Talk:Jack the Ripper/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

What are our chances of still identifying JTR?

Thankfully --or not so thankfully for those who love a good mystery-- there are still methods open to us, whereby the Whitechapel Murderer might still be identified. However just how practicable these are is a matter for conjecture. First, some of the victims, Mary Kelly for example, are believed to have briefly but desperately tried to defend themselves against their attacker. Kelly certainly had what were identified as "defence wounds" on her arms. If the remains of two or more victims still have material under their fingernails, this may contain the killers DNA. However this method would neccessitate the opening of graves, of both suspects and victims, in order to search for a DNA match, and the authorites would alomst certainly consider the subject no longer important enough to allow this. Second, I believe that Francis Tumblety's human organ collection ended up in the possession of a medical university or institute; but alas I am unsure of my sources on this. But if true, then DNA matches could be searched for between said samples and the living relatives of some of the victims. A more futuristic alternative, the technology for which is presently beyond us, would involve reading the atomic vibrations in a nearby piece of masonry or other material, which was there at the time of one of the murders, caused by the atom being hit by a photon of light from a particular event in the past, and then recreating the images which were absorbed into the wall by selecting vibration levels from a particular epoch. But we're looking at another 100 years of progress here. Beyond this, I'm afraid we will have to rely upon some chance discovery of incriminating paperwork, but this is most unlikely to surface after all this time. Does anyone have any additional suggestions? (204.112.60.248 (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC))

Keep working on the photon thing - it's our best bet. :> Doc talk 02:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree -- providing it wasn't Tumblety. If it was him, and we can lay our hands on his samples, then we could have him in the bag very quickly. (204.112.60.248 (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC))

We'll never know for certain, dude. It's like the JFK Assassination for Americans: it could be that Oswald acted alone, but the conspiracy theories that make it a true mystery are so very compelling. We'll never know if others were involved with JFK, and we'll never know who Jack the Ripper was; and we were never meant to. For now ;> Doc talk 02:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

What are our chances of still identifying JTR? the answer is probably nil unless the culprit(s) was/were correctly identified at the time and this has been kept secret for whatever reasons. The problem with the murders is that there is far too much 'noise' (in the information sense) to be able to sort out what's true and what is merely speculation, supposition, etc. The same is true for the JFK Assassination, so many of the 'facts' of the cases are unreliable, so that anyone trying to 'sort the wheat from the chaff' is going to have a very hard time. A part of the problem is people 'muddying the waters' (in both the above cases) for whatever reasons, deliberately or accidently, and it doesn't help that in both cases relevant official files were destroyed. People also have their own agendas, writers too, so getting accurate unbiased facts becomes increasingly difficult the more people are involved. Generally the Ockham's Razor principle applies and in the absence of more information the simplest solution is often (but not always) the correct one.

The problem is the same for other mysteries where so little accurate and reliable information exists, such as the Bermuda Triangle, UFOs, ghosts etc. In the Jack the Ripper case it is not helped that the crimes took place in what were then, still the early years of organised detection, so that many of today's methods for dealing with crimes, such as withholding crucial information as to the methods involved in the crime from the newspapers/public, were not available, simply because no-one in the police forces concerned had yet foreseen the need to do-so. The problem is made worse for solving the Ripper Murders today because all the people involved in them are now dead and so it is not possible to get any new evidence.

Personally, I think that the murders were probably unrelated and that they were carried out by the prostitute's pimps or perhaps gangs of men for whatever reasons seemed like good ones to them at the time. This may have simply been to punish them for whatever misdeeds the pimps or gangs considered them to have done, and/or also to frighten the other girls and keep them in line, or it may have been just because the people involved thought it was 'fun'. Life was very cheap back then for the poor in the sort of areas they frequented, and human nature being what it is, to some people, human life, (other than their own), is practically worthless. It may have been simply to steal money off the women to buy drink, and the murderer(s) may well have been already drunk when they committed the crimes. The point is that my speculation is worthless without evidence to back it up, and as the 'evidence' available is so confused and contradictory, my opinion isn't worth much. And unfortunately, the same goes for many of the writers who have written about the murders, both contemporary ones in the newspapers - which often amounted to little more than them reporting gossip, and later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.86.34 (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pinhead1978, 22 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I beleive it is beneficial for readers to add the following to external links http://www.jack-the-ripper-tours.com It is a walking tour that is both educational and fun managed by Ripping Yarns of all the Jack the Ripper murder Scenes. Pinhead1978 (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Decline as WP:SPAM. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Popular culture

I know this is a featured article and trivia section and such are not encouraged and i know that the article Jack the Ripper fiction exist but even so, why it was eliminated the "in popular culture" section?, i think like 3 years ago according to the talk section archives, does the Jack the Ripper fiction article cover that?, should the section be added again?, Should and article be created?. Zidane tribal (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. If it isn't worth placing in Jack the Ripper fiction, then it's probably cruft and doesn't belong on Wiki. Do you have something particular in mind that you are thinking you would like to add?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I had but, after going thru Jack the Ripper fiction is more than enough, i like "in popular culture" sections and articles, with small unimportant mentions in them, but that`s just me. Zidane tribal (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Carl Feigenbaum

I understand the case of the murders in America, and the above chap, being linked to the Ripper murders are weak; howeverhe does seem to have been made popular via the web and TV docs. Would it not be worthwild to add in a line naming him as/in connection with the American killings described? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

He has been given mention on the suspect page.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheers bro, must admit i have yet got around to reading that page :)82.8.192.142 (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1050403--british-ripper-expert-unmasks-face-of-suspect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.120.165 (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Further information.

I hope I am placing my thoughts in the correct place. The start of the paragraph below is incorrect, the content within is incorrect and much of what follows is incorrect. No-one knows how many if any of the Whitechapel murders can be connected to one killer, it is merely contemporary and modern supposition and opinion that has created the "Canonical Group", not any real evidence. The list of Jack the Ripper victims is generally believed to be Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catharine Eddowes and Mary Kelly. It is unclear how many were regular prostitutes, but it is clear that one of the 5 was not homeless, as was the suspected hunting ground for this mythical killer.

Martha Tabram is not part of the Canonical Group, she is a unsolved murder victim within the confines of Whitechapel/Spitalfields during the calendar year 1888, along with all the "Canonicals" and earlier and later victims, post 1888. Some 13 or 14 women are on that same list.

Mary Jane Kelly was drunk her last night on earth by the witness account of Mary Ann Cox, and like the other women, had a history of weakness for booze. The disposition of the parts cut from her and from inside her are incorrect in the submission below. Read the available data and you can discover what actually went where. I can tell you that she had a breast placed under her head as a start. There is no evidence that she was attacked with an axe, nor that one was used at all during her murder.

The only truly accurate statement that can be made concerning this Jack the Ripper fellow is that the name came from a letter addressed to the Central News before the 3rd Canonical murder and is in no way proven to have originated from any killer.

Best regards all. Michael W Richards (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a known fact of when the murders started and when they ended. The very first "Ripper oriented" murder was committed August 31st 1888, and the very last known murder was on November 9th 1888. There was 5 murders in total. Beginning with Martha Tabram and ending with Mary Jane Kelly.

