Jack the Ripper Identity - ERROR

Who is jack the Ripper?

A month or so ago the world was abuzz with the identity of Jack the Ripper being ‘conclusively’ found via the used of DNA analysis on a shawl that was found at a murder scene.  If you don’t know who jack the ripper is, one of the very few times I recommend you consult Wikipedia, but consult Wikipedia.  We had the Daily Mail, among many others, telling us the scoop of how the testing of descendants of the victim and of a suspect, Aaron Kominski, identified Jack the Ripper, a mystery that has gone unsolved for many years.

So, is it solved? I myself was skeptical, as a student studying the world of forensics, the articles threw up a few red flags: Dr Louhelainen, an expert in the analysis of genetic evidence from crime scenes made the discovery by extracting mitochondrial DNA and matched it to a living descendent of one of the suspects Aaron Kominski. The shawl itself was obtained from an auction, and was ‘said’ to have been found at the scene and passed on by a police officer. To start with, is just saying something was at the scene enough for a well-respected scientist to just instantly think 'I can identify the killer with no indication that this is that exact item?' claims that large should be met with authenticity. Provence, especially in this case, should be proven. 

Evidence integrity is key to a forensic investigation. That is: Knowing the evidence, securing the evidence and appropriately storing the evidence. Multiple people have handled ‘evidence’ that had then been sold and tested for DNA to find a 125-year-old murderer isn’t going to provide high evidential value, if any.  Not to mention, just because his DNA was on it, doesn’t automatically make him Jack the Ripper. The reason for his investigation in the first place was because of his sexual connection to prostitutes in the area. Personally, considering the stance of where the infomation was published, in this book, it appeared to be a claim used to make money:

"I've got the only piece of forensic evidence in the whole history of the case. I've spent 14 years working, and we have finally solved the mystery of who Jack the Ripper was. Only non-believers that want to perpetuate the myth will doubt. This is it now – we have unmasked him,"

Anyway, there are a lot more skeptical parts within that, but lets skip to the meat: WHERE IS THE PEER REVIEW?! To make a claim, with scientific and technical background, you tend, no, need, to have a peer review to look for errors to throw things off base or see if they are on the right track. Inevitably, people who are familiar with the software used by Louhelainen, peer reviewed his already published work. What did they find? A small error, but an error with massive consequences.  Bloggers familiar with the particular DNA mitochondrial databases showed a nomenclature error made by Louhelainen calling a type of mitochondrial mutation, which was matched between Kominski and his descendent, a 314.1c, when the mutation should have been 315.1c.

"This DNA alteration is known as global private mutation (314.1C) and it is not very common in worldwide population, as it has frequency estimate of 0.000003506, i.e. approximately 1/290,000. This figure has been calculated using the database at Institute of Legal Medicine, GMI, based on the latest available information. Thus, this result indicates the shawl contains human DNA identical to Karen Miller's for this mitochondrial DNA segment,"

 -The Independent 

Had Louhelaninen followed a standard procedure, as a Dr, you’d think he’d understand a peer review is in place to prevent things like this, he would have realised that the frequency match he had actually found following the 315.1c, he would have discovered the mutation is present in more than 90% of the European population, not the incredibly rate 1/290,000 as he claimed.

However, he is standing by what he has said in the book and has reportedly denied to comment.

Conclusion

So it is concluded, that Jack the Ripper is not identified. However, this didn’t appear to be as glamorised in the media as it did before. I, like many other people, have multiple news apps on my phone that push through notifications.  On the day the book with the ‘scoop’ was released, I received multiple feeds about this ‘amazing discovery’. I however, did not received even one, with the correction. I had to hear it on a podcast over a week after it happened. Strange….