What evidence would persuade you that the mystery is solved?

[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

[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.

[Stephen Thomas]

I have studied history for awhile now, and even multiple Ph.D's in the field say, "History is a matter of interpretation." If (which I do ) believe people with more than a decade of practicing this craft, then there is no "solving" in the way a modern conceptual framework perceives it. These cases fall very much in the same domain as God. That is to say, the data is inconclusive, and whatever the interpretation, it is exactly that, an interpretation. I am sure at least part of the disconnect in the understanding of the ability to solve comes from the conception that we have a relatively limitless dataset for current crimes, and a highly restricted one in these cases. Add to this the fact that in many ways the data limiting factors were outflows from actions in the past, and therefore, largely indiscriminate of potential value to future scholars, and presto. You have the data set we have currently, one that is not capable of producing what we conceive of as a solution. Anyway, thats my take.

Well said, Dave. The case is indeed unsolvable with the information we have now but one never knows what might turn up, does one. In the meantime it's rather like when the Pope asked Louis Armstrong if he and his wife had any children and he answered 'No, but we're having a lot of fun trying'.

[Barnaby]

Given that DNA testing this far removed is not likely to solve anything conclusively, I think our best bet would be if missing police files reappear and additional evidence comes to light.

[mklhawley]

Is DNA Evidence Good Enough?

I am going to get hypothetical and love it in the process.

Step 1: What if we exhumed the bodies of all the Whitechapel victims and did a thorough DNA testing (if it could be done)? I'm sure we'd find mostly the victim's DNA and maybe the dozens of people that touched the victim. We might possibly get the DNA from JTR if he cut himself in the process.

Step 2: ...exhumed the many suspects' bodies and did DNA testing. If we found a suspect's DNA on two or more of the victims, would that convince everyone that that particular suspect was JTR?

Sincerely,

Mike

[vol_cat]

Will someone not say, "Prove that the diary is authentic!"

[Trevor Marriott]

Thats how to boost those conviction stats.

Take any old confession at face value.

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.

[Monty]

If Jack The Ripper walked into a police station today and produced his knife and confessed.There are those on here who would still not beleive him.

Thats how to boost those conviction stats.

Take any old confession at face value.

Monty

[kensei]

I know, and I was just being silly. It's four in the morning where I am.

[Trevor Marriott]

I was using the anlaogy to prove a point

[kensei]

Well Trevor, if he actually did that today, if he was demonstrably 150 years old it might carry at least some level of credibility.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hypothetically.

If Jack The Ripper walked into a police station today and produced his knife and confessed.There are those on here who would still not beleive him.

For some strange reason it is in their nature not to accept anyhting new that goes against their own lines of thinking and reasoning.

The truth is out there and is getting even closer to us

[kensei]

An afterthought: As the exact precise location of each of those womens' remains is in my understanding only approximately known and not down to the exact square yard, exhuming them would be no easy task even if it was allowed, and in Kate's case it would involve ripping up a paved road.

[kensei]

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


doris

If something like this actually happened- jars containing two uteruses, half a kidney (if he didn't really eat it), and a heart, along with a knife with 122-year-old blood on it and a signed confession letter- I don't know what kind of shape the organs would be in after so long but presumably there would still be recoverable DNA, and the only way to be sure it wasn't a hoax would be to exhume the bodies of Annie, Kate, and Mary Jane for a forensic comparison. I'm guessing the odds of that being allowed would be slim to none, but that is what it would probably take to call the thing "solved."

[protohistorian]

in my opinion

I have studied history for awhile now, and even multiple Ph.D's in the field say, "History is a matter of interpretation." If (which I do ) believe people with more than a decade of practicing this craft, then there is no "solving" in the way a modern conceptual framework perceives it. These cases fall very much in the same domain as God. That is to say, the data is inconclusive, and whatever the interpretation, it is exactly that, an interpretation. I am sure at least part of the disconnect in the understanding of the ability to solve comes from the conception that we have a relatively limitless dataset for current crimes, and a highly restricted one in these cases. Add to this the fact that in many ways the data limiting factors were outflows from actions in the past, and therefore, largely indiscriminate of potential value to future scholars, and presto. You have the data set we have currently, one that is not capable of producing what we conceive of as a solution. Anyway, thats my take. Dave