Furthermore, not that I saw much information about it, the murder sequence was Martha Tabram(No age given), Mary Ann "Polly" Nichols(Age 44), Annie Chapman(Age 47), Elizabeth Stride(Age 45), Catherina Eddowes(Age 46), and Mary Jane Kelly(Age 25).

All known victims were all alcohol abusers, except for Mary Jane Kelly. Also, Mary Jane Kelly was the worst murder out of the five total prostitutes murdered. Her body was the only one that was brutally disembodied in an inside area. She was found on her bed in her house with a nightgown on. Her intestines were strewn around by her head, her throat was slit so bad that there was even slash marks on her vertebrae. Most of her organs and her breats were in piles beneath the bed and slabs of her own skin was on the nightstand above the bed. Jack also took part of her heart and it was shown that an axe was used in the murder.

I just feel that this article should be a little more in depth with things because when you go and look at the articles about John Wayne Gacy and Charles Manson there is in depth things about specific people that stood out in their murders. Even though Jack the Ripper has never been identified it only seems fair that the people he killed as well as the way they were murdered is shown. Gratned also, he only killed five people.

Source used: http://history.howstuffworks.com/european-history/jack-the-ripper2.htm

Dated: September 20th 2011, at 1:24 P.M. ~~Viridianna~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridianna (talk • contribs) 20:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

not sure your source is RS, and Martha Tabram is not universaly regarded as a victim (in fact thre are a lot os reasons for thinking she was not.Slatersteven (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Any information i have read be it High School, College, or even regular text book regards Martha Tabram as his very first murder due to how she was found. Intestines up by the shoulders, knees bent, missing entrails as well as missing reproductive organs. Classic Ripper to me after looking at how all the other women were found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridianna (talk • contribs) 22:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You are confused. Martha Tabram was not eviscerated and your description is wrong. Also, your "source" (which isn't a reliable source) does not include Tabram in the victim list. You also declare 5 victims but list 6 which is contradicting yourself. Which source that you read declares Tabram as a Ripper victim?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Maureen Johnson recently wrote a book called The Nme of the Star, which has a lot of jack the ripper in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGummyBearOverLord (talk • contribs) 04:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 22 October 2011

Media The Whitechapel Society is London's premier society for the study of Jack the Ripper. It is a worldwide membership organisation that hosts six meetings per year in London's East End plus an International Jack the Ripper Conference. Meetings feature guest speakers, presentations and book launches on the subject of Jack the Ripper. The Whitechapel Society publish six magazines per year, The Whitechapel Journal, which it sends to members worldwide. The Whitechapel Society is open to anyone over the age of 18 via their website, [2] 62.253.25.245 (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: not sufficiently encyclopaedic. Thanks for making the requested change easy by including a suggested text, but this reads like an advertisement, rather than any particular aspect of the JTR story. A more detailed explanation at WP:SOAP. Furthermore, it seems a little outside the "keep to the point" guideline on the "Writing better articles" page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

DNA, and still existing items

Of course there are claims that material is now too much contaminated. But nowadays lab technologies are much more reliable, that even 10 years ago. When and where was judged that there aren't chances? Probably 20-30 years ago, at start of using DNA methods. But nowadays why to judge this? There of course are better and worse DNA labs, but in this case why not to choose the best? Even if for e.g. some guy states that he is a grand-grand...son of Jack the Ripper we can check this. Most of typed persons also are lying in ground for about 100 years, so this is much more possible to get everything to known. Of course You can get also everything from police working at this case, to suspected persons. And probably families will agree for even family checking traces.

Please make insertion about this doubts, or if You are working as newspaper edition in work time, check this making interviews with labs - I known what I am writing. The cost of the whole operation probably will be covered by govt. (the truth) or even sponsors/newspapers/book writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.75.70.254 (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no surviving physical evidence on which to do tests, except the letters. None of the letters can be directly linked to the killer, and most experts think they were written by cranks not the actual murderer(s). DrKiernan (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong - but as far as I remember there at least bodies found at place of murder. They weren't burn it, and only 100 years make possible surviving material, etc. maybe even some finger traces weren't destroyed in some body parts, depending of burial method — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.75.70.254 (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hve you any idea how many peopel handeld the bodies?Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOT#FORUM, the talk page is to be used to discuss article changes, not to talk idly about the topic and speculate on methodology. Kyteto (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Alice Walsh: a Ripper victim?

There's been some talk about deleting a page for a New York prostitute that may or may not have been a victim of Jack the Ripper. THere hasn't been any real recent mentions of her as a victim, but the papers of the day were quick to comment that she could've been a victim. I've got the following paragraph written up, so if anyone wants to go over it and potentially add it to the "alleged victims" category, feel free.

Alice Walsh, a prostitute known to frequent Thompson Street in New York City, New York, was found unconscious and mutilated in the hallway of a tenement house on April 21, 1895. She was taken to St. Vincent's Hospital where she died several hours later. Walsh died of a stab wound that ran from “the base of the abdomen and upward to the hip” said to have been inflicted by a “strong hand” with a sharp knife that was at least 5 inches long. Three local men were investigated and cleared of the murder, but newspapers of the day voiced theories that she was a victim of Jack the Ripper.

references

Do yuo have a suorce saying this was a ripper killing?Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

(agreeing with Slatersteven)...a modern source that is.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• There's multiple papers from the day that theorized that she was a Ripper killing, but no modern sources that I'd consider official. There's some Jack the Ripper themed sites that mention her, such as this one and this one, but I'm not sure of what else there is out there. The blog reviews a documentary, but I haven't seen it so I'm not sure if Walsh is mentioned in the documentary at all. There are a few more links under an alternate last name spelling of "Welsh", [3], but not anything that would be considered beyond a doubt reliable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that the article be deleted outright as non-notable and would not recommend leaving a redirect because it is misleading. I did some looking but didn't come up with anything. Good effort by the way. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I figured that I'd ask before adding it because I just couldn't help but feel that there just wasn't enough to warrant adding it to the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

O agree there is not enough here to warrent a mention. I also note (headline asside) that all oif the material about this says that the killing reembled or was similar to the ripper, nit that they were carried out by the ripper.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

There was a suspect called dr T who moved to America and the murders in london stopped after that jack day killed them!

Vague description of times of "canonical" murders

We are told that "The canonical five murders were perpetrated at night, on or close to a weekend, and either at the end of a month or a week or so after." This seems pretty vague.

• 'Perpetrated at night' - This could cover almost half of any day.
• 'on or close to a week-end' - This may be interpreted as Thursday night to Tuesday morning, and in fact, only disqualifies Wednesday.
• 'at the end of a month or a week or so after' - The murders on the 30th and 9th (earliest and latest date-of-month wise) cover 10 days, a whole 3rd of a month.

