The final proof

[adamkle]

There are so many facts, suspects and mysteries. But I have one question:

- What could be the final proof for you, showing that one of the suspects was real JR? Genetic examinations? Of what? Uncovering all the archives? What kind of? Maybe royal family secrets?

I am reading "The fox and the flies" by Charles von Onselen, trying to prove that Polish Jew, pimp and traffickeer Joseph Silver was Jack. Why? There are no material proof. But he was so mad, bad and psychotic misogynist, that he COULD do it all. So, the list of suspects is longer and longer...

[Mitch Rowe]

For me it would have to be something really solid. I dont what it would be though. Genetics possibly. But the guy in GrandRapids who says he has genetic evidence that it wasnt Cora Crippen buried in the basement of 39, Hilldrop Crescent has got me to believing there are a few whacko geneticists out there too!
So there probably never will be enough evidence to cause me to make an accusation. Much less a determination. But I guess Ill cross that bridge if I ever come to it.

EDIT>>> But I guess if enough circumstantial evidence such as there was in the Borden case comes to light I suppose that would be enough. Im quite convinced of Lizzys guilt!

[sdreid]

Yes, DNA authenticated blood from a victim at the residence of one of the suspects.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

A full and frank disclosure by the police, Home Office and security services.

Regards,

Simon

[George Hutchinson]

Yes, DNA authenticated blood from a victim at the residence of one of the suspects.

That's a pretty good 'want', Stan. I think we can safely say it's never going to happen but I would agree with you.

Nothing we can ever actually GET will ever close the case for me. I don't think it should close the case for any serious student of JTR, but there's plenty who seem to have already decided.

PHILIP

[sdreid]

Hi Philip,

I didn't say it was likely nor is it impossible. That was just my answer and the only one that would settle it for me that I can think of.

There are plenty of other unsolved cases to study so it wouldn't bother me if it was solved.

[diana]

How about if the physicists ever figure out a way to view the past? I know it sounds way out wacko, but most technology does until someone can do it. Theoretically a light ray from Mary Kellys window would travel on and on in outer space till somebody intercepted it and the image it was carrying. I think. (Not a scientist)

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Diana

Theoretically a light ray from Mary Kellys window would travel on and on in outer space till somebody intercepted it and the image it was carrying.

Tis pity that the "curtains" were shut. Kelly confounds us again!

[sdreid]

If one of the victim's brains was preserved somewhere, maybe someday we will know how to download the information within it.

[Graham]

Trouble is, no matter what 'proof' were ever to be put forward, you would never convince everyone. Short of CCTV footage showing JtR doing for Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Square, that is...

Plenty of us remember the response when the Diary first saw the light of day - I don't think I was the only one who thought 'case closed'. Until - etc., etc., etc.

I suppose that the least implausible of the named suspects must now be Druitt (I can already hear the clacking of keyboards....) but even if someone, somwhere, unearthed a letter signed M J Druitt and confessing to the Ripper crimes, it would be impossible to convince everyone of its authenticity, even if it were discovered in the cellar of the former Druitt residence sealed inside a lead box with the names of seven witnesses attached to it.

Anyway, who cares? Who REALLY wants it to be solved?

Cheers,

Graham

[sdreid]

So far, nothing has come close to being a "case closed" for me.

Druitt is in my top five.

[robhouse]

I have seen this same question (or variants of) posted numerous times. And I will give a serious answer.

People seem to answer this question based on the assumption that there is essentially zero evidence against any suspect. That is not entirely true. But this assumption leads people to the conclusion that the only "proof" that would suffice is a sort of silver bullet, or smoking gun type of proof, like DNA, or something like that. This type of proof will never (likely) be discovered.

However, I do believe that with solid research, one could build a "conclusive" case against a suspect based on circumstantial evidence, conjecture, etc... i.e. conclusive enough to convince the majority of researchers.

Rob House

[steje73]

I'm not entirely sure any evidence exists any more that will conclusively point to any one person, but I'm in the 'anonymous local' camp and I reckon they didn't know who he was then.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

There is absolutely no way that any 'conclusive' evidence in the shape of documents etc. ever will surface, that will be strong or convincing enough to unite all major researchers and experts in the field.
Anyone who thinks this is even possible in a 120 year old case surely have minor experience in studying very old murder cases.

There will always pop up documents that will enlighten us further on certain issues, or even documents that mentions names of interesting suspects.
But since it is obvious from the police files that the police themselves at the time of the murders didn't seem to have a clue about the murderer's identity, there is practically zero chance that any document containing strong enough evidence will show up today.
We've had several such 'evidence' bing discovered already, like the Macnaghten memoranda, Littlechild Letter, Swanson marginalia, Anderson's memoirs etc, and while some of them appeared convincing at first, they haven't been convincing enough in order to unite experts on the case. So if those couldn't, what would?
Needless to say, it will just never happen.

All the best

[Doctor X]

So if those couldn't, what would?
Needless to say, it will just never happen.

Absent a Deux ex machina of finding a bonifide diary, with DNA smeared all over it, with trophies from the victims--DNA supplied--plus oral swabs conveniently left by Jack . . . with fingerprints . . . et cetera . . . in other words it is always possible, but I think as Glenn notes, this has moved next door to "impossible."

Even then there will be doubters.

--J.D.