Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Do you think it will be solved?

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
    Yes, youíre right - as said, Iíve yet to even place him near England in 1888, so Iíll concede that heís not topping the suspect lists

    Heís just an interesting case I came across and hope to learn more about. The murder he allegedly confessed to happened in Denmark. There were no abdominal mutilations, which of course rules him out as the ripper to most people.
    The cattle driver reference is simply interesting because it was a contemporary theory about the murderer. I know Larkins was interested in portuguese men, and I donít know that Hansen actually worked as a cattle driver in 1888, but hey, details.
    I don't know if this can be of any help, but I once thought I had the germ of an idea where Mr. Larkin came up with his murderous pair of Portuguese cattle drivers. In 1878 a family in Llangibby in Wales was wiped out by a Spanish sailor (not a Portuguese one, by the way) named Garcia. His motive was pure greed (they had given some aid, I believe). He was hanged for the crimes. Don't know much about the case, but it being ten years earlier, and the killer being an Iberian who usually was working at sea, possibly Larking got his facts confused.

    Jeff

    Comment


    • #32
      In order to know scientifically, you would have to have a DNA match.

      Since none of the physical evidence was retained and since the bodies would have been washed at the morgue, and given the number of people handling the bodies and evidence, even if you did find DNA shared between victims, it could very well belong to those involved in the general technicalities of dealing with a homicide victim at the time.

      Even Ripper letters (which seem doubtful as to have originated with JtR) where saliva could have been used don't tell us anything because we have no other DNA to compare it with.

      So it seems to me that scientifically we can't know because the evidence we need to even begin to determine that no longer exists.
      Bona fide canonical and then some.

      Comment


      • #33
        I think the best that could be hoped for is some scrap of physical evidence combined with some other associated reason(s) for suspicion. At this point, though, I'm not sure I know what that would look like. Some ancestor finding Chapman's brass rings in an attic? Something along the lines of the "Eddowes Shawl"... except, you know, not fake? This along with a note "confessing" or claiming responsibility and some evidence putting the "suspect" in the area at the time. Perhaps evidence of other crimes, violence, mental illness... Again, I'm not quite sure what this would look like after 130 years.

        I think this is all fantasy, however, and I agree with what others have written here: I don't think it will ever be "solved". But, I think that I, for one, stopped thinking along those lines years ago. For me, that prospect isn't necessarily the attraction. It's learning about the times, the places, the people. Discussing - and sometimes "debunking" - theories... which invariably leads to a better understanding of circumstances, places, people... and their lives and times. It's a huge tapestry that can never be fully understood, I think. Through study and discussion it can be advanced a bit and handed to the next generation... and so on and so on.

        Comment


        • #34
          I think the answer to this question is never. Not to all. The scientifics want a trail of scientific data, the theorists will want indisputable, physical proof of the claims against any one person, and the boogyman hunters will never accept anything less than a boogyman.

          I do believe that every great mystery is a great story at its core, and I also think that in each of the Canonical cases a great backstory might exist, but the people whove spent years at this study want more than a great story. They believe that nothing can be accepted without empirical evidence, something I think in these cases, doesn't exist.

          Its a group of stories about a group of women and the only thing that ties any of them together is specifically how they died, and what, if any, subsequent actions were taken. The specificity of a killer who in his first kills show a strong desire to mutilate the female abdomen pm is a rare bird. Unlike a thrill killer, or an agitated thug.
          Michael Richards

          Comment

          Working...
          X