Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Exhumation of the victims today.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    It just needed to be said, in my view.
    Far too many nonsense-based conspiracy theories these days. I have to wonder what the world is coming to. This was such a minor example but Kattrup nailed it.
    Don't take it personal Martyn.
    No Kattrup did not nail it. But I respect both your and Kattrup views and we just have to agree to disagree on whether there was a conspiracy/cover up or not..

    Regards

    Martyn
    Last edited by mpriestnall; 04-12-2021, 09:37 AM.

    Comment


    • #17

      I'm a little late responding to this one . I asked a very similar question and did a bit of reading on my own on this very topic. First the DNA. It's important to note that DNA lasts a very very long time if the body is buried down a few feet. Having said that, Lets use Mary Kelly as the example here, that speaks to Mary's DNA, any DNA from the killer would be almost certainly gone depending on anything present in the grave or on her body or what have you and how she was buried that the killer left his DNA on...i.e. was she wrapped in something or put in a pine box or whatever along with an article of clothing the killer may have left DNA on. All of this is assuming you could find her in the first place. Her original burial site was lost to time and even if you found it, correct me if I'm wrong, but her grave site was reused so has graves atop it; or am I mistaken? At any rate there would be a great and I mean GREAT deal of luck involved in simply finding her grave, not to mention because there are no living relatives to ask permission from you'd have to seek help from the government and even then the cemetery itself may have recourse to say; nope not gonna happen. I don't know the laws concerning these things if exhumation were granted by the government and the cemetery didn't wish it happen. At any rate the only people that it would help to find Mary Kelly's actual grave site and body, dig her up, run DNA and so on, would be to be able to knock on someone's door and say; guess what you're a direct descendant of the final victim of Jack the Ripper. In the case of the other victims where their burial sites are known, they have families living today or what have you; here's the issue. Put simply so much time has passed that the graves, I don't believe, would hold anything of value that would point to the killer.

      Last edited by clark2710; 04-27-2021, 02:38 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        I wonder, then, if elimination could be the way forward in using what can possibly be used of the bodies/murder weapons/props. Is there a sophisticated enough technique that could see DNA or other evidence from the possessions/corpses of the main suspects compared and contrasted with any of the biological or other physical evidence from the crime scenes. For example if Tumblety's DNA is not even in trace evidence on a few key artefacts, he can't be JtR?

        Comment


        • #19
          My view on finding Kelly at St Patrick's Cemetery:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1lxDjd_fi8

          "There wasn't a breath of wind last night yet the sails of the windmill went round and round and round".

          Enough said.
          Last edited by mpriestnall; 06-14-2021, 10:56 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Illustrated Police News 17-11-1888: https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../il881117.html

            "Maurice Lewis, a tailor, living in Dorset-street, stated that he had known the deceased woman for the last five years. Her name was Mary Jane Kelly. She was short, stout, and dark.

            For various reasons it's difficult to be confident when making a visual comparison between the IPN picture of Kelly and the pictures of the butchered Miller's Court victim. But those obvious reasons not withstanding, I'm not seeing a short, stout, dark woman in the Kelly picture. I referring in particular to that "Kelly" picture as on Andrew Cook's book.

            Appreciate any comments from ya' all.

            Comment


            • #21
              According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Jane_Kelly:

              Daily Telegraph of 10 November 1888 described her as "tall, slim, fair, of fresh complexion, and of attractive appearance" and Wikipedia states:
              "Contemporary reports estimated Kelly's height at 5 feet and 7 inches (1.70 metres)."

              Tall, slim and short and stout at the same time...Kelly was a true legend!
              Last edited by mpriestnall; 07-20-2021, 10:26 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post
                Illustrated Police News 17-11-1888: https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../il881117.html

                "Maurice Lewis, a tailor, living in Dorset-street, stated that he had known the deceased woman for the last five years. Her name was Mary Jane Kelly. She was short, stout, and dark.

                For various reasons it's difficult to be confident when making a visual comparison between the IPN picture of Kelly and the pictures of the butchered Miller's Court victim. But those obvious reasons not withstanding, I'm not seeing a short, stout, dark woman in the Kelly picture. I referring in particular to that "Kelly" picture as on Andrew Cook's book.

                Appreciate any comments from ya' all.
                Not sure about the dark part. I thought she had long red hair. She also looked pale in the Miller's Court crime scene photos.

                Never the less, no good would come from exhuming the graves. Maybe you would find a relative who may have an old photo that might be her, but would it really be worth disturbing all these other graves on the hopes of that? If they did would they just toss aside whomever else is buried there and not find out who they are? It's just not worth it when nothing of value can be yielded from it concerning who did this to her, or to just satisfy a bunch of researchers who in all accounts will probably never solve this crime.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post
                  According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Jane_Kelly:

                  Daily Telegraph of 10 November 1888 described her as "tall, slim, fair, of fresh complexion, and of attractive appearance" and Wikipedia states:
                  "Contemporary reports estimated Kelly's height at 5 feet and 7 inches (1.70 metres)."

                  Tall, slim and short and stout at the same time...Kelly was a true legend!
                  It sounds like she was perhaps only ever witnessed inside a hall of mirrors.....!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post

                    It sounds like she was perhaps only ever witnessed inside a hall of mirrors.....!
                    Nice one!

                    ++

                    I don't believe for minute that Kelly was the Miller's Court victim.