Shouldn't vague descriptions like these be avoided on Wikipedia? MrZoolook (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Are these statments sourced or are the OR?Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

They are (The Ultimate Ripper Sourcebook - about half the article is citing that by the looks), but my point was that these statements cover a large enough time (about 10% of total - 6 days in a week, 10 days in a month, approx 8 hours a day) that I just don't see the merit of their inclusion. MrZoolook (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The murders were committed between 1 a.m. and dawn (5–6 hours); from Friday morning to Sunday morning (48 hours); on the 30th, 31st, 8th and 9th (4 days). As these details are spread out across four paragraphs, I think it's worth spelling out the pattern of timings in a summarising sentence. Otherwise, the pattern is not obvious. Also, the sentence clarifies that Kelly was killed at night and then discovered in the morning. DrKiernan (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"a summarising statement" - I must be reading more into it then others. To me, it comes over as some kind of "remarkable facts about the case" statement, but one with decidedly average facts covering a huge number of killings not relevant to this case. Regardless, the wording of "at the end of a month or a week or so after" does cover 7 dates (1st - 7th) not relevant to the case. It just reads to me as some kind of assertion that, had he not been stopped and assuming he carried on killing, that ALL of them would be committed within those dates. 2 months and 4 killings is hardly enough to come to that conclusion. MrZoolook (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

He was a freemason,whose murders resembled Masonic rituals

this is true,why this is not mention?most belive know and belive that.he left masonic symbols over victims. (sorry my english) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pentagonshark666 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If you find a credible source, it can be put in. MrZoolook (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a well known theory, but has also be largley discredited.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Then that's what should be said in the entry; i.e. "A well-known but largely discredited theory... masonic... etc. etc." Source would be preferable, but what about a citation needed tag? - Atfyfe (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 October 2012

212.219.229.252 (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC) jack day killed everyone in london three blocks down from ten downing street then moved to a little town called Machynlleth.

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for vandalism.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a joke about april Jones in incredibly bad taste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.59.117 (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Letters

The tone of the section is slightly misleading. When the "Dear Boss" and "Saucy Jacky" letters are introduced, the discussion about the authenticity makes it seem like those letters are believed to be authentic. I think it would be better to make it abundantly clear that these are confirmed hoaxes right after introducing them, instead of waiting till the last paragraph of the section. Βαll (talk) 07:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Spiro (2011)

I accepted this edit. Although the source isn't currently used, I figured it could be and I didn't want to overstep the role of the reviewer. That said, the adding IP, 27.99.103.173, has also added this book to a number of other Ripper-related articles. This could be considered spamming. Can someone familiar with the Jack the Ripper as a topic have a look please?

Thanks,

Yaris678 (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that it adds anything. As far as I know, this book is no more distinguished or notable than the hundreds of other books on the Ripper. With the remaining books listed in the section, there is a clear criterion for inclusion: they are used as a reference. DrKiernan (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite to discuss. I am quite familiar with the topic of Jack the Ripper. I am adding this reference as it has made a notable contribution to the subject with new historical research based on further documentary sources. It features a foreword by respected Ripper author Stewart P. Evans (also noted in references) and is published by a reputable academic library publisher.

Spiro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.99.97.220 (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you've signed yourself as Spiro indicates that you are the author attempting to promote your own book. Wikipedia frowns upon self-promoting edits. See WP:SPAM. DrKiernan (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I am simply trying to add recent information of a historical nature useful for readers on the subject in good faith. I assume that Wikipedia welcomes such well-meaning additions to the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.99.97.220 (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It might not look like spam to you, but that's what it looks like to everyone else. If you are REALLY REALLY careful, you can contribute to Wikipedia. I would recommend the following:

1. Create yourself an account.
2. On your user page, declare who you are. That way if your identity becomes clear later people won't suspect you of having tried to be underhand.
3. Read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
4. If your book has new information on Jack the Ripper then you can add it to this article or related articles on Wikipedia, but follow what it says at WP:SELFCITE.

Yaris678 (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Above all, try adding some content to the article, rather than just the name of a book. Is there something that the article is missing? Yaris678 (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The addition to the article of the material on Jack the Ripper as a subversive seems undue weight to me. This is not a well-known theory or one mentioned in a wide variety of sources. As made clear in the "Suspects" section there are dozens of theories. I see no reason to suspect that this one is more notable than the masonic conspiracy (excluded from the article), or the many notable figures that have been thrown into the mix like Lewis Carroll (excluded from the article) or Oscar Wilde (excluded from the article). It is at best recentism. It is at worst yet another crackpot idea. Throwing Parnell and the Irish nationalists in with the murder of London prostitutes is no more convincing than throwing in Wilde or Carroll. DrKiernan (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Since the author of this book keeps trying to add it via various IP-adresses I have requested temporary page protection for this article. The various IPs should also have been blocked for violation of WP:3RR. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I wish to add and contribute the following sentence to this article under the "Legacy" section because it is documented, relevant and significant to the subject of Jack the Ripper:

"Lately however, Metropolitan Police Special Branch documentation has confirmed the investigation of Jack the Ripper as a subversive indicating another line of police inquiry contrary to current historical understanding."

The references that should also be added that support the existence and appraisal of the Special Branch files on the Whitechapel Murders are:

1. Clutterbuck, Lindsay (2002). An Accident of History? The Evolution of Counter Terrorism Methodology in the Metropolitan Police from 1829 to 1901, with Particular Reference to the Influence of Extreme Irish Nationalist Activity. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Portsmouth.

2. Dimolianis, Spiro (2011). Jack The Ripper & Black Magic: Victorian Conspiracy Theories, Secret Societies & the Supernatural Mystique of the Whitechapel Murders. McFarland & Co. ISBN 978-0-7864-4547-9

The Metropolitan Police Special Branch files relevant to Jack the Ripper were also brought to the attention of scholars in one of the listed references:

Evans, Stewart P.; Rumbelow, Donald (2006). Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing. ISBN 0-7509-4228-2

Thank you WP:BOLD

27.99.101.235 (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This is block evasion (for edit warring), and it is occurring on the Jack suspects page as well. Am I wrong? Can one just shift IPs to avoid an EW block? Doc talk 12:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Editors are not supposed to, no. It's block evasion. DrKiernan (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This is clearly a case of block evasion. On the plus side, the evading editor (who I will assume is Spiro) is no longer pursuing an edit war. In fact this change looks like an improvement to me and was achieved by Spiro adding info and then it being trimmed by DrKiernan. This looks like the wiki process working as it should.

I think people should proceed as follows.

1. Spiro should give editing a rest until the block on 27.99.97.220 expires. This is currently scheduled for 02:48 GMT on 6 March 2013 but could get extended if any further attempts at block evasion occur.
2. Spiro should create an account, declare identity on the user page etc. as I stated above. This will show a degree of good faith.
3. The related pages should have the semi protection removed.
4. Editing should proceed as per this example mentioned above. i.e. Spiro should add stuff and accept when other users trim it back.
5. Hopefully, eventually, Spiro will get an idea of what sort of edit is OK and less trimming will be required.

Yaris678 (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The Metropolitan Police files are already covered in the article. You appear to be conflating the police investigation into Irish political violence with a separate investigation into the murders. DrKiernan (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Your previous responses do not stand up to scrutiny as you have consistently demonstrated a denial of the facts and sources placed before you.

