The Great Mystery of Jack the Ripper, Part VI

Mega Genius® Intelligence Briefing [44]:


Warning: The subject of this Intelligence Briefing may not be suitable for minors or the mentally impaired.


Part VI:  When All the Puzzle Pieces Fit


I promised you four years ago, in 2005, that shortly after 2008 we would solve the world’s most famous murder mystery.  Tonight, on Halloween, 31 October 2009, we will reveal the identity of Jack the Ripper, now!

I performed magic professionally on stage and television for 45 years.  In November 2000, I revealed all the basic secrets of modern magic in “The Genius Formula™ Series” of The Mega Genius® Lectures (at, in which I said that the basic difference between a magician and a criminal is ethics; one fools you with a smile and the other with a smirk.

When you watch a magician perform, notice anything that he does that does not make sense, or that seems out of place, or that does not quite fit.  There is a reason, and if you want to solve the mystery, you need to find out why that is!

In our investigation of Jack the Ripper, we also need to notice any piece of that puzzle that does not make sense, or that seems out of place, or that does not quite fit.  We should never force, ignore, avoid, or try to explain away a piece.  Again, there is a reason that any puzzle piece does not fit properly, and if we want to solve the mystery of Jack the Ripper, we need to find out why that is, too!


Did the man in astrakhan have a pale complexion or a dark complexion?

Did the man in astrakhan have a slight moustache or a heavy moustache?

Did the man in astrakhan have a very surly (menacing) look or did he not look as if he would attack someone?

Did the man in astrakhan have a very sharp walk or a very soft walk?

Could George Hutchinson identify the man in astrakhan or not?  He confirmed to Inspector Abberline that he could and, according to the press, he said, “I could swear to the man anywhere.”   But then the press quoted him as saying that he could not be certain.  Which was it?


Those 5 major contradictions constitute important puzzle pieces that do not fit.  Almost all students of the mystery consider these to be minor discrepancies.  Those people make magicians’ hearts beat fast, for they are easily fooled.

Instead, you should see the contradictions as glaring pyrotechnics, warning us that instead of chasing the man in astrakhan, whom George Hutchinson claims to have seen, we should be examining George Hutchinson, himself.

Nine more significant puzzle pieces do not fit in George Hutchinson’s story.  They are soaring before us like flaming skyrockets!

1.  A rational person may have difficulty recalling a datum, but he will not also remember it as an opposing datum.  For example, he will not remember a dog as having been all black and later as all white, or a fruit as having tasted sweet and later sour.

Why did George Hutchinson diametrically contradict himself five times within 24 hours as he described the man in astrakhan?

That calls for investigation.

2.  According to his own police statement, George Hutchinson saw the man in astrakhan closely for only a few seconds, in the dead of the night, by an overhead flickering gas lamp above Commercial Street, yet he recalled more than four dozen details about the man, including such minutiae as the type of fabric that covered a small parcel that barely extended beyond the man’s tightly gripped left hand, and the shape of his tie pin.

At 2:00 a.m., on Friday, 9 November 1888, in Spitalfields, there was a solid cloud cover, and the moon had set five hours and 29 minutes before, at 8:31 p.m.  There was no visible moonlight.  How then could George Hutchinson remember such details about the man in astrakhan as the color of his eyelashes, when Hutchinson testified that the man had his hat pulled down over his eyes?

That calls for investigation.

3.  On Charles Booth’s “Descriptive Map of London Poverty,” Dorset Street was marked in black, denoting that it was full of poverty, thieves, viciousness, disease, and other dangers.  Even police would not venture onto the street, except in pairs.  Booth’s police guide called Dorset Street, which was just one block from The Ten Bells, the worst street in London.

Respectably decked out from head to toe, wearing even an astrakhan trimmed coat, and spats, the overdressed man whom Hutchinson claimed to have seen would have looked like a person of high-class pretense communicating an air of superiority.  More importantly, he would have looked like an easy mark.

Why would a respectably dressed person enter that notorious area of Spitalfields, even venturing down Dorset Street, the worst street in all of London — which the Daily Telegraph called “dangerous even in daylight” — on a dark and moonless night, ostentatiously sporting a massive gold chain and other jewelry? 