                    Further Wicks post #215 on the "The Legend of Mary Jane Kelly" in response to mine.

                    Identifying the victim by the eyes and ears of a brutally mutilated face seems a highly unreliable means of identification.

                    Using the blood splattered hair wouldn't have been much better.

                    Surely the remains of the arms and legs would have provided better evidence for identification? If the body was shown to JB
                    or anyone else, wrapped up in a shroud as Wicks seems to suggest, and thus hiding this better means of identification, was that because the authorities was trying to pass off A.N Other as MJK?

                    Was the authorites adding smoke to the mirrors? I thank you!
                    Last edited by mpriestnall; 08-11-2021, 09:41 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post

                      G' Day DJA,

                      I have a candidate for Kelly too and we can't all be right!

                      I have a lot of time for Prosector's book. I thought it was very well written.

                      My candidate for JTR (got one of those too) was a surgeon's son and I found some interesting and useful material in his book regarding JTR's supposed anatomical skill and/or knowledge.

                      FWIW my take on the Miller's Court event is that another person (not Kelly) was murdered to kill off the investigation and to provide cover for Kelly's relocation.

                      Notwithstanding one should never say never, the authorities will never allow the exhumation of the supposed body of Kelly to avoid the possibility of DNA being extracted from it and used to prove it wasn't Kelly after all.

                      My 2d.
                      You think that "the authorities" in 2021 are in league with "the authorities" in 1888?
                      "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post

                        Nice one!

                        ++

                        I don't believe for minute that Kelly was the Miller's Court victim.

                        Further Wicks post #215 on the "The Legend of Mary Jane Kelly" in response to mine.

                        Identifying the victim by the eyes and ears of a brutally mutilated face seems a highly unreliable means of identification.

                        Using the blood splattered hair wouldn't have been much better.

                        Surely the remains of the arms and legs would have provided better evidence for identification? If the body was shown to JB
                        or anyone else, wrapped up in a shroud as Wicks seems to suggest, and thus hiding this better means of identification, was that because the authorities was trying to pass off A.N Other as MJK?

                        Was the authorities adding smoke to the mirrors? I thank you!
                        If the badly mutilated body was partially covered during a viewing and identification I would attribute that to fundamental human decency on the part of those conducting the process and a desire to preserve the dignity of a murder victim.
                        "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Bridewell View Post

                          You think that "the authorities" in 2021 are in league with "the authorities" in 1888?
                          I believe that the identities of JTR, Astrakhan and Kelly and their relationships were known to a small powerful subset of the "authorities" back in 1888. That information would have persisted right up to today amongst a select subset of the "authorities".

                          Obviously it would be very problematic for the supposed corpse of Kelly to be exhumed, but let's say, for discussion sake, the body was exhumed and DNA suitable for a reliable identification of the corpse could be extracted. In this hypothetical scenario, I'm confident the person thus identified wouldn't match the Barnett's derived Kelly.

                          I don't believe the successors of the various parts of the "authorities" (The Met, freemasonry for instance) would welcome the revelation that their predecessors had hoodwinked the public over the identification of Kelly and the fact it wasn't Kelly who was buried at St Patrick's cemetery.

                          Besides which there might be a more important reason why the "authorities" of today might not want the truth about the murders to come out. If the identity of JTR was known back in 1888, as I believe, then there has to be some serious "heavy duty" reason why his name has not been revealed to date over and above in keeping secret a cover up from the late Victorian age...
                          Last edited by mpriestnall; 08-19-2021, 12:15 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Bridewell View Post

                            If the badly mutilated body was partially covered during a viewing and identification I would attribute that to fundamental human decency on the part of those conducting the process and a desire to preserve the dignity of a murder victim.
                            I appreciate those two points, but would not just covering the corpse, leaving the feet and hands on show, not meet those concerns and still allow a better means for the corpse to be identified?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              It wasn't necessary, because Joe Barnett was in the best position to make the ID and he was able to do it without having to look at the remains below the neck.

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X
                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post

                                I believe that the identities of JTR, Astrakhan and Kelly and their relationships were known to a small powerful subset of the "authorities" back in 1888. That information would have persisted right up to today amongst a select subset of the "authorities".

                                Obviously it would be very problematic for the supposed corpse of Kelly to be exhumed, but let's say, for discussion sake, the body was exhumed and DNA suitable for a reliable identification of the corpse could be extracted. In this hypothetical scenario, I'm confident the person thus identified wouldn't match the Barnett's derived Kelly.

                                I don't believe the successors of the various parts of the "authorities" (The Met, freemasonry for instance) would welcome the revelation that their predecessors had hoodwinked the public over the identification of Kelly and the fact it wasn't Kelly who was buried at St Patrick's cemetery.

                                Besides which there might be a more important reason why the "authorities" of today might not want the truth about the murders to come out. If the identity of JTR was known back in 1888, as I believe, then there has to be some serious "heavy duty" reason why his name has not been revealed to date over and above in keeping secret a cover up from the late Victorian age...
                                Why would people in the 21st century risk their own reputations to protect those of people who died many decades ago? In order for your theory (that the Millers Court victim was not MJK?) to have validity there would need to have been a substitute victim killed in her place. To what end and who was she? I see no reason to believe that the victim was not MJK and I'm not going to be persuaded to an alternative viewpoint by nebulous speculation about "the authorities" and a supposed conspiracy. If you have evidence that MJK was not the victim then please publish it because I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one interested in reading it.
                                "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X