Let us take one example; you interpret and surmise that "contrary to current historical understanding" is referring solely to your opinion when it does not. You remain "unconvinced that this book is a seminal game-changer" when the issue is the contribution of documented facts for all readers to decide. At least DrKiernan admits that it "may be notable if it becomes the standard interpretation in preference to a previous belief, or a significant alternative", judging by his own personal standards what should and should not be presented to the general public as knowledge. And to debate the history on this talk page, for which I believe it was not intended.

I stand by my request to have the details as referenced included in this article on Jack the Ripper, not to debate its merits or otherwise, as it has already been peer-reviewed with Dr. Lindsay Clutterbuck's Ph.D Thesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.99.110.80 (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we know you stand by your "request": you've been edit warring it in for some time. Don't start doing that again, as you are guaranteed to lose most support for your little cause using that tactic. Discuss... Doc talk 10:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed the "Doc" notice that this may be a sock puppet? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doc9871 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.99.110.80 (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I noticed it: it put it up there myself. It's a "joke", usually lost on those who haven't stuck around as long as me. Try again. Doc talk 10:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

@IP27......What you are doing here has all the signs of wikilawyering....please refrain from making veiled ad hominem attacks. Lectonar (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm pleased to hear this isn't a Kangaroo Court. Indeed, let's share a "joke" and have unveiled discussion. In the end it's all towards a good cause; resolution of the issue at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.99.110.80 (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC) 27.99.110.80 (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop restoring the edit request. Per Wikipedia:Edit requests#Procedure, there must be consensus for the edit before the request is made. The guidance reads in part that requests should only be either uncontroversial improvements or already supported by a consensus of editors. Given the discussion and the reasons outlined above, if anything consensus is against inclusion. For consensus to change, a more convincing case needs to be made. DrKiernan (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright, here is the sentence proposed for inclusion again. How do you think it should read?

"Lately however, Metropolitan Police Special Branch documentation has confirmed the investigation of Jack the Ripper as a subversive indicating another line of police inquiry contrary to current historical understanding." 27.99.110.80 (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Try again, maybe "in Spiro's recent book it was claimed that Special Branch documentation has confirmed the investigation of Jack the Ripper as a subversive", which is not new by the way.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe I wrote it as quoted and I am aware it is not new. That is why I used the words, "documentation has confirmed" i.e. has confirmed traditional suspicions that another line of police inquiry had occurred on the case. It was an internal investigation within a department of Scotland Yard permanently established in early 1887 (according to Police Orders) that functioned separately due to undisclosed funding, unlike the Metropolitan Police. In it's early stages contrary to its later functions, it also investigated cases of serial murder; the Dr. Cream Lambeth poisoning murders and Whitechapel murders being clear examples. The first written mention of Special Branch involvement with Jack the Ripper occurred in the 1956 book by Douglas G. Browne, The Rise of Scotland Yard: A History of the Metropolitan Police. London: Harrap, which was based on access to the then closed Scotland Yard files.27.99.110.80 (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC) {{helpme}}

Don't restore this again, get a consensus first. If you restore this again, you may be blocked for disruption and not following procedure. Helpme is not a replacement for consensus. gwickwire^talk_editing 22:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The IP user has asked for help, (perhaps not the correct way, but...) so here goes. You have earlier identified yourself as the author of the work in question. Please refer to wikipedia:Conflict of interest. unfortunately your single purpose editing is leading other editors to wonder whether you are trying to improve Wikipedia, or just boost sales of your book, and that is what is causing your problem. Getting your ideas added to wikipedia is a simple two step process: step 1 is have your work published, so you have already done the hard part. step 2 is easy, sit back, have a coffee, and be patient. Wikipedians are everywhere, and we sometimes buy and read real books too. If your work belongs in wikipedia, one of your readers will soon add it, and if not, then you might have to accept that it does not belong here.--IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for trying but to the presumption that I am not here to improve the encyclopedia, I can only repeat what was said previously. No, I am simply trying to add recent information of a historical nature useful for readers on the subject in good faith. I assume that Wikipedia welcomes such well-meaning additions to the site.27.99.107.76 (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to include additional information

Note: 3 noticeboards have been asked to comment COI, OR and RS

Disclosure

Note the IP editor involved has volunteered to identify himself in this public forum. - as seen here.

I am assisting a new editor per his {{Helpme}} request as seen here. I am just presenting the information, with full disclosure and a good faith second attempt in mind for a new editor. I have no opinion on the matter at hand - be it by way of credibility or reliability on the information presented. --Moxy (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Intro to problem

As seen above there was a debate over the fact an IP user (self identified as Spiro Dimolianis an investigative journalist, crime historian, and scriptwriter who graduated from Edith Cowan University) was adding what some may describe as a new train of thought to the article by means of a book that he published a few years ago. This lead to 2 problems, firstly about original research and secondly a conflict of interest. The IP user (Spiro Dimolianis) was subsequently block for edit waring. At this point I got involved and his block was reverted because of his good faith intentions to talk this out. So lets start this process all over again looking at the book its self and the new sources that Spiro has presented on his talk page to me. Lets evaluate the credibility and authors credentials of these new source and the original book presented.Moxy (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed revised text

Another line of police inquiry on Jack the Ripper has recently emerged with discovery of Special Branch index books which indicate an internal Scotland Yard investigation contrary to historical understanding

This is not the text I had agreed to. The proposed new text that was agreed to is:

• "Another line of police inquiry on Jack the Ripper has recently emerged with discovery of Special Branch index books which indicate an internal Scotland Yard investigation."<ref>See below</ref>

Revisions are sought from constructive editors. Thanks 27.99.99.148 (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake on the text - my apologies.Moxy (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for that, and I appreciate your time on this matter. 27.99.99.148 (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources for the statement

(Original book that caused the debate in the first place)

• Spiro Dimolianis (5 August 2011). Jack the Ripper and Black Magic: Victorian Conspiracy Theories, Secret Societies and the Supernatural Mystique of the Whitechapel Murders. McFarland. ISBN 978-0-7864-4547-9. Chapter 7 - "Whitechapel Secret Service"

A review of the book By forensic psychologist Katherine Ramsland here see half way down the page.

A second review of the book by Neale Barnholden a PhD Student at the University of Alberta (Faculty of Arts - Department of English and Film Studies) here -

The book was foreword by Stewart P. Evans as seen here.

Secondary sources now being presented

• A Ph.D. Thesis - Clutterbuck, Lindsay (2002). An Accident of History? The Evolution of Counter Terrorism Methodology in the Metropolitan Police from 1829 to 1901, with Particular Reference to the Influence of Extreme Irish Nationalist Activity. - page 264 copy here

There is further support for this here - Note this source is in the article already.

• Evans, Stewart P.; Rumbelow, Donald (2006). Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing. ISBN 0-7509-4228-2 - pp. 241-242 - Note this source is in the article already.