That calls for investigation.

4.  George Hutchinson told Inspector Abberline that he followed Mary Jane Kelly and the man in astrakhan to Miller’s Court because he was surprised by the man’s well-dressed appearance.  Then, at 2:00 a.m., in the near freezing November darkness, during a continual drizzle that was nearly sleet, he said that he waited 45 minutes more, just to glimpse the man again.

That is illogical; why was he really loitering at Miller’s Court, in the dark, in nearly freezing drizzle, at 2:00 a.m. until at least 2:45 a.m.? 

That calls for investigation.

5.  According to George Hutchinson’s statement to Scotland Yard, he saw Mary Jane Kelly with the man in astrakhan moments before she was brutally slaughtered.

If so, then when George Hutchinson thought that he might have seen the man in astrakhan again, in Petticoat Lane, on Sunday morning, just two days after the murder, why didn’t he follow the man and summon a police officer? 

That calls for investigation.

6.  George Hutchinson told Inspector Abberline on Monday, 12 November, that he could identify the man in astrakhan.

Why did he contradictorily tell the press the next day, on Tuesday, that he believed that he might have seen the man, in Petticoat Lane, on Sunday, but could not be certain, and subsequently tell the press, “I could swear to the man anywhere”? 

That calls for investigation.

7.  According to George Hutchinson’s press statement, he said that the man in astrakhan and Mary Jane Kelly passed him at the corner of Commercial Avenue and Fashion Street, one block south of The Ten Bells, and then crossed Commercial and walked down Dorset Street to the entrance of Miller’s Court.  Hutchinson said that he then followed them as far as the intersection of Commercial and Dorset, where he listened for three minutes as they stood kissing and discussing things, including Mary’s lost handkerchief and a red one that the man in astrakhan gave her, at the entrance to Miller’s Court.



The distance that Hutchinson claimed to have
eavesdropped on Kelly was from the camera to the
small red mark, just to the left of the center of the
photograph, six bays down.  Photographed in 2011.

© Mega Genius, Inc. 2011 –2021.  All rights reserved


From the corner of Commercial Avenue and Dorset Street, how did George Hutchinson overhear a couple’s intimate nighttime conversation at the entrance to Miller’s Court (see the red mark), and see that a handkerchief that Hutchinson supposedly gave Mary Jane Kelly was red, on a dark moonless night, at a distance that I have personally measured to be nearly 150 feet (46 meters)?

That calls for investigation.

8.  Mary Jane Kelly was murdered early Friday morning, 9 November.  By midday, the atrocity was the talk of London and within hours was newspaper copy worldwide.

Why then did George Hutchinson withhold his crucial eyewitness testimony from the police for three entire days, and even then continue to withhold it until 6:00 p.m. Monday, 12 November, after the inquest into the murder had closed?

That calls for investigation.

9.  Inspector Abberline, who believed Hutchinson, wanted desperately to catch the man in astrakhan.  To do that, it was imperative that Hutchinson’s description of the man, which was circulated to all police stations, remain confidential, as the police did not want the man dressed in astrakhan to learn that they were looking for him, and then disguise himself or flee.

Why then did Hutchinson, after he had described the man in astrakhan to Inspector Abberline, describe that man in extreme detail to the press the very next day, which immediately published it, thereby ruining any chance for the police to find the man in astrakhan?

That calls for investigation.

Now let’s recap those first seven puzzle pieces:  

(1) George Hutchinson’s contradictory descriptions of the man in astrakhan;

(2) his unrealistic recollection of numerous details in minimal lighting;

(3) the risk assumed by the wealthy-appearing man dressed in astrakhan;

(4) Hutchinson’s illogical explanation for being in Miller’s Court;

(5) his failure to follow the man in astrakhan on Sunday;

(6) his conflicting statements about his ability to identify the man in astrakhan; and,

(7) his extraordinary abilities of sight and sound.

Each of those puzzle pieces is based upon an assumption—that the man in astrakhan existed.  But, did he?  Let’s consider the possibility that he did not.

