Independent shows how newspaper report isn't proof that Jack the Ripper has been revealed; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/has-jack-the-rippers-identity-really-been-revealed-using-dna-evidence-9717036.html 82.1.125.173 (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If you see that claim appear on this article again, please leave a message with {{editrequest}} so that it can be removed. Shii (tock) 19:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The London Evening Standard is reporting the story, and also made mention of a book being released about it on 09.09.14. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/identity-of-notorious-serial-killer-jack-the-ripper-finally-unveiled-9716900.html Coasterghost (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a breaking news story with great significance to the case. There is DNA evidence and the sources now reporting are not solely the Daily Mail, but seasoned and well respected Journalistic publications. I am befuddled why edits are being made removing this information. The sources are there and it is indeed in the limelight. It deserves to be presented as an appendage.Kingslove2013 (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news website. It is an encyclopedia. Shii (tock) 19:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

And this book titled Naming Jack The Ripper will be released tuesday. Coasterghost (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, what's your point? Another book on the pile of hundreds. Wikipedia does not provide free advertising for books. Shii (tock) 20:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that there will be a point that we will have to have included in this wiki what the book says.Coasterghost (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No we don't. Why would we have to do that? Because there was a newspaper article about the book? If we had to include every Jack the Ripper book that had a newspaper article written about it, this article would be over a million words long. Shii (tock) 20:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Shii, this is news with DNA evidence. I agree with Coasterghost. I'll let consensus dictate where we go from here. I politely but firmly disagree with you Shii. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingslove2013 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You can't just say "I disagree". What is your argument? This is not the first time the "DNA evidence" argument was used, and it's not being reported on in the larger press as an unusually good theory. Shii (tock) 20:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It -is- being reported on in the larger press, to say that it's not is just untrue.

Independent Metro ITV Jpost SMH Mirror News International Business Times Raw Story Huffington Post UK The Moscow Times Jezebel Inquisitr I think it deserves a mention, and I don't see a lot of other people disagreeing with putting it in the article. Tutelary (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Over on the Sweeney Todd page under historical basis they cite The Wonderful and Surprising History of Sweeney Todd: The Life and Times of an Urban Legend. So Shii if we can't add in this into the page since there was DNA evidence, all we are honestly doing is robbing this open source encyclopedia of knowledge. Coasterghost (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

At this point in time, I agree with Shii. But I might change in time. I think the point is being missed: in February we were removing details of a book saying the Ripper never existed, in January the theory he was a woman and that he was George Hutchinson, in September last year that he was a German sailor. This happens every time a new book or documentary comes out with another theory. There's a rush to suddenly push that one particular theory into the article to the exclusion of others. It is undue and recentism to single out one suspect or one person's theory. We should wait to see what the consensus of Ripperologists is. At the moment it is too soon to know whether this is just going to be another doomed hypothesis based on flimsy, disputed "evidence". The time to insert it is when (or if) it becomes the widespread belief of the majority of Ripperologists. DrKiernan (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Shii, doing a quick search, here was some of news organizations reporting the story: London Evening Standard, Sydney Morning Herald, ITV News, The Inquisitr, Guardian, 9news Australia. DrKiernan, we should just make a mention about the DNA evidence and about DNA being testing, I can see not wanting to put it in right now, but we will be soon at a cross roads where it will be inevitable to not have. Coasterghost (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you understand, it doesn't matter how many news organizations are reporting it. Reporting on something just because it was announced yesterday is WP:RECENTISM and goes against the idea of writing an encyclopedic summary of 124 years of research. Shii (tock) 20:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and this adds into the 124 years of research, and it will have to be added in the future. Coasterghost (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"it will have to be added in the future" is your opinion, not an already established fact. Theories don't get proven by newspaper articles. As DrKiernan said there is a huge literature about this subject and this is a drop in the bucket that doesn't deserve mentioning. Shii (tock) 20:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes "it will have to be added in the future" is my opinion on this talk page. There will be a chance that someone get the book and add it here. Coasterghost (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

There are many Jack the Ripper theories that are backed up by some amount of evidence. The article where these theories are discussed is Jack the Ripper suspects. Inclusion in this article requires a much higher standard of broad acceptance among historians. Shii (tock) 20:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Shii I disagree with your edit warring. Kingslove2013 (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

