The clincher

[brummie]

As far as I know Police records of the case which remain in existence have already been made public and even if they haven't the police at the time apparently found nothing in them to point to the identity of the killer with any degree of certainty. What I would like to discover is the identity of the prostitute Francis Thompson spent the summer of 1888 searching for, only to be ultimatly rejected. If that was found to be none other than MJK I think that would certainly be very interesting.

[Randy2009]

DNA Matching Possible But a Longshot

I think the only way we might get reasonable confirmation of who really was Jack the Ripper is if we can compare the DNA of a known suspect to the DNA of a sample found on a victim that is not, of course, the victim's DNA. Take Severin Klosowski (aka George Chapman), who I think is as likely a candidate as just about any of the "known" suspects. Since he was hanged, presumably it might be possible to find his grave and unearth his body. If that could be done, then I am fairly certain his DNA profile can be established. The hard part would be finding samples of a third person's DNA on a victim. I understand Mary Kelly's grave site is known. You could probably unearth her body and determine her DNA, but the chances of finding a good sample of tissue of a third person on her body - one that a DNA profile could be extracted from - would be pretty slim. But maybe not totally impossible, perhaps a strand of a third person's hair could be found. Also, since she was mutilated, it's possible that there are "specimen jars" in a police warehouse somewhere with her organs, which conceivably could have a strand of hair or something of a third person. Again, not very likely.

Now assuming we did get such a third person's DNA sample from a victim, and it matched the DNA of someone like Klosowski, who is otherwise a good suspect, and of whom there is no reason for his DNA being on the body other than his being the murderer (such as his being part of the autopsy team, etc.), then you would have, in my view, pretty much the "clincher." It's a complete longshot but not altogether impossible.

[gary]

"there remains the possibility that the police did figure it out but never
bothered to act, as the killer was already dead, in an asylum or awaiting trial for another murder"

Not a chance, in my opinion. Can you really imagine the police knowing the
murderer and keeping it to themselves? Especially after the stick they had
been getting from the general public for failing to solve it for so long.

They would have shouted his name from the rooftops.

[perrymason]

Just wondering how many board members still believe that the mystery will one day be solved and we will be able to say with certainty that X was Jack the Ripper and if so what would be the important piece of evidence that it would take for you to be certain of the rippers identity. Apart from a signed confession of course what would be the piece of evidence you dream of finding to solve this case.

Hi Brummie,

My bet is that someone will put together a very good case for some suspect someday, probably a known one, and hardly anyone will accept it because it will lack ultimate authentication in the form of official documentation.

But I personally believe that trying to pin the Five Canonicals on one man will never reveal Jack the Ripper. The man who for sure killed at least Annie. I believe its kind of like going fishing in the Sahara,... to use the premise that one man killed all 5 and no others.

Best regards

[caz]

Anyhow, there are other possibilities, for example, we might find the Diary of Jack the Ripper with a bit of dried up kidney in it, and that could be a clincher, although as I said, if there is such a thing, it would likely have been found years ago....

Hi Christine,

Did you know that a certain diary written to make 'Sir' James Maybrick look like a total berk and the worst rotter in Christendom actually has a kidney-shaped stain inside the front cover? I believe it's from a fatty substance, possibly animal glue, and I don't think I've ever heard it suggested - even by the pottiest pro-diarist - that the stain was made by Kate's kidney, kept by Sir Jim in his scrapbook. (Mike Barrett once claimed that it was the result of his wife dropping a kidney on it, but that's another story.)

Can you just imagine though the stunned horror on our faces if someone with Patty Cornwell's wealth and determination were to obtain a DNA profile from this stain and link it to Kate via DNA from one of her direct descendants?

But it ain't gonna happen, so sleep well and don't have nightmares.

Love,

Caz
X

[Artemis]

There are instances where the prosecution has gone to trial with nothing but circumstantial evidence, but there is so much of it that, at that point, the circumstantial evidence becomes so strong that it is as damning as a single piece of nucDNA evidence.

The reason for this is that one can mount a defense that says one or several pieces of circumstantial evidence can be contributed to coincidence, a case of being at the wrong place at the wrong time, but after a while, it becomes pretty clear that one cannot defend a litany of coincidences. For instance, it would be extremely hard to defend someone who is guilty of:

1. Being at the wrong place at the wrong time for five or more similar homicides
2. Being in possession of a weapon that is considered a like murder weapon
3. Not having a solid alibi on those occasions to account for your movement and whereabouts.
4. Having motive, means and oppprtunity for all of those murders
5. Matching a police sketch from a reliable witness
6. Matching the physical discription given by witnesses (and I stress the plural form of the word) for more than three of those homicides
7. Fitting one or several profiles
8. Having intimate knowledge of the crimes (knowledge that a normal person would not have), and this could come about in at least several different ways.

That would be enough to garner a conviction, especially if number 1 fits.

[Artemis]

Unless there is direct divine intervention from God almighty, chances are the DNA coming from relatives to make a match will be mtDNA, what Patricia Cornwell used, this is by no stretch of the imaginiation discriminatory.