If the man in astrakhan did not exist … then the first seven puzzle pieces were merely the result of George Hutchinson’s untruthful statements.  Voila!  Suddenly, seven illogical and puzzling pieces just fell magically into place!

The eighth puzzle piece is why did Hutchinson withhold his testimony from the police for three days, and even then continue to withhold it until the inquest had closed?  This piece fits if he slaughtered Mary Jane Kelly and then had no intention of contacting the police.  That is, until he read in the newspaper about Mrs. Sarah Lewis’ testimony at the inquest.  She had sworn that at about the time of Mary Jane Kelly’s death, in the early morning hours of 9 November, she had seen a man, “not tall, but stout,” standing alone in Dorset Street, directly across the street from the entrance to Miller’s Court, where Mary Jane Kelly lived.  She said that he was looking up the court.

Scotland Yard immediately began searching for that man, who it later turned out was George Hutchinson.  Did he suspect that Mrs. Lewis could identify him if she saw him again?  If so, he could not have assumed the risk of appearing at the inquest, where Mrs. Lewis might have excitedly exclaimed, “That’s him!  That’s the man that I saw at the murder scene!”  Neither could he have risked allowing the police to track him down after Mrs. Lewis had testified.  That would explain why, at 6:00 p.m., on Monday, 12 November, after the inquest had closed, Hutchinson only then walked into the Commercial Street Police Station and daringly confronted the police with an imaginary scenario to explain why he had been seen directly in front of Miller’s Court, very close to the time of the murder, by Mrs. Lewis.

The ninth, and last, puzzle piece fits if Hutchinson’s reason for spilling the confidential description of the man in astrakhan to the press on Tuesday, 13 November, just hours after he had revealed those details to the police, was to give that imaginary suspect a reason to disguise himself or flee, thereby creating a convincing reason why the man in astrakhan — who never existed — could never be found.

Throughout the world, investigators of the case of Jack the Ripper believe that George Hutchinson was the witness most likely to have seen Jack the Ripper.  And we can bet that he was … every time that he looked in the mirror.

Inspector Frederick G. Abberline was an admired, knowledgeable, and highly capable law enforcement officer of Scotland Yard, in charge of the detectives.  Yet, could it be that the key to solving this baffling case was merely a matter of not assuming that Inspector Abberline was infallible?  Has the door to the identification of Jack the Ripper remained sealed like a tomb for 121 years merely because one “expert,” Inspector Abberline, had an erroneous opinion?

Obviously, Scotland Yard made a crucial mistake in the case.  Why?  Because they never caught the Ripper!  The evidence suggests that the mistake occurred at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, 12 November 1888, when the esteemed Inspector Frederick G. Abberline, of Scotland Yard, met with, and was fooled by, the best of the worst: The world-famous serial killer Jack the Ripper.

Now, all the puzzle pieces fit precisely for us, without finessing, forcing, ignoring, avoiding, or trying to explain away a single one of them.

So, let’s double-check; let’s review our 10 points of verification.  Extremely few possible suspects match half of them.  If George Hutchinson had blood on his hands, he should:

1.  Fact: Serial killers are almost always white males.  Was George Hutchinson a white male?

Finding: Yes.

2.  Fact: Serial killers usually commit their atrocities between the ages of 20 and 35.  Was George Hutchinson within that age range?

Finding: Yes.


3.  Fact: Serial killers usually prowl and attack their first victims close to their own "backyards.”  The Ripper stabbed to death his first victim two blocks south of The Ten Bells, at No. 47 George Yard Buildings.  Did George Hutchinson live extremely close to that location?

Finding: Yes; he lived at the Victoria Working Men’s Home, at 39—41 Commercial Street, at the corner of Wentworth Street and Commercial, just one block west of that crime scene.


4.  Fact: Serial killers, if employed, are usually common laborers.  Was George Hutchinson a common laborer?

Finding: Yes.


5.  Fact: Serial killers usually appear rational and personable.  The police questioned many hundreds of suspects, and almost certainly questioned Jack the Ripper, but did not suspect him.  Did the police question George Hutchinson, but then conclude that he was not a suspect?

