What evidence would persuade you that the mystery is solved?

[chudmuskett]

If, for instance, a portmanteau was unearthed, which contained 2 brass rings, the missing organs bobbing about in jamjars full of vinegar, a 6 or 8 inch surgical knife, and some texts which matched the Lusk Letter.

I dont really understand. why would JTR want to leave any sort of clues/evidence for a future investigation? I cant really see him/her thinking "ooh yes I will leave some evidence in this jar for someone to find in 100 years". Surely if the killer/killers were that way inclined more evidence/clues would have been left at the time. The papers were reporting it, london was fearful and everyone was talking about it. It makes more sense he/she was getting a buzz out of the moment and not thinking ahead. I dont think that he/she saw it as an ongoing thing that would baffle us 100s of years to come.

[Monty]

Well thats how it used to work but now the police have to conduct a more thorough interviwe where the suspect would be asked in depth questions about the offence some of which would be based around information that only the police and the real killer would no.

This is done to prevent any mis carriages of justice, especially when there is no primary evidence.

I think PACE may have had an influence.

Monty

[doris]

I dont really understand. why would JTR want to leave any sort of clues/evidence for a future investigation? I cant really see him/her thinking "ooh yes I will leave some evidence in this jar for someone to find in 100 years". Surely if the killer/killers were that way inclined more evidence/clues would have been left at the time. The papers were reporting it, london was fearful and everyone was talking about it. It makes more sense he/she was getting a buzz out of the moment and not thinking ahead. I dont think that he/she saw it as an ongoing thing that would baffle us 100s of years to come.

No, no. You misunderstand me.

I didn't mean that JTR would have secreted away a handy 'time capsule' for future generations.

I simply meant that as JTR must have, at one time, possesed the objects I mentioned presumably he stored them somewhere, and as his activities ceased all of a sudden maybe his artifacts reamained wherever he kept them.

But that possibility aside, I was merely asking what physical evidence would be necessary to persuade the average casebook member that JTR's identity had been found?

My suggestion of a portmanteau stuffed with gubbins was merely an example.

doris

[chudmuskett]

I simply meant that as JTR must have, at one time, possesed the objects I mentioned presumably he stored them somewhere, and as his activities ceased all of a sudden maybe his artifacts reamained wherever he kept them.

They are probably all stored in the bank, the river (thames) bank that is.

[corey123]

Hi Doris,

For one, I honestly agree with the major conviction, this case is unsolvable. It would take a fictional sherlock holmes to close this case.

Also, we technically have alot of what you said. We have his "Diary", a knife was found in 1888, supposed to be his, also, has anyone forgotten about the Lusk Kidney?( )

We all have the these things, at least we did have them, but like Dave said, it all comes down to interpretation.

[DVV]

I agree, Corey.
However research into suspects is subjective...that's a problem.
Some good suspects are ignored, while many books are dedicated to non-starters.

No suspect-based book will ever solve the case, I reckon, but one shouldn't exclusively focus on his favorite ripper.

Amitiés,
David

[corey123]

I agree David. No matter your pick, you should explore all paths.

Yours truly

[mklhawley]

Hi Corey. I couldn't agree more. Truth demands it. Speaking of truth, Einstein once said, "The search for truth is more precious than its possession", and this certainly is the case in ripperology.

Sincerely,

Mike

[chudmuskett]

Also, we technically have alot of what you said. We have his "Diary", a knife was found in 1888, supposed to be his, also, has anyone forgotten about the Lusk Kidney.

We dont actually have a lot of what was said:

The Diary - Is at the present time as valuable as the paper its written on
The Knife - What knife? where is it now?
The Kidney - Could of came from anywhere.

There is a scarf from one of the ladies in a museum somewhere though.

[Archaic]

Hypothetical Consensus?

I have, of late, been wondering what would be needed to persuade the world that JTR has been found?

What Iam trying to say is what would the average casebook reader need to be convinced of JTR's identity?
toodle-oo doris

Hi Doris, you've asked a very interesting and important question, one I often wonder about myself.

In my opinion it will take multiple layers of compelling circumstantial and physical evidence to ever convince even a segment of Ripperologists, but I doubt there will ever be a total consensus no matter what is found. (Including an "I Did It" signed & notarized statement )

I think it would be interesting if a group of researchers could agree on some basic points that would have to be proved to even get a suspect-i.d. off the ground.

In order to convict a killer in a court of law certain points must be presented convincingly, namely Means, Motive and Opportunity.

Some of the basic points needed to "prove" a Ripper suspect are obvious; for example, the individual has to have the Opportunity- they have to be in London and not somewhere else on the dates in question.

But other important parts of the jigsaw are less tangible; for instance, certain psychological elements would be expected to be present in the Ripper but after all this time we probably won't have detailed psychological insights into the average suspect unless we have their medical records or perhaps they left their own personal writings, etc.

It would be fun to sit in a pub and hammer out a basic platform... a sort of "plank" that any potential Ripper has to walk in order to be taken seriously by a large percentage of researchers.

Best regards, Archaic

[Celesta]

I doubt any major consensus is to be had. We can't even be sure that much of the information we have, particularly in regards to the witnesses, is completely reliable. The best we can do is find a candidate that fits as many of the criteria as possible. Then if you have a criteria that only that one candidate fits, you might be getting close.

[Trevor Marriott]

I doubt any major consensus is to be had. We can't even be sure that much of the information we have, particularly in regards to the witnesses, is completely reliable. The best we can do is find a candidate that fits as many of the criteria as possible. Then if you have a criteria that only that one candidate fits, you might be getting close.

Very true but sadly virtually all of the candidates dont come close to fitting the criteria but people still covet them as viable/likely suspects.

[corey123]

We dont actually have a lot of what was said:

The Diary - Is at the present time as valuable as the paper its written on
The Knife - What knife? where is it now?
The Kidney - Could of came from anywhere.

There is a scarf from one of the ladies in a museum somewhere though.

I guess you missed when I said that it all came down to interpretation?

[Celesta]

Very true but sadly virtually all of the candidates dont come close to fitting the criteria but people still covet them as viable/likely suspects.

Emphasis on the word find there, Trevor! Even if you found such a person, or even a collection of persons, it would still take extraordinary evidence to get a consensus. After all this time, what would that be? Anything one came up with could be refuted.

[Pablito]

Prob if it was discovered that one of the suspects left a trail of bodies which ever part of the country it was they were in at the time. Although it doesn't look like that was the case.

Does anyone know of any examples where any of the main suspects have been in a particular part of the world and there have been mysterious murders in their vicinity even if they didn't have the ripper MO?