Tweet
A knife, in a case, with five vials labeled with a victims name, containing that victims blood. I think that would do it. Seriously though, before anyone even began to think about moving the remains of those that may have been killed by someone long ago, the present day relatives would need to be found. Not only would it be the proper way to go about disturbing a burial site, but can anyone be 100 percent sure that the remains are the correct remains? Not only can an accident have occurred in marker placement, but a case of this magnitude, where the victims are this well known, someone could have taken remains as a type of personal trophy of the Jack the Ripper case. I think that right now, finding someone close would be ideal, since what we match today might be slim to none, but a year from now might be a sure thing. So evidence matches multiple sources, or does not match multiple sources, and no one can cry foul, because two sources would match, relative and remains. Since this case is not close to a solution, it is fair to estimate that DNA may be taken from what is considered less than ideal today, and it will be possible to connect the dots down the road.
-
I confess that altruistic and cynically selfish talk seem to me about equally unreal. With all humility, I think 'whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might,' infinitely more important than the vain attempt to love one's neighbour as one's self. If you want to hit a bird on the wing you must have all your will in focus, you must not be thinking about yourself, and equally, you must not be thinking about your neighbour; you must be living with your eye on that bird. Every achievement is a bird on the wing.
Oliver Wendell Holmes -
I'm guessing that it would be highly unlikely that any dna could be retrieved from the whitechappel victims, presuming of course that we are sure it's even them. It's even more unbelievable that any dna from the killer would be found. In the Claremont serial killer case in Perth, Australia the authorities believed they couldn't locate any dna from a killer due to the length of time that the corpse of one of the victims had been out in the bush (and open to the elements) - and that was just a few weeks - not 122 years!.
But presuming for one moment that the same dna would be found on all five - it could belong to any number of people other than the murderer - variety of police officials, doctors, mortuary attendants, witnesses who viewed bodies etc.
I think our best bet is hunting down the many lost ripper documents as well as gathering as much (potentially innaccurate and misleading) recollections from those still alive today who were in the east end at the turn of the century.
and of course wbesites like this where we can get discussion leading to agreement - ahem, I said 'agreement'.Comment
Comment