Finding: Yes. Inspector Abberline questioned George Hutchinson on 12 November and, that evening stated in writing that he believed Hutchinson’s statement was true.


6.  Fact: Serial killers are likely to disfigure the faces of victims whom they know, in hopes of destroying their personalities.  Did George Hutchinson know Mary Jane Kelly, whose face Jack the Ripper obliterated?

Finding: Yes; he had known her for three years, by his own admission.


7.  Fact: Jack the Ripper’s victims were murdered on weekends or holidays.  In all probability, Jack the Ripper was employed.  Was George Hutchinson employed?

Finding: Yes, George Hutchinson was employed until shortly before the murder of Mary Jane Kelly, who was then murdered on a Friday, the day before the holiday of the Lord Mayor’s Day.


8.  Fact: All of Jack the Ripper’s victims were attacked within a circle with a one-half mile (805 meter) radius.  The serial killer almost certainly lived near the center of that circle.  Did George Hutchinson?

Finding: Yes; he lived only two blocks from dead center.


9.  Fact: After murdering his fifth victim, Catherine Eddowes, in Miter Square, Jack the Ripper escaped in a northeasterly direction and tossed her bloodstained piece of apron into a doorway at 108—119 Wentworth Model Dwellings, on Goulston Street.  The Ripper’s home was most likely a short distance past Goulston Street, in the same northeasterly direction.  Is that where George Hutchinson’s home was located?

Finding: Yes.  In fact, the doorway where the bloody piece of apron was found was precisely on the most direct route that Jack the Ripper could have taken to where Hutchinson lived, which was just two blocks beyond Goulston Street, in a northeasterly direction.


10. Fact: Jack the Ripper almost certainly was stout or muscular.  Mrs. Elizabeth Long and Constable William Smith, both of whom apparently saw the Ripper, testified that he was about five feet seven inches tall.  Constable Smith also testified that the Ripper’s age was about 28.  Do those physical characteristics align with those of George Hutchinson?

Finding: Yes; Mrs. Sarah Lewis testified that the man that she had seen at Miller’s Court, later determined to have been George Hutchinson, was “not tall, but stout.”  The press reported that George Hutchinson’s age was 28, the exact age that the witness Constable Smith had estimated after having seen the Ripper.


After we fit all the puzzle pieces together precisely, all 10 verification points also match perfectly — a series of characteristics that could all apply to only a minuscule percentage of the population, and to no other suspect in this case.

Still, the noose tightens.  On 10 November 1888, Dr. Thomas Bond, who had 21 years' experience as a police surgeon, wrote to the Secretary of State, “… so one or two o’clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder [of Mary Jane Kelly].”

We can place George Hutchinson within a couple of blocks of Mary Jane Kelly’s door at 2:00 a.m., within one-half block of it a few minutes later, and within 50 feet (15 meters) of it momentarily after that, by his own statement to the police.

Dr. George Bagster Phillips, who had 23 years' experience as a police surgeon, had once said that it would have taken him at least 15 minutes to have performed all the injuries suffered by victim number three, Annie Chapman.  Accordingly, it must have taken nearly an hour for Jack the Ripper to have meticulously butchered Mary Jane Kelly as extensively as he did, thoroughly dissecting her body.  Consequently, the Ripper would have left Miller’s Court around 3:00 a.m.

George Hutchinson left then too.  He told the press that when he left Miller’s Court he heard the clock on Christ Church, in Spitalfields, chime 3:00 a.m.

George Hutchinson’s own words and deeds help to convict him.  According to his own testimony, his actions in the early morning hours of 9 November 1888, at the time of Mary Jane Kelly’s brutal murder, were bizarre.  So were his explanations to Scotland Yard and the press.  His activities for several days following the crime were notably counter-productive to the efforts of Scotland Yard.

The noose jerks tightly!  Not only was George Hutchinson at Miller’s Court—the scene of the crime—from 2 a.m. to 3 a.m.—during the time of the crime—by his own testimony to Scotland Yard, but we can place him even closer to the victim physically.  He actually entered Miller’s Court, supposedly to see if Mary Jane Kelly had any lights on in her room, and approached the victim’s door during the police surgeon’s estimated time of the crime, according to his own admission to the press.

