Do you think it will be solved?

[DJA]

"Library Angels".

You set out looking for something and finish up with what you really want.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Patrick S]

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.

[Batman]

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.

[Mayerling]

Yes, you’re right - as said, I’ve yet to even place him near England in 1888, so I’ll concede that he’s not topping the suspect lists

He’s 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 don’t 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

[Kattrup]

But it doesn't mean he did, either. Indeed, it doesn't even mean he killed the person he confessed to have killed. But if his confession were true, and he was the Ripper (which is a pretty huge leap), why confess to only one murder? And the least brutal one, at that?

You say that murders involving cut throats were rare in Denmark. Well, not quite so rare in London. But do we know that this alleged murder even took place in London? If he was a sailor, this murder could have taken place in any port town, anywhere in the world. Why tie him to Whitechapel? What are the details of his confession?

Hansen being a cattle driver is of no importance. The reason Larkins suspected Portugese cattle drivers had nothing to do with their profession, but rather with the fact that they were there at the time.

Yes, you’re right - as said, I’ve yet to even place him near England in 1888, so I’ll concede that he’s not topping the suspect lists

He’s 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 don’t know that Hansen actually worked as a cattle driver in 1888, but hey, details.

[Mayerling]

Sorry, but I feel less and less sure it will be solved. But it has opened up so many hitherto underdiscussed areas of Victorian history (mainly dealing with the poorer citizens, or the police) that the emphasis can lead us into further and further probing in these areas. In fact, I always felt the subject would have been better named for Whitechapel, or the East End, or the Victims, instead of giving a partial publicity victory to the killer by calling it "Ripperology"

This doesn't mean ignoring known or possibly interesting suspects - their lives may have something to tell us too. But would one really like to call the murder by poisoned strychnine tablets in Stepney and Lambeth in 1891 - 92, "Creamianology"?

Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I did speak to Reggie once on the 'phone - never thought to ask him.

Colin, I hope that you decided to order your pizza’s elsewhere if that’s who answered.

[Karl]

Sorry, I just meant he confessed to a specific murder, that does not rule out that he murdered others

But it doesn't mean he did, either. Indeed, it doesn't even mean he killed the person he confessed to have killed. But if his confession were true, and he was the Ripper (which is a pretty huge leap), why confess to only one murder? And the least brutal one, at that?

You say that murders involving cut throats were rare in Denmark. Well, not quite so rare in London. But do we know that this alleged murder even took place in London? If he was a sailor, this murder could have taken place in any port town, anywhere in the world. Why tie him to Whitechapel? What are the details of his confession?

Hansen being a cattle driver is of no importance. The reason Larkins suspected Portugese cattle drivers had nothing to do with their profession, but rather with the fact that they were there at the time.

[Bridewell]

Spot on Dave.
I often wondered if any one asked the Kray twins or any other older East End gangster, if they had a hunch who the Ripper was.

I did speak to Reggie once on the 'phone - never thought to ask him.

[Busy Beaver]

Spot on Dave.
I often wondered if any one asked the Kray twins or any other older East End gangster, if they had a hunch who the Ripper was.

[DirectorDave]

The time axis has no limit Sam, I think it works pretty well for day one!

[Sam Flynn]

Nice one, Dave

You've been a bit kind on the early years, though, as there was a fair bit of bull$hit surrounding the case from the outset.

[DirectorDave]

[Kattrup]

It´s Larkins, not Larkin, Kattrup.

Yes, forgot the S, sorry