Catherine Eddowes and Kosminski


It seems like Jack the Ripper is back in the news again in a rather big way, which is jolly nice for me as, like Russell Edwards, who is responsible for the latest furore, I also have a book to promote. I wasn’t actually planning to blog about this but I’ve had so many people (seriously, my phone hasn’t stopped pinging at me since the article first appeared in the Daily Hate Mail) asking me what my thoughts are about this new development that I thought I’d better put it here so I have somewhere to direct them. I’m a bit lazy like that, you see.

Anyway, when I heard last week that some sort of DNA ‘breakthrough’ had occurred, my thoughts immediately jumped, as they will do, to the shawl that was allegedly found beside Catherine Eddowes when her body was found in Mitre Square in 1888. This shawl has been well known in Ripper researcher circles for a long, long time (since at least the mid nineties in fact) and has always been considered to have quite dodgy provenance, based only on oral family tradition of a police officer stealing it from the scene to give to his wife. It wasn’t listed among Catherine Eddowes’ belongings (perhaps understandably if it was stolen from the crime scene and never made it to the mortuary, although the body was not left alone by the City Police for an instant from the moment of its discovery) and the police officer himself, one Amos Simpson, had no known connection with the case and was stationed in Islington with Metropolitan Police rather than with the City Police, upon whose patch Eddowes was found murdered or even H Division, stationed in nearby Whitechapel (unlike my own ancestor Sergeant David Lee, who was in H Division in 1888 but sadly didn’t nick any bits of evidence from any of the Ripper crime scenes as he didn’t know that his future descendant would need to promote a book at some point), although no policemen of any Metropolitan divisions were on the scene that night.


I don’t actually know very much about DNA profiling or forensics or any of that sort of thing so can’t really comment on the veracity of that whole side of things although I know that plenty of the leading Ripper researchers, including Stewart Evans, are also expressing their doubts much more advisedly and have pointed out that past DNA tests on the shawl have proved inconclusive. All I WILL say is that with the provenance of the article itself being so doubtful, and certainly I don’t think I know any respected Ripper researchers who think it is the real deal, and allowing for the fact that it hasn’t exactly been kept in an air tight box and treated with enormous care since that night in autumn 1888, I’m more than a bit sceptical about Mr Edwards’ claims and also reminded of the tremendous fuss and furore that surrounded the ‘discovery’ of the alleged Maybrick Diary about a dozen years ago, not to mention Patricia Cornwell’s ongoing vendetta against Walter Sickert or, God help us all, the infamous Freemasons and Royal Baby conspiracy of Knight’s Final Solution. Ahem.

On the other hand, my interest in the Ripper case has never been of a whodunnit nature. The sleuthing aspect doesn’t really interest me and, unlike many of my fellow researchers, I don’t have a pet suspect (and if I DID then it probably wouldn’t be Kosminski, although I have suggested in the past that for logistical and geographical reasons, he may have been responsible for the murder of Elizabeth Stride but not the other canonical victims) so there is no vested interest for me in either supporting or scotching the latest theory. It doesn’t actually matter to me either way. For me, the Ripper case is an interesting piece of social history and a chance to really scratch the surface of the Victorian London and see what lies beneath. Unmasking the Ripper is not something I have ever had ambitions to do, but I am, on the other hand, pretty keen to make the names and lives of his victims better known and understood. Even if the case was absolutely and definitely closed today, then I think we would still need to talk about the social history aspect of the murders, because even the most cursory look at the terrible conditions endured by the women preyed on by the so called Ripper, many of whom were on the streets due to the breakdown of marriage, lack of opportunities and estrangement from their families, serves as a reminder of why we need a welfare state to protect and support the vulnerable people in our own society.


In summary therefore: it’s an interesting development that certainly gives rise to plenty of questions (how did the DNA of both Eddowes and Kosminski end up on the shawl if it isn’t actually legit?) and debate but I remain, at the moment, rather unconvinced and am certainly not considering completely rewriting my novel to make Kosminski the killer. Although at this rate, I reckon that every man (and woman and child and vampire and werewolf…) in London will have been unmasked as the Ripper before too long anyway so why bother?

Set against the infamous Jack the Ripper murders of autumn 1888 and based on the author’s own family history, From Whitechapel is a dark and sumptuous tale of bittersweet love, friendship, loss and redemption and is available NOW from Amazon UK and Amazon US.

‘Frothy, light hearted, gorgeous. The perfect summer read.’ Minette, my young adult novel of 17th century posh doom and intrigue is now 99p from Amazon UK and 99c from Amazon US. CHEAP AS CHIPS as we like to say in dear old Blighty.

Blood Sisters, my novel of posh doom and iniquity during the French Revolution is just a fiver (offer is UK only sorry!) right now! Just use the clicky box on my blog sidebar to order your copy!

Follow my blog with Bloglovin

Follow me on Instagram.

Follow me on Facebook.

Follow me on Twitter.

Digiprove sealCopyright secured by Digiprove © 2014 Melanie Clegg

12 thoughts on “Catherine Eddowes and Kosminski

  • Annabel

    I was going to send you the link for the articlel, but I was sure you’d see it. Certainly food for thought. I read somewhere that there was more than one person named Kosminski living in the area. Relative?

  • Aoife

    Very well put. The authenticity of the scarf is very dubious.
    (Re the DNA: I am also no expert but from what I got it’s only mitochondrial DNA which doesn’t prove that it could have been only them but only that the DNA belonged to a person from the same maternal line. Afaik they compared the scarf-DNA with descendants from Kosminski and Eddowes and it matched so even if we could be certain that the scarf is real *and* that the DNA wasn’t too contaminated for a test we could never be sure if the traces really belonged to them and not their relatives)

  • Linotte

    Yeah, I have my doubts too. I wasn’t sure of what to think. But it’s pretty convenient those involved have a book coming out about their find!

  • Vanda

    Thanks for your opinion, I was waiting to see what your thoughts were. I haven’t seen any press on the subject but was very dubiuos when I heard the news from my daughter (we are both ripper nuts). I will now share with her your views as the voice of an expert.

  • Catherine Delors

    If all of the author’s claims turn out to be true (huge IF), all he has proven is that Kosminski was one of poor Catherine Eddowes’ many clients. And that’s what he calls solving the case?

  • Helen

    Ahhh this is interesting about the provenance of the shawl – I’d heard the provenance was dodgy, but the fact that it’s only recently appeared is super-dodgy.

    I’ve been looking at DNA genealogy recently and mtDNA cannot point conclusively to just one person. So all this hoo-hah doesn’t really prove anything at all. I know it’s annoying when people do this, but I wrote a blog explaining why the mtDNA doesn’t prove anything here:

    I think unfortunately people hear “DNA evidence” and think it’s like something on CSI, where they’ve presumably used autosomal DNA, which tests across all the chromosomes – not the same as mtDNA. “It’s his DNA!” the speke yr branes commenters declare, but alas, no… it could be his, and it could also be that of hundreds, if not thousands of other people.

    The other thing is that “some scientist somewhere” did something to amplify the remaining genetic material on the shawl, so… I do wonder how precise the test was.

    Anyway, that’s very cool that your ancestor was in Station H. Have you seen a glamourised version of him appear in “Ripper Street” yet?!


Comments are closed.