His own testimony to Scotland Yard and allegations to the press were a tangle of contradictions and irrational actions.  He was within a few feet of the victim when the murder was committed.  He had all the characteristics of a serial killer. Evidence does not get more damning than all of this!

Once Jack the Ripper had fooled Scotland Yard’s famed Inspector Abberline, who was in charge of the detectives, he had nothing left to prove.  Consequently, after the slaughter of Mary Jane Kelly, the police soon realized that the Ripper had vanished from the Whitechapel area, like an apparition in the night.

So had George Hutchinson vanished!  Although Scottland Yard was not looking for him, according to the 1891 census in Whitechapel, he was nowhere to be found!

The chase does not end here for everyone.  A few crime historians and authors will still argue that Jack the Ripper was someone else because they have committed themselves to other suspects and will try to protect their reputations, or because they seek to profit.  Let them chase the almighty dollar.  And, since nothing is as sad as a great mystery solved, a few theorists whose hobby is searching for Jack the Ripper will pursue their hobby, just to keep the mystery from dying.  Let them continue chasing shadows in the night.

The word proof, intelligently defined, is “that which is sufficient to convince.”  Considering only the data that I have presented and that you have reviewed — without the benefit of additional evidence that I am not at liberty to disclose at this time — you and I could prove this case to a jury, not just by a preponderance of the evidence, but beyond a reasonable doubt.

Without a press release or other fanfare, and almost as silently as the serial killer stalked the East End of London, we have intelligently ventured through the darkness of more than 120 years, swept away sheets of cobwebs, and shone a spotlight brightly on the world’s most famous and confounding murder mystery.

I know who Jack the Ripper was … and now you know, too!

 Frederick G. Abberline, of Scotland Yard, who was the London Metropolitan Police Inspector First Class, in charge of detectives on the ground in the search for Jack the Ripper, was the best … until he went up against Jack the Ripper … and lost, on Monday, 12 November 1888, at 6:00 p.m.  That was when Jack the Ripper met face-to-face with Inspector Abberline, and completely fooled him.  The Ripper seemed normal, congenial, even helpful, and not at all bizarre, shifty-eyed, or crafty.  Inspector Abberline believed the Ripper’s act, totally.

 That was a deadly conclusion, from which Inspector Abberline never recovered!

 Later he was promoted to chief inspector.  And upon his retirement, in 1892, he had received a record 84 commendations and awards.  

Through the years that followed, however, like many other theorists, he speculated that the Ripper might have been one person or another, but in 1903 he flat-out admitted, “… Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago.”

Now let’s put this into proper perspective.  Imagine trekking along a trail through an immense forest, toward some unfamiliar destination.  All goes well, until you accidentally and unknowingly veer onto a side trail, and cannot find your destination.  What you actually find as you continue is that you are lost.  The farther that you trek, the more “off the track” you are, and the more unattainable your destination becomes.

 That is what is worse than being lost.  It is being lost without knowing it.

 That was what happened to Inspector First Class Frederick G. Abberline, and to Scotland Yard, the London Police, Queen Victoria, and thousands of others at the time who investigated the murderous case of Jack the ripper.  Once the Ripper had fooled the distinguished and highly respected Inspector First Class Abberline, along with millions of others who assumed that the inspector was infallible well, everyone associated with the case was also lost … without knowing it.

 On this Halloween, 31 October 2009, a night that is traditionally dedicated to the spirits of the dead, may the tortured souls whom we knew as Martha Tabram, Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, and Mary Jane Kelly, finally rest in peace.

Mega Genius®

31 October 2009

© Copyright 2009 – 2021, 2022.  All rights rese4rved.



I sincerely appreciate the authors of countless books and related literary works that I reviewed as I initially investigated whatever was already known about Jack the Ripper.  Although I found no one who proved the Ripper’s identity, many of their works were of considerable help to me.  In particular, I salute the authors of the following three reference books, as their contributions were particularly important:

The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, by Phillip Sugden.  A wealth of reliable and magnificently detailed background information. 