DrKiernan, I understand your point. What should we do with the information about the DNA? I'll leave it to consensus as to what to do. Kingslove2013 (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The DNA is now being peer tested and is in virutally every paper on the planet. A 100% match on both samples is pretty irrefutable. How about researching it before you just arrogantly go and delete someone else's work. What I posted meets all wiki standards, is well referenced and researched, and is not vandalism. Why does YOUR opinion DeKiernan, seem to trump everyone else's? Leave it until there is a clear consensus to remove it, which there currently is not. If it happens again without a clear consensus it is getting reported. This is clearly accepted and notable. What reasonable arguements can you possibly make for deleting it? Until there is a clear consensus, leave it alone. The Moody Blue (Talk) 20:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I have researched it. There is no shawl listed among Eddowes's effects in the police report. The likelihood of epithelial cells surviving 126 years is remote: it is more likely to be modern contamination of recent date. Etc, etc. We need to wait before assuming this claim is correct. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. DrKiernan (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I am surprised this is tripping up so many people. First of all, it is patently untrue that DNA evidence is "irrefutable". Secondly, even if it were an irrefutable test, this would need to be confirmed by the judgments of historians, not newspaper editors. Shii (tock) 23:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Has BBC or CNN reported on this yet? --RThompson82 (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Finnish newspapers/media are currently running the story (here, here and here), although YLE and Iltalehti are just referencing the Daily Mail article. Helsingin Sanomat, on the other hand has an interview with the researcher Jari Louhelainen himself, who happens to be Finnish. 94.101.2.145 (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Article fully protected for three days

... to stop the edit war in progress. Favonian (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, although it looks like you have protected WP:THEWRONGVERSION ;) Shii (tock) 21:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Damn! I always seem to do that. Favonian (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

When protection status is removed, my preference is that there be a sober report that DNA linked to the Kosminski family was found on the shawl. The DNA testing has not been peer reviewed. Even if peer review endorses a link to the Kosminski family to the exclusion of all others, this means only that a male in that family had a sexual encounter in which DNA was deposited on the shawl. In addition to Kosminski himself, the DNA could have come from his brother or father and furthermore, the encounter may have taken place before the shawl came into Eddowes' possession, or when she was long dead. There is nothing to tie the depositing of the DNA to the exact time the murder was committed, and in fact the medical evidence was that there had been "no traces of recent connection" with the victim. Please think carefully about how the page will look in three years' time when the claims currently being made may look very foolish, or merely a falsification to publicize a new book. Akld guy (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You guys are way over-analyzing this. We just report what the sources say, our own opinions are irrelevant to this article. Cla68 (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you please indicate how you would alter the current text "In September 2014, author Russell Edwards claimed to have exposed the serial killer's true identity using DNA evidence. His book and DNA evidence purport Jack the Ripper to be 23-year-old Polish immigrant Aaron Kosminski." to address your concerns? DrKiernan (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Remove the entire paragraph. We do not mention the DNA evidence provided in Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper—Case Closed. Why is this new DNA evidence special? What makes it better than the previous DNA evidence? Shii (tock) 07:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a very valid point - this article uses scholarly sources and suchlike, and as such, we're looking at a pretty high standard here. We should avoid giving WP:UNDUE attention to this claim merely because it is recent. It is potentially notable, but on the other hand, the lack of peer review - and the questionable providence of the item in question - make this a bit problematic. People claim to find Noah's Ark regularly, and some number of papers report on it; they never do. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, the author of the book isn't the only one making the claim. The molecular biologist who did the test is an Oxford-educated expert in genetics and forensics. I trust him far more than I trust this author. I agree though, if true, it doesn't prove his guilt, it merely proves that he had sex with a prostitute (hardly earthshattering) who happened to be one of the victims. That said, it's an awfully big coincidence and I'm not a big believer in coincidences. And the author is right about one thing, if this is validated, it would make it the ONLY piece of actual forensic evidence against any suspect. It wouldn't convict anybody in a court of law, but it would certainly move them to the top of the suspect heap. But I don't think we'll be putting Mr. Kosminski's name up at the top of this page anytime soon. After all, there no fun in a solved mystery. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 09:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

DNA evidence not peer reviewed

I found in here that the research hasn't been peer-reviewed yet.

http://news.yahoo.com/jack-ripper-identified-dna-traces-sleuth-024421946.html "The research has not been published a a peer-reviewed scientific journal, meaning the claims cannot be independently verified or the methodology scrutinised. Professor Alec Jeffreys, who invented the DNA fingerprinting technique 30 years ago this week, called for further verification. "

Personally, I believe a mention that DNA evidence in 2014 seems to link to Kosminski but has not been peer reviewed yet should be there cited with the right links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apavlides24 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The addition of a sentence "The claims have not been independently verified." or similar is fine by me. DrKiernan (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it now the duty of this article to report on every unverified claim? Shii (tock) 07:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If it is notable. We should avoid making extensive changes to the article until this has been peer-reviewed, but (possibly) should make some note of the claim of identification. We should not, however, say that he actually was Jack the Ripper for the time being. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

From Hell letter to come up for auction? (Edit: to go on exhibit)

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/jack-the-ripper-letter-could-raise-cash-to-help-the-met-8738945.html Has anyone else heard about this? Article from July 31st. --RThompson82 (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand the idea is to open the collection to the public not sell it off. DrKiernan (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I think its a neat idea -- people would pay to see the artifacts. --RThompson82 (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)