Comments by previously involved editors

IIRC, the index books were recently released to the public after their existence (in the private police archive) were revealed by Clutterbuck (who is a serving police officer) and someone went to court to get them. (This all happened some time ago and I forget the details.) The investigation is already covered in the article. I'm still not clear on what the proposed addition to the article is trying to tell us. DrKiernan (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If we were to add back from the above debated text "...contrary to historical understanding" is this more clear?Moxy (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The proposed addition refers to those details you are obviously aware of but that are missing from the article. This aspect of the investigation is not covered in the article. 27.99.99.148 (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a whole section on the police investigation already. The surviving police files are already mentioned. DrKiernan (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Spiro should rewrite the proposed text - to be more clear on the matter his trying to put forth. (have to go now - be back later)Moxy (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The section on the police investigation is missing the addition under discussion.27.99.99.148 (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Has any source ever contradicted the idea that there was no internal investigation by the police? Is this in fact counter to what Ripperlogy has always claimed?Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter. What is relevant is that the proposed edit is based on documented fact and is missing from the article.27.99.99.148 (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course it mattes, because otherwise it is saying something that is not true.Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You now appear to be saying that the proposed edit is not true. Perhaps you may have some evidence to support that conclusion. 27.99.99.148 (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As no one has ever said there was no internal Scotland yard investigation it is not true that this contradicts any previous Ripperology. So you proposed edit contains something that is not true. How ever your new proposal is better, but what was the nature of the internal investigation (and is it in fact new information, it seems that the Special Branch investigation is well known about)?.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC).

Indeed, the information is well established and documented. But is omitted from the Wikipedia article on Jack the Ripper, to which it relates. That is my point and the reason for my edit, that it should be included to improve the article. I have not seen any objection here that is backed by any citation or evidence, only opinions and beliefs. When I read the article I do not see it mentioned there, it is missing, it has not been included even briefly. Yet the information has been published based on Scotland Yard official files since 1956 and made further available into the public domain from 2002.

I am not here to discuss the subject, I have better things to do. I am here to make an edit that I am entitled to propose based on well established sources. 27.99.100.254 (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussing the subject is how we do things on Wikipedia, and if you are not willing to do that you do not belong here. You are entitled to make proposals, and we are entitled to discus them. The text you propose is a non sequitur that does not provide any (useful or otherwise) information. Do I really have to explain to someone who is a writer how to write text so it included relevant and salient information?Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

No, not all, I enjoy the subject you misunderstand. Apart from my time taken elsewhere like everyone else, I was adhering to the rule at the top of the talk page; "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."

I have written and proposed the revised edit with the help of Moxy, put up for discussion and revision if need be. I prefer that we now have discussion on that towards adding the additional information missing from the article.

If my request is constantly refused simply because some do not want the addition after endless discussion, that leaves no option but to take this to mediation. I don't mind discussing it but it now seems after nearly two weeks that you and DrKiernan are resistant to the addition for reasons not clear or based on any substance.

I tried making the edit myself two weeks ago leaving it per Wikipedia guidelines for revisions but after protracted talk here, the situation seems stalled.27.99.102.172 (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, lets give you some examples of the problem with your text. Was Scotland yard being investigates by special branch, was special branch being investigated by Scotland yard, was Scotland yard investigating Scotland yard. Your text does not make any of those questions clear (and this is just one, if many, omissions).Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Wikipedians new to the debate

• We currently do not mention internal Scotland Yard investigations. They could well be added to the Investigation section, but I'd say the Evans and Rumbelow book on Scotland Yard investigations would be a much better source for that topic than Dimolianis' book on black magic and secret societies. Some context on why Scotland Yard investigated internally might help. Huon (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• I saw the note at WP:COIN. I find the proposed new text confusing. I don't know what the new line of inquiry is and I don't know whether it's the line of inquiry or the fact of the internal investigation that is supposed to be contrary to history.
  As for the WP:SELFCITE issue, it is often best to let others add your book (or another source that seems better but covers the same material), but it's not technically "wiki-illegal" to do it yourself—once. [[WP:Edit warring to keep your book cited is always wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Continuation and responses to Wikipedians new to the Debate

@Huon I really have been avoiding discussing the subject matter because at the top of this page I read, "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." I agree with that because the proposed edit forms a part that is missing from the article's subject and to discuss it means to further cite a work that I happened to have authored. But your questions deserve I think a reasonable answer.

The Evans and Rumbelow book makes only a mention (yes it is a very good source on the police investigation), as does the Clutterbuck, but only does the Dimolianis research the subject in a lengthy chapter and it is the only work to do so. Mr. Evans wrote the foreword. I have included it because it has become the best source for the context and why for the Special Branch investigation of Jack the Ripper. That back story cannot be summarised in one sentence nor can talk on the subject matter here suffice to inform editors who want to be involved in discussing the proposed edit.

If the word 'internal' does not sound suitable to you, then please suggest a revision to the proposed edit to improve the article.27.99.99.148 (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

@Whatamadoing The proposed new text is confusing because it is not the one I had agreed to. It has changed, not sure why. The proposed new text is:

"Another line of police inquiry on Jack the Ripper has recently emerged with discovery of Special Branch index books which indicate an internal Scotland Yard investigation."

If that is not suitable, perhaps you might suggest a revision so that we can move forward in improving the article.27.99.99.148 (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Your admission above that "it is the only work" on this topic confirms that the material is not of sufficiently general relevance to go into this article. DrKiernan (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent. I have said it is the only work to research the topic fully. It is sufficiently of general relevance now because, as you know, the details are in the public domain. They are also referenced sufficiently to warrant inclusion on the police investigation of Jack the Ripper. The reference in the article to "surviving police files" is twenty years old by Dr. Canter and much has emerged since, with the Special Branch index books the most significant.27.99.99.148 (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't intend to misrepresent. In fact, my original draft of my post said "in depth" but obviously you couldn't see that because I did not post it. Index books are "surviving police files". There is nothing new in what you want to add, and the fact that you refuse to discuss it in any depth is indicative that it has no depth. DrKiernan (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

@DrKiernan Not only do you misrepresent to win an argument, but also edit out responses to other editors to break the flow of this talk page justifying it by stating you are, "splitting off discussion out of inappropriate section". What a nasty piece of work you are! I see no neutrality on your part demonstrated here at all, nor good will.27.99.99.148 (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to restore your comments to the original flow, then do so. DrKiernan (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. What I wish to restore is progress towards some resolution in an edit that appeals to all. We were able to deal effortlessly with the previous one, I am not here to waste my time or yours. Let's get this done with a short, concise sentence and let it rest. I am prepared to discuss the issues with you in some depth to clarify but not to obfuscate to the point of no return. If that is acceptable to you we can proceed.27.99.99.148 (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Further continuation, as Spiro Dimolianis/IP editor made a recent edit that was reverted due to a lack of consensus

The edit: Enquiries were also conducted by the Metropolitan Police Special Branch headed by Detective Chief Inspector John Littlechild. Was made and reverted. First, enquiries were made by the Metropolitan Police Special Branch of whom? Second, while one should not have general talk about improving an article, one most certainly can have specialized talk on new points that diverge from the prior consensus. Perhaps additions can be added here and considered, rather than this turning into an edit war that would result in one's IP being blocked. Remember, the greater the claim, the greater the burden of specific evidence from secondary sources. I'm only coming in as one uninvolved in the article after seeing the reverts over time in order to attempt to generate a clearer consensus. I am far from a Ripper aficionado or expert, from my own perspective, all parties concerned are long dead and the story is only one of historic interest concerning both police investigative methods of the time and the spread of mass hysteria at the time.Wzrd1 (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

cult

Some considered jack the ripper a god of many others. There was evan a cult for jack the ripper that kidnapped women who so happend to be out at night and sacrificed them to jack the ripper. Althoug this may seem obsured there are many people who still worship this so called god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.119.131 (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting claims that have no citation. Hence, could not be incorporated into the article.Wzrd1 (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Canonical five?