Jack the Ripper: An Encyclopedia, by John J. Eddleston.  An excellent author and crime investigator, who was close on the Ripper’s trail.

The Jack the Ripper A-Z, by Paul Begg, Martin Fido and Keith Skinner.  An invaluable reference book for any serious student of Jack the Ripper.


This concluding section is a brief 2019 update.  First I will recap in less than 300 words.

In 1888, after midnight, a creature from hell crept silently throughout the streets of London’s East End, repeatedly slaughtering his human prey like livestock.

Yet for well over 100 years, well into our 21st century, his identity was unproven, confounding the most eminent investigative minds worldwide, including that of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who was the author of the legendary detective Sherlock Holmes, and even baffling every detective of England's renowned Scotland Yard.

As Jack the Ripper's likeness is unknown, Madame Tussauds Chamber of Horrors has never had a waxwork figure of him. He is only depicted as a shadow.

At the start of the 21st century, however, I announced my discovery of The Genius Formula™, and promised, “Anyone of at least average intelligence can learn to apply the three easy steps of the formula to achieve the highest IQ possible and to reveal the truth about anything.”

Shortly after disclosing the existence of this milestone — through the internet, numerous magazines, newspapers, television, and through a multitude of international radio interviews — in 2005 I was challenged by both law enforcement and the news media to prove the workability of The Genius Formula™ by publicly solving the greatest crime mystery of all time:  Who was Jack the Ripper?

With my reputation in the cross hairs, I accepted that challenge, began researching the enigma of Jack the Ripper, and promised to soon resolve that conundrum in my spare time by merely applying the three easy steps of The Genius Formula™.

Soon thereafter, on Halloween, 31 October 2009, I won the challenge by publicly revealing the real name of the serial killer known worldwide as Jack the Ripper, proven with specific facts and irrefutable logic.  Although all that I had really done to prove the unrivaled workability of The Genius Formula™ was simply to apply it.

Now for an update.  For the subsequent 10 years, from 2009 to 2019, two breaking news events have occurred.  And an even more important news event is breaking now, in 2019.


The first breaking news event:  DNA analysis has been used to identify Jack the Ripper. 

According to the Daily Mail, the United Kingdom’s second-biggest-selling daily newspaper, Russell Edwards, a businessman, bought a silk shawl in 2007 that had allegedly been picked up near the slain body of Catherine Eddowes, one of Jack the Ripper’s victims in 1888.  Edwards apparently believed that out of hundreds of known suspects, the serial killer was actually a 23-year-old barber named Aaron Kosminski, whom it seems had taken all the barbershop guff and drivel that he could stand one day, after which he was haunted by auditory hallucinations, refused to work or bathe, and ate his meals from the gutters.  For all that, in 1891 he was committed for three years to what was known then as Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum.

After not responding to treatment there, he was classified as “a quiet and harmless imbecile,” and transferred to the Metropolitan Asylum for Chronic Imbeciles for another 25 years, where he muttered incoherently, but was described as not dangerous, but as “dull and stupid.”  He deteriorated further, and finally died there in 1919, at the age of 54. 

Because Russell Edwards, the businessman, had what he believed was Catherine Eddowes’ shawl and also believed that Aaron Kosminski had been the Ripper, in 2014 Edwards obtained the services of Dr. Jari Louhelainen, a molecular biologist at Liverpool John Moores University, to conduct a forensic analysis of the shawl, extracting samples of DNA found within it.  Edwards hoped to prove that DNA from stains on the murdered woman's shawl fittingly matched DNA from a descendant of Aaron Kosminski.

In September 2014, the Daily Mail announced the result:  That a DNA comparison had finally scientifically identified Jack the Ripper.  According to Russell Edwards and Dr. Louhelainen, they had matched an extremely rare mutation in DNA on the shawl of Catherine Eddowes to that of a descendant of Aaron Kosminski.

In October 2014, Edwards also proclaimed it in the British conservative newspaper The Mail on Sunday, asserting, “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.”

By their DNA analysis, Russell Edwards and Dr. Louhelainen claimed to have identified Aaron Kosminski as Jack the Ripper!


The second breaking news event:  The DNA analysis contained a fundamental error.

