What would it take?

[JeffHamm]

I've asked something similar but it was quite some time ago. I would like to re ask this question if I may? What would it take to solve this case where everyone is satisfied? Is it even possible to solve with what we have considering today's technology or would it take discovering some great new item to solve it? If so what would that item have to be? Again, is it even possible?

Hi clark2710,

The police methods and procedures of 1888 were very primitive compared to what is done routinely today. If a body were found, mutilated in the street today, it would be there (with a tent over it) for hours upon end. There would be extensive photographing of the crime scene, a careful documentation of where each and every item is located in relation to each other, blood spatter would be measured, photographed, and so forth in order to conduct an analysis, finger prints searched for and detailed, etc. So much information we could use was never recorded because the procedures now used routinely hadn't even been conceived of, nor was the technology even available. The photographs of the Mary Kelly crime scene, while showing a realisation of the potential value of recording things, are of such low quality that they provide little more than shock value (ok, I'm overstating that). Finger prints were a fairly new technology, and it's a shame the police didn't embrace that at the time, but not every new experimental method can be expected to be taken up, even if in hindsight we wish they did.

Combine with that our problem of dealing with an incomplete set of what even they had to work with. Should we by some miracle find all of the evidence the police actually had recorded, I think we would find that due to the methods available to them, we would simply be unable to make any further progress than they did. As others have suggested, every now and then some amazing discovery is reported to have been made, but the providence of these treasure troves invariably point more towards misinformation than new information.

On the other hand, occasionally we do come across information that does point in otherwise unexplored directions. The Littlechild letter, bringing Tumblety into the picture, is one good example. While I don't think that has led to a closure of the case, it is always interesting to see what does come up. McNaughton's memorandum brings in other individuals, and while none of them have ended up being positively connected to the case, people keep searching. I believe, though, if anything does turn up that results in a strong possible solution, it's far more likely to be something like that - a letter or document, hinting at someone worth looking into, and the more they get looked into, the more convincing the case becomes. So far, the opposite tends to happen, there's an initial excitement over a new suspect, but the more they are explored, the more nothing solid is found.

However, providing a name to JtR is only one objective of examining this case. Simply understanding the events and getting a clearer picture into the happenings of 1888 is a noble pursuit as well.

- Jeff

[harry]

While todays technology would undoubtably be a great advantage,would the ripper have operated in the same manner had it been available?

[DJA]

While todays technology would undoubtably be a great advantage,would the ripper have operated in the same manner had it been available?

Prosector would be the person to ask.

[Fiver]

Over the last 16 years I have accumulated more than enough circumstantial evidence to hang Henry Gawen Sutton,except he's already dead

There's not enough circumstantial evidence to bring any of the hundreds of suspects to trial, let alone guarantee a conviction.

Sutton was in his early fifties, which is over 2 decades older than the average age serial killers start killing. Sutton was also slightly deaf - yet the killer of Nichols and Stride heard another person far enough away to escape undetected.

[The Baron]

There's not enough circumstantial evidence to bring any of the hundreds of suspects to trial, let alone guarantee a conviction.

Sutton was in his early fifties, which is over 2 decades older than the average age serial killers start killing. Sutton was also slightly deaf - yet the killer of Nichols and Stride heard another person far enough away to escape undetected.

Avarage age serial killers ?!

Slightly deaf ?!


Dave's Suspect remains safe tonight.



The Baron

[DJA]

There's not enough circumstantial evidence to bring any of the hundreds of suspects to trial, let alone guarantee a conviction.

Sutton was in his early fifties, which is over 2 decades older than the average age serial killers start killing. Sutton was also slightly deaf - yet the killer of Nichols and Stride heard another person far enough away to escape undetected.

Sutton was 53 at the time.

Slightly deaf in his left ear.

If you reckon that eliminates him,you are a moron.

[DJA]

Avarage age serial killers ?!

Slightly deaf ?!


Dave's Suspect remains safe tonight.



The Baron

Ditto.

[erobitha]

Everyone is entitled to make their own case for their preferred suspects, but ultimately I believe it will never be definitively solved beyond any reasonable doubt.

As for circumstantial evidence, you would need a lot for a court to convict someone of murder. Such as:

• The fact that the accused had an intense dislike of the victim
• The fact that the accused behaved in a bizarre and suspicious way after the offence
• The fact that the accused lied about their alibi
• The fact that the accused was in the area when the offence was committed
• The fact that the defendant's blood or DNA matches blood or DNA found on the victim's body

A number of people's suspects may fufill partially some of that criteria, but no one suspect ticks all, or even most of the boxes.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Everyone is entitled to make their own case for their preferred suspects, but ultimately I believe it will never be definitively solved beyond any reasonable doubt.