Hi everyone,

I was wondering, does the term 'canonical five' originate here on Wikipedia? Because the word canonical isn't the same as "historical" or "official". I went through the archives, but I couldn't find any answers. --Soetermans. T / C 14:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It's the standard term used by the sources. DrKiernan (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Than it's okay! --Soetermans. T / C 15:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Image sizes

We have WP:IMGSIZE for a reason. The exaggerated sizes overwhelm the text on my screen setting. Policy says we let people set their own thumbnail sizes. If readers want to see the graphics big they can click on them. --John (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing in that guideline that says images should be too small to see and that they should only be seen clearly when clicked on. We're not using exaggerated sizes except for the map. The defaults are used everywhere else as recommended. DrKiernan (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

No offence, but if you literally can't see them, you need to get your eyes checked. We use the "upright" tag on upright images, unless there is a good reason not to. Is there? If not, I'll pop them back to compliance. Especially on a FA, it's important to follow MoS. --John (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The article is MoS compliant. There is no requirement to use upright. DrKiernan (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The Ripper mystery possibly solved?

The pretty fresh news appeared. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/24/jack-the-ripper-solved-investigation-german-sailor_n_3981837.html Maybe someone can write about it, include it in the article about the possibility of the mystery being solved. Boky (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Another story that comes along every couple of years. A "ripperologist" examines the "evidence" and comes up with a new theory. No hard evidence, only theories.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

We should add this if and when it is accepted by the scholarly mainstream, not immediately after publication in HuffPo. Even mentioning it as a valid alternative theory would require more than a single proponent, I'd say. Huon (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Another case built entirely around circumstantial evidence. When will this falsification of history end, one wonders.

Ordessa (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Identity revealed?

Saw in Whitechapel: In Jack the Ripper's footsteps: They said that he's in the 30's, name is George Hutchinson. --78.156.109.166 (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

hardly new, this has been floating around for about a decade at least.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

So, many sources have come up with ideas as for his identity? I heard in "EN SKØR SKØR VERDEN" (danish version of Weekly World News) about some people who know everything about JtR. Except who he really was! How do we know that Whitechapel is telling the truth?--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't, so not are how you think this information improves the article.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Psychology behind the murders...

    "I think he has very toughest view about women and sex.  He may be suffered from sexual harashment within his childhood by any other woman.  He has definetly surgerical knowledge.  The anger in his mind about society, women may cause that type of serial killings from him.

But it is not definetely we can draw such type of reason. We should made more investigation about his childhood to solve the murders, he done."

Siddharth Rokade.(India) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.249.251.34 (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

Daily Mail source saying DNA caught the guy

Don't know how accurate it is but here is the source for people who edit this article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 September 2014

There seems to be an error in the info box: "5 canonical" is repeated after the date as well as the number of victims, the former of which I assume to be a mistake.Machdelu (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Machdelu (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that this is an error. The five canonical murders occur in 1888 and by listing it this way we can avoid ambiguity.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

When I first read it, it seemed that it meant that the killings occurred in year 5 or year 1885, according to the canon. (Assuming parallel structure with the above "Victims...Unknown (5 Canonical)".) I feel that changing it to read "(5 canonical killings)" or something else could be done to avoid this ambiguity—unless I happen to be the only one who makes this mistake.Machdelu (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be "1888–91? (1888 canonical)"? DrKiernan (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Even better.Machdelu (talk) 13:22, 9 September 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." [4]

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)

BBC is- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29106437Kingslove2013 (talk) 13:08, 8 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's no fun in a solved mystery. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 09:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

DrKiernan, since you seem to be addressing me, I made it clear that my concern lies with the editing that will be done when protection is removed. I see no need to comment on the page's current state. Akld guy (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

All the DNA evidence proves is that Kosminsky had sexual relations with one of the victims of JTR. It would be stronger evidence if the woman weren't a prostitute, but as it is this proves very little.--Ordessa (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The DNA evidence doesn't even prove that much. If the claim withstands peer review, it proves that someone with the same mtDNA as Kosminski and someone with the same mtDNA as Eddowes came in contact with the shawl at some point in the last 125 years and it doesn't even have to have been at the same time. Edward321 (talk) 22:54, 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)

I suggest changing the article to read,

In September 2014, author Russell Edwards claimed to have exposed the serial killer's true identity using DNA evidence. His book and DNA evidence which have not yet been peer reviewed purport Jack the Ripper to be 23-year-old Polish immigrant Aaron Kosminski.

Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree. The DNA evidence is a significant part of the story and cannot be ignored. The conclusion should be left entirely open a Proxima Centauri has it but we need to note the existence of the claim itself. This story will develop over time and WP can reflect that at leisure as it unfolds. As it stands, this article now conflicts with the Aaron Kosminski article, which reports the DNA evidence, so, whatever we do we need to reconcile the two articles. Ex nihil ^(talk) 09:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I see no conflict. DrKiernan (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It's now been shown that the shawl was in the same room as two of Eddowes' descendants in 2007 [5] so the shawl is obviously going to have their DNA on it. Donald Rumbelow (a Ripper expert) and Peter Gill, who is the mitochondrial DNA expert who identified the Romanov bodies and disproved Anna Anderson, both now say the shawl is of dubious provenance and that it is known to have been handled multiple times by people who could have shared the DNA profiles. DrKiernan (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

As I have said before, this is not the first time a "bulletproof" theory has been proposed and it is not even the first time mitochrondrial DNA evidence has been used. This claim does not belong on the page at all. There is nothing especially noteworthy about it except that it happened recently. Shii (tock) 16:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The DNA test is not the one used by law enforcement which has a high degree of reliability. It is mtDNA and it has a low degree of reliability when trying to establish a connection between person A and his/her ancestor or descendant. In this case, the DNA results could be one of thousands who also match the same haplogroup. To compound the issue, they are using a female descendant of his sister and aren't revealing how she is descended. If her descent is matrilineal, and his sister is a full sister or shares the same mother, they share the same mtDNA haplogroup, but so do an estimated 7,000 other people living in the area during this time. Not the smoking gun by any stretch of the imagination. Her DNA has roughly half the number of potential matches because it was less common. Robert Johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.143.255.36 (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The problems with the Kosminsky DNA supposed conclusion

The following are the problems with the Aaron Kosminsky supposed conclusion:

• Possibly fake important section of Video: The video section showing the test in the lab, is actually the same section showing the same article of cloth, from a 2011 documentary video by Discovery Channel (implicating Deeming as the main suspect), where the laboratory concluded that the DNA evidence from this specimen could not be processed to completion.
• Book promotion: The video itself has been produced together with the promotion of Edwards' book. Not a point for its reliability. (And remember the 1421 Chinese theory)
• Contamination: A Smithsonian article brings several problems with the conclusion to light, the most important of those is that the family of Aaron Kosminsky, as well as many others, where in the room with the cloth (in 2007), without any protection, very possibly contaminating it.

