Naming Jack the Ripper
New Crime Scene Evidence, A Stunning Forensic Breakthrough, The Killer Revealed
Failed to add items
Add to basket failed.
Add to wishlist failed.
Remove from wishlist failed.
Adding to library failed
Follow podcast failed
Unfollow podcast failed
Get 3 months for £0.99/mo
Naming Jack the Ripper
Buy Now for £12.99
-
Narrated by:
-
Laurence Dobiesz
-
By:
-
Russell Edwards
About this listen
Bringing together ground-breaking forensic discoveries – including vital DNA evidence – and gripping historical detective work, Naming Jack the Ripper constructs the first truly convincing case for identifying the world's most notorious serial killer.
In 2007, Russell Edwards, fuelled by fascination and determination, discovered a shawl – an unexpected key in the historical mystery of Jack the Ripper.
Persistent and fearless, Edwards embarks on a captivating seven-year quest to authenticate the shawl and unearth its concealed truths. His search takes him deeper into the heart of one of history's most chilling real crime stories.
Tested meticulously by top forensic scientists, the shawl is not just proven to be genuine, but also revealing – it carries the blood of Catherine Eddowes, the fourth victim of Jack the Ripper.
With an intriguing blend of forensic investigation and historical research, the book explores the gripping evidence, a blood-stained shawl, connected to the universally infamous criminal, Jack the Ripper.
In an earth-shattering revelation, the extracted DNA leads Edwards to the most elusive truth – the identity of the notorious Victorian serial killer, Jack the Ripper . . .
Listeners also enjoyed...
The ONLY let down with this audio book is the narrator. At best he sounds slightly exasperated when reading, at worst he sounds downright bored. I could almost forgive this, except he is almost sighing with boredom when describing the awful circumstances of these women’s deaths. He lacks any sympathy or empathy when talking about these women or the lives they led. I find that disrespectful. I’d love this book to be remade with someone reading you can out some emotion into the narrating.
The actual book is wonderful!
A really fascinating book … with dreadful narration
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
Just a real shame that there will never be any justice for those unfortunate women. I know it's been over 130 years but the police and courts should at least acknowledge what lengths you went to.
Bloody brilliant book
you got him
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
Fascinating story
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
excellent book
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
I cannot help but feel that the science here is potentially faulty. To be clear I do not disbelieve the proposed theory but I think the burden of proof required is higher.
Further testing over the years as techniques develop or a more rigorous and dogmatic scientific approach may be in the pipeline and if so, so much the better.
At present it feels that the approach has not been entirely scientific and the author has asserted some areas as valid fact when in fact these may fall short of fact due to the levels of scientific rigour involved.
Why is the shawl not listed in any of the crime scene and contemporaneous documents?
Can we really be comfortably in absolutely assuming that because Kosminski was named by some of the leading investigators he is the number one suspect?
Can that assumption lead logically to only testing for his DNA.
Great leaps are asked of us:
Eg- the shawl was that of the ripper not Eddowes. Though it makes sense that does not make it the case or a safe assumption.
Kosminski was admitted to an asylum 1890. Is the author positing that therefore more than the canonical five murders should be attributed to the ripper? Why has this been left unaddressed?
It feels to me a little uncomfortably as though the evidence may have been melded support subjectively selected facts in the case and then supported by investigating rather a scientifically narrow bandwidth of testing to provide conclusive ‘evidence’.
Every scientist knows that this approach can be deeply problematic.
There seem to be many holes and assumptions that I am not entirely confirtable making that simply are left unexplored and unchallenged by the author.
All in all a very interesting theory but unfortunately not one I can as yet hold as conclusive proof that we know the identity of the ripper.
Interesting Work Headed in the right direction
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.