Later that same month, The Independent (UK) reported that Dr. Louhelainen had made a basic mistake in his calculations, according to Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, the inventor of genetic fingerprinting.

Dr. Louhelainen had previously written, “The DNA alteration is known as global private mutation (314.1C) and is not very common in worldwide population, as it has frequency estimate of 0.000003506, i.e. approximately 1/290,000.”

According to the distinguished Professor Jeffreys though, the mutation should not have been written as (314.1C), but as (315.1C).  The mistake meant that instead of the shawl containing human DNA with a rare mutation, it was not rare at all.  It was actually shared by most people of European descent.

Professor Jeffreys’ discovery of the mistake, which was first exposed by “Ripperologists” in Australia, was validated by a number of other experts from Rotterdam’s Erasmus University and the Institute of Legal Medicine in Innsbruck.

Moreover, there was a second important issue.  More than 40 items representing all of Catherine Eddowes’ clothing and personal possessions with her when she was butchered — some as minor as a thimble and a small black button — were promptly and painstakingly collected at the crime scene, in 1888, by the City of London Police, and preserved and logged, according to testimony by Police Inspector Edward Collard.

There was no mention of the presence of any shawl.

I have stated previously that a few theorists whose pastime is searching for Jack the Ripper will continue to pursue their hobby, just to keep the mystery of the crimes from dying.  And a few crime historians and authors can be expected to argue that Jack the Ripper was someone other than the person who I proved in 2009, for either, or both, of two reasons:

The first reason is that they have committed themselves to other suspects and value their own reputations above the truth.

The second reason is that they seek to profit, above all else.

Coincidentally, in 2014, when Edwards proclaimed that he had solved the mystery of Jack the Ripper, he also released for sale a book that he had authored on the subject of Jack the Ripper.

Accordingly, no meaningful DNA connection exists to Aaron Kosminski!

All other evidence and allegations that have been cited to establish his guilt for the serial killings vanish like shadows at dawn, when researched in even an elementary manner.

Aaron Kosminski fled the horrors of Russia as a teenager.  He was a wrecked young man by 20.  At 26 he was committed for the next 28 years to the filth and madness of “lunatic asylums.”  Then at age 54, unable to talk, and with body sores, swollen feet, a broken down right hip, and a gangrene leg, on 24 March 1919, patient No. 7367 departed from his ruined body.

Today just happens to be the 100th anniversary that day.  With no reliable evidence that he had any association with Jack the Ripper, it’s time to allow the tortured soul of Aaron Kosminski to rest in peace.


The third important news event … that is breaking now:

Throughout the last decade, ever since I applied The Genius Formula™ to determine the real name of the world’s most infamous serial killer — and then specifically named him — not a single person or organization on Earth has publicly or privately succeeded in refuting the accuracy of my identification of Jack the Ripper a decade ago.

In fact, to the best of my knowledge, after all these years not one person has even directly questioned it.

Accordingly, the cold case file of Jack the Ripper, which I resolved 10 years ago in 2009, remains terminatedly closed!

Mega Genius®

24 March 2019

© Copyright 2019 – 2021, 2022 Mega Genius, Inc. All rights reserved.


Select from below for all 6 parts of The Great Mystery of Jack the Ripper:

No. 30 The Great Mystery of Jack the Ripper, Part I    
“The Abyss”
16 Sep 2005
No. 31 The Great Mystery of Jack the Ripper, Part II
“A Brutal Affair”
16 Sep 2005
No. 32 The Great Mystery of Jack the Ripper, Part III
“Completely Defeated”
16 Sep 2005
No. 33 The Great Mystery of Jack the Ripper, Part IV
“Where the Responsibility Lies”
16 Sep 2005
No. 43 The Great Mystery of Jack the Ripper, Part V
“Who Was the Man in Astrakhan?”
31 Oct 2009
No. 44    The Great Mystery of Jack the Ripper, Part VI
  “When All the Puzzle Pieces Fit” & "Epilogue"
 31 Oct 2009

Copyright © 2009 – 2019, 2021, 2022 by Mega Genius®.  All rights reserved.