Here's the Smithsonian article: Case Solved on Jack the Ripper? Not So Fast An author and a scientist claim to have proven the identity of the notorious 19th century killer, but others say the evidence is lacking. Rachel Nuwer, September 8, 2014.

Other problems mentioned in the Smithsonian article:

• Non anonymous: When doing DNA tests, they are to be done under controlled conditions, anonymously, without the staff knowing who or what they are testing, so that the results are not unintentionally (or intentionally) skewed. There is evidence that this has not been done. (Reminiscent of the Benveniste homeopathy "water memory" fad)
• Daily Mail chosen source of publication: Posted first in the Daily Mail - an 'extremely non-scientific paper' (as quoted by various scientists and science reporters), creates in and of itself heavy doubts as to the scientific authenticity of this research
• No updates from any other sources: All other news outlets have been only repeating the information from the daily mail, or directly from Edwards, but with no new information. - Continuing the doubts raised by the publication at the daily mail.
• Mitochondrial DNA: The reported method testing of Mitochondrial DNA, by definition may not have such conclusive results as depicted
• Not preserved The surprisingly useful evidence from a non preserved article never treated or kept in an environment according to any known methods of preservation - is doubtful.
• Insincerity proven by lack of Peer Review The failure to peer review the results is itself an indication of the insincerity of the scientific process.
• Aaron's first name - There is no record of Kosminsky's first name, and the connection to Aaron Kosminsky in particular at this Insane Asylum is only circumstantial. There is no official police record of him seriously being considered as a suspect!
• DNA Source - What part of the body were the samples taken from? Was it semen (in which case there is no Mitochondrion and therefore no mitochondrial DNA) or was it blood (in which case it would be easier to get contaminated, although even if it has supposedly been taken from semen, contamination from other DNA is definitely still possible).

-- Myself a Jew, but not a lunatic, and never treated for insanity פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 04:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I edited my remark and cut it in two. The next subsection is about the buzz around the alleged finding, and not about that finding itself. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Another reason for doubting the Kosminsky finding, is that Aaron Kosminsky was in the insane asylum during some of the murders, the reason for postulating that it was David Cohen and not Kosminsky, referred to as the crazy Jew in Anderson's alleged letter.

Conspiracy theories and antisemitism

Also, add to all these, that the heavy layer of conspiracy theories (such as a theory that the murderer was known, but the knowledge was suppressed by the police, by Freemasons, or by the Windsor palace) and especially the antisemitism raised around the case even then, as well as now, all this adds up to the possibility that this is another "public trial" not based on science.

The possible antisemitism that is already being raised (with headlines like: "Jew the Ripper. DNA proves Kike Kosminsky Was the Most Infamous Serial Killer of All") is in accordance with the Goulston Street graffito - writing on the wall, which seemed to implicate a Jew writing it: "The Juwes [sic] are the men that will not be blamed for nothing", but in fact according to Martin Fido (the man who discovered Aaron Kosminsky), the graffito was written according to the Cockney accent and meant that the writer was actually angry with Jews, while he himself was not one.

The antisemitism will also have to do with the theory that Jewish Joseph Lawende one of the few witnesses who stepped forward to say he possibly saw the ripper, together with his two Jewish friends, were reluctant to name Kosminsky as the actual culprit, although Kosminsky was known to be insane. This, according to the theorists, because he was a Jew, who would not implicate a fellow Jew even if he was a serial murderer. According to Fido, this was written by the chief of police Anderson. But most "Ripperologists" including Fido himself reject this quote, and say it most probably was never written nor said by Anderson. The facts of course point to the exact opposite, and internal documentation point to the fact that Lawende was thought of as a credible witness.

Furthermore the killing of a boy in connection with the Whitechappel killings, could be and will most probably be brought up in association with the blood libels throughout the ages (and recently by a Hamas leader, who claimed on CNN that he was "only repeating what the Church says") that Jews killed Christian children in order to bake Matza bread for Passover with their blood.

So beware of adoption of this theory, regardless of its scientific merit.

As a final note, it should be noted that for the theory to be correct, Edwards must have had the families consent. And as descendants of the Kosminsky family, they would be subject to the same antisemitic abuse that some of the public may hurl at all Jews. -- Myself a Jew, but not a lunatic, and never treated for insanity פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 04:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes... but how does this get "anti-semitic"? Seriously? You had me with some solid arguments until the end. Who on this site would use an article supposedly titled "Jew the Ripper. DNA proves Kike Kosminsky Was the Most Infamous Serial Killer of All" as a reliable source? Really? Doc talk 05:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The question is, with this now trending on Twitter and getting recognition, should we at least make mention of the article, clearly mentioning that this is merely an initial claim without any peer review? It is certainly interesting, and I'm sure that in the coming months we will see scientific literature either embracing the position or rejecting it. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's the question. Because the "now" supposed Ripper is named "Kominsky", there is an anti-semitic agenda... anywhere? Where and on whose part? The source? Blood fucking libel has anything to do with this at all? What if it was a Irish suspect? We should just know that there's an intrinsic anti-Irish element at work? What am I missing here? I see Pashute making ridiculous accusations after an otherwise excellent analysis. Wrong conclusion? Oh, very much yes. Doc talk 08:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Antisemitism taking part in this is not my conclusion of the analysis, but rather an extra warning to be noted, in addition to, and only after my conclusion that the signs point to the "Kosminsky" information being unreliable:

In the first part I analyzed the various signs that the Kosminsky "finding" is probably not scientifically sound.

• Then I noted IN AN EXTRA SECTION discussing not the finding but the buzz around it, that the way the word was spread on the web was full of sometimes hints but mostly very explicit antisemitic remarks. This included even some Israeli papers, especially ones that are usually critical of the Israeli government and of the Jewish religion, that wrote: "Jack the Ripper is one of ours" or similar titles.

I brought the title "Jew the Ripper. DNA proves Kike Kosminsky Was the Most Infamous Serial Killer of All", the title of an online discussion, definitely NOT as a "reliable source" to be used by anyone, but at the same time definitely yes an existing line similar to that used on many "unreliable" postings. I brought it in order to show that this is the kind of rhetoric that is going around, and to warn, that regardless of the the validity of the murderer's identification, the arguments around the topic are bound to be full of conspiracy theories and antisemitism for the following reasons:

I analyzed and showed that the Whitechappel murder investigation has been involved with antisemitism from the onset two hundred years ago, and still is today. The possible involvement of Jews in the case is in several fields:

• Jewish suspect(s) - who's name was not written in any official record. This includes David Cohen, John Pizer, Carl Feigenbaum, Joseph Silver, and some of the others.
• Jewish witness(es) - who perhaps would not point to the murderer although they identified him, or, where actually themselves the suspect (one of them being a butcher)
• The graffiti

- pointing to something to do with the Jews - although actually more likely to point to a non-Jew if the murderer actually wrote it.