As for circumstantial evidence, you would need a lot for a court to convict someone of murder. Such as:

• The fact that the accused had an intense dislike of the victim
• The fact that the accused behaved in a bizarre and suspicious way after the offence
• The fact that the accused lied about their alibi
• The fact that the accused was in the area when the offence was committed
• The fact that the defendant's blood or DNA matches blood or DNA found on the victim's body

A number of people's suspects may fufill partially some of that criteria, but no one suspect ticks all, or even most of the boxes.

Hi Ero,

Your 100% Maybrick. How does any of that work?

[erobitha]

Hi Ero,

Your 100% Maybrick. How does any of that work?

I am a Maybrickian that is true.

But I am not naive. I aknowledge there is not enough circumstantial evidence to convince a jury, let alone a few people on an internet forum. I hope science one day has the ability to conclusively prove the artefacts to be true. Even if that is done - it could still be argued it was the ramblings of a mad man and fantasist. Russell Edwards and Patricia Cornwell both believed their DNA science was definitive, but as we since learned it was most certainly was not. Even if I could prove the authenticity of the watch (which has always been my preferred focus of evidence) it could open the possibility of a man pretending to be Maybrick (with a strong resembelance to his marriage certificate signature) scratched initials of the C5 into the back of a watch in the LVP - possibly to frame him.

There are so many variables and "outs" to all the suspects that I fear we will never get enough conclusive evidence - scientific or circumstantial either way.

Doesn't stop me from believeing it was him. There is so much more to Maybrick than just the scrapbook.

[Astatine211]

In order to make progress on definitely identifying Jack the Ripper there are a few things would could occur:

A diary could be discovered either by the JtR or someone close to them which successfully passes all of the ink tests and other dating methods and contains details which were not of public knowledge.

The envelopes and stamps of Ripper letters are tested for DNA. For example the Dear Boss envelope and Saucy Jack postcard are currently held at the National archive. They could be submitted for DNA extraction from the stamps and envelope folds. What I would suggest is that the relatives of Thomas Bulling, John Moore, Fred Best, and Tom Bullen are traced and asked if they would like to provide DNA sample which would allow for the two letters to be easily determined whether they are hoaxs. If not then we look for a distant relative on GEDmatch or another DNA database if a sample is successfully extracted. If they are hoaxes we would like look into other letters, especially ones with accurate prior knowledge of the murders before they are committed. This method would likely be unachievable without the assistance of the MET Police but I do wonder if this could be crowdfunded and done in partnership with the MET archive and museum team and the National Archive. The cost of testing the letters would be around £300 each so if a proposal was put together and accepted by the MET / NA we could raise £600 to get both letters tested. This method could be especially hopeful due to in the last 12 months, leaps and bounds of progress has been made in stamp DNA recovery.

Alternatively, we could ask homeowners for permission to use metal detectors to search the gardens of suspects address. Whilst a longshot a knife may be found. For example, William Bury's Whitechapel address has a garden behind it and whilst I'm fully aware the plot of land can change a lot over 100+ years, the discovery of a buried knife or other item in the vicinity of a suspects home would certainly progress the case.

Whilst a non-starter exhumation of victims could allow for DNA recovery and in some cases could strengthen suspects. For example Francis Spurzheim Craig.

Despite the fact it's unlikely the case will ever be solved what's give me hope is if the Littlechild letter was only discovered 30 years ago I'm categorically certain there's still things out their to be discovered.

[Fiver]

Sutton was 53 at the time.

Slightly deaf in his left ear.

If you reckon that eliminates him,you are a moron.

If you want to convince people, you need to provide evidence, not insults.

[DJA]

If you want to convince people, you need to provide evidence, not insults.

Actually,I have.
You replied to one post.
You insult my intelligence.

[Fiver]

Actually,I have.
You replied to one post.
You insult my intelligence.

Feel free to link to your evidence. So far all you have provided on this thread is insults.

[Scott Nelson]

Sutton was 53 at the time.

Slightly deaf in his left ear.

Dave, you may have addressed this already, but what about Dr. Frederick Treves, Head Surgeon at Royal London Hospital at the time? He's described as a the Ripper by one Randy "Rocket" Cody here:

see post #3 on The Ripperology Gazette thread on the Forums site.