• The coverup - erasing the graffiti, not listing the suspect's name... explained as actions to counter unbased antisemitism, but which raise even more of the same)
• The name Jack - if it is actually from the murderer - but only one ear lobe was actually cut, and in 2012 the BBC found that the letter has been 'lost' and the second letter was found to be sent by a woman! Also, the name Jack has nothing to do at least seemingly with Aaron Kosminsky.
• Anderson's note - alleged note by Anderson that Kosminsky was identified as the ripper but the witness would not point to him because they were both Jewish
• Jewish 'Ripperologists' - the various portrayals of the murderer trying to distance him/her from being Jewish or at least from being a normal part of the Jewish community.
• Boy murder - according to some, part of the Whitechappel murders.
• Jewish JTR tours of London - exactly because of the potential antisemitism lurking around this story.

The conclusion I came to from these, is that sensationalists will be using these facts to get their narrative going, regardless of the actual facts about Kosminsky, (whether they are true or not) like artificial sound effects or illustrative images added to a documentary video to make it more dramatic. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Naming Jack the Ripper Book

What if the book and evidence is peer reviewed, and people say that there is conclusive evidence proving Kosminski was the killer. Then later the Metropolitan police agree that book is correct and then they close the case, stating the Aaron Kosminski was the killer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.253.24.229 (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

when it happens then we can include it. otherwise it's just one more author trying to sell his book. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Were George Lusk or Joseph Aaron ever suspects?

While reading all the material I got to thinking of these two as suspects, but no-one seems to ever have even considered it. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I found this discussion which brings some reasons for perhaps creating the "From Hell" letter himself, or by his organisation, and casting doubts on the depiction of him as a wealthy businessman.

There is also this discussion about the letter and kidney, which shows a full analysis of the reports in the news at the time, and how accurate they were. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to canvass the eligibility of suspects on the Talk page. If you feel strongly enough that those men should be included as suspects, please create entries for them on the page Jack the Ripper suspects. Be sure to include adequate references. Be prepared to have your work reverted. Akld guy (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Picture in leed

I find the piture in the leed is a little misleading because it a) seems to suggest a person was found to be responsible for the jack the ripper murders (by having a sketch done by a vigilance comittee) and b) it appears to be a picture associated with the "Kosminski" named by Macnaghten in his memoirs. I would suggest replacing the picture with a cartoon from the newspapers speculating on JTR's identity, like the one in the leed of the Jack the Ripper suspects article.--Corkiebuchek (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Kosminski. I think there's some benefit in having a different lead image for each of the articles in this series, and the one at the suspects article seems the most appropriate one for that article. DrKiernan (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Confusing citations

There are two Marriott's cited: John and Trevor. Often the ref just says "Marriott" with a page number. Are they for T or J? They need to be more obvious. Myrvin (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Where the ref just says "Marriott" with a page number, that is referring to Trevor. DrKiernan (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Not really good enough, is it? Also, Begg has two works that are not separated. Evans and Skinner seems OK. Myrvin (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I've tried separating the Marriots. Did I get them all? Myrvin (talk) 10:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The case against 'royalty done it'

Even if 'a royal' had had an encounter or relationship with one of the victims and/or gone through some form of marriage #nothing need have been done on their part.#

Those prostitutes who were theoretically involved would have been treated #at best# as fantasists, or, more likely, sent to 'a home for the indignent insane/inebriates/fallen women/a ward for those suffering from 'pox on the brain' (according to what the doctors or magistrates preferred) and their 'bizarre fantasy' passed around in relevant circles ('...and Y believes she is the Popess...') 193.132.104.10 (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

How come that there's no mention of Aaron Kosminski?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Kosminski has been linked to the murders commited by Jack the Ripper but there's not a single mention of it in the article. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumbla (talk • contribs) 14:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

He's hardly the only suspect. See Jack the Ripper suspects#Aaron Kosminski. Keri (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Aaron Kosminski is not linked to the murders by any persuasive evidence. Unless you have new evidence, in which case share it here so people can discuss it.--Essextonian (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper has been identified as Aaron Kosminski

They found the guy finally...

It took a century and a day, but they did it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746321/Jack-Ripper-unmasked-How-amateur-sleuth-used-DNA-breakthrough-identify-Britains-notorious-criminal-126-years-string-terrible-murders.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:5083:5080:A438:DA6B:BF98:21D8 (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, and maybe not. See Jack the Ripper suspects#Aaron Kosminski. Myrvin (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Just one of hundreds of theories. It is very probable that after so much time, JtR's identity will remain unknown.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

wrong.-SH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.212.108.39 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 January 2016‎

Tnx 4 getting that info Somecoolusername11 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Jesus, I would believe my dog before I believed anything in the daily mail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.47.107.113 (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Serial killer or killers...

The lede, in the first sentence, states that "Jack the Ripper is the best known name given to an unidentified serial killer or killers...", a statement that I think gives the wrong impression. Presumably the inclusion of "or killers" occurs because even the 'Canonical Five' are disputed by some. Obviously that should be in the article - and it is - but I think it gives the wrong impression at the beginning of the article. People might infer, for example, that Jack The Ripper was not one person but a 'team' of serial killers; something which I don't think has any kind of widespread acceptance? The bottom line is that there was a single serial killer, known as Jack The Ripper, who had a disputed number of victims. I think the words "or killers" should be removed from the opening sentence because it might lead to false inferences, but I'm obviously not going to change such an important article without discussion. FillsHerTease (talk) 07:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

What would the collective noun for serial killers be (as 'murder' has already been taken)?

And - either the persons would be killing only 1-2 persons apiece and so not serial killers, #or# they would be going round in a group (and so 'the locals' would be suspicious of this gang), #or# there were copycat murders, #or# several separate violent deaths were linked together (possibly on account of the letter). 193.132.104.10 (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

People- relatively important names among "ripperologists"- have speculated that there may be one or more people involved in some of the murders usually associated with Jack the Ripper. I agree it could be better phrased to avoid confusion. Maybe just put a note at the end of the article?--Essextonian (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

There could be several serial killers operating in an area - cooperatively, copy-catting/attempting to outdo each other, or independently (and it is technically feasible for two or more persons undertaking the same sort of crime in a single building or organization at about the same time without there being any direct link between them) in the context a stable social structure (and not being gang warfare etc) - and sometimes 'a particular sequence of unconnected but similar crimes in a particular locality become artificially or accidentally linked together. (The case involving the supposed prolific German female serial killer who turned out to be 'a batch of contaminated swabs' - can someone source this?) 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Phantom of Heilbronn? Keri (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

As it matches what 'I read somewhere' yes (and are there any 'derivative theorists and fictions' arising from that story?) 193.132.104.10 (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Why computers will never quite take over/the benefits of WP's (or even general)collective wisdom - the second part of an answer/definition is posed as a question and the first part is correctly deduced. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper

I am doing a gr6 essay on Jack and I find this info insufficient to use Somecoolusername11 (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not meant as a homework 'crib' - but to give you-the-reader an overview of what the topic is about and where to find out more. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

How come that there's no mention of Frank Deeming?

I'm watching "Heißer Verdacht" on ZDFinfo, which deals with the subject. Allegedly Frank Deeming was the ripper, but he's not mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.4.21.184 (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

There are over one hundred suspects; they are split off to a separate article: Jack the Ripper suspects. DrKay (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)