If solved, what would happen next?

[Single-O-Seven]

Good evening to all - this is my first post, though I have been perusing these forums off and on for years.

A question occurred to me, and this seemed the best place to posit it. If the identity of JTR were one day proven beyond all reasonable doubt (who and how is not important - this is just a thought experiment), what would follow?

Now obviously, these forums would explode, books would be written, a movie made, and the media would jump all over it, but from a judicial perspective, what could we expect? Would the police be required to take some sort of action, such as officially stating the case resolved and thus closing the file? Would it be possible to take the case to court posthumously, if (pretending) the evidence that came forward was that good? Would anything even happen at an official level (or be required to) that would bring closure to the matter?

I'm simply throwing this out to anybody who may know how cold cases are handled in the UK. Hope reading this hasn't wasted anybody's time!

Thanks,

Single-O-Seven

[GUT]

G'day 07

Not much.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

well, I think people would start checking if the murderer was around Dallas on November 22nd, 1963.

[lynn cates]

boring

Hello SOS. Welcome to the boards.

Interesting question. But if the solution is the one I envision, a movie would prove the height of boredom.

Cheers.
LC

[Damaso Marte]

Maybe we'd finally start paying attention to the torso killer, who was far more technically skilled, just as mysterious, but virtually unknown outside of the hardcore Ripperologist community.

I like to joke that we'll solve the torso killings when somebody recalls a great-grandfather who had a seemingly irrational life-long hatred of Jack the Ripper.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Single-O-Seven,

What would happen next?

We'd get on with our lives.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

I like to joke that we'll solve the torso killings when somebody recalls a great-grandfather who had a seemingly irrational life-long hatred of Jack the Ripper.

Brilliant post. Absolutely brilliant.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Scott Nelson]

Well, that's over my head.

[Jonathan H]

Unsolved? News to Mac!

It is only a modern theory that it was not solved.

According to this primary source, it was solved:

The Washington Post (Washington, D.C.) 4 June 1913

FATE OF JACK THE RIPPER

Retiring British Official Says Once Famous Criminal Committed Suicide
London Cable to the New York Tribune

The fact that "Jack the Ripper", the man who terrorized the East End of London by the murder of seven women during 1888, committed suicide, is now confirmed by Sir Melville Macnaughten, head of the criminal investigation department of Scotland Yard, who retired on Saturday after 24 years' service.

Sir Melville says:

"It is one of the greatest regrets of my life that "Jack the Ripper" committed suicide six months before I joined the force.

That remarkable man was one of the most fascinating of criminals. Of course, he was a maniac, but I have a very clear idea as to who he was and how he committed suicide, but that, with other secrets, will never be revealed by me."

[Rosella]

Wonder whether Sir Melville still believed Jack was Druitt for the rest of his life?

[Jonathan H]

Due to Parkinson's Disease he only had eight years to live.

His memoirs, in 1914, confirmed his belief in [the un-named] Druitt's guilt, albeit a solution that could never be tested in a courtroom. All other police suspects were were judged by him to be worthless, and went unmentioned.

Sir Melville's most beloved child, Christabel, took steps to preserve documentation by her father that named Druitt as the likeliest suspect.

In 1959, she would write to a reporter that the name (e.g. M. J. Druitt) should not be used as it could still embarrass a nephew, or niece, or great-nephew, or great-niece.

This means that Sir Melville had told his daughter that the Ripper had no children of his own, only siblings.

This is yet another example of the police chief being, exactly as he claimed at his 1913 press conference, well-informed about his chosen 'Jack'.

[Sam Flynn]

This means that Sir Melville had told his daughter that the Ripper had no children of his own, only siblings.

This is yet another example of the police chief being, exactly as he claimed at his 1913 press conference, well-informed about his chosen 'Jack'.

Hello, Jon. Surely it's possible that Christabel discovered that fact independently, after her father's death?

[Harry D]

There's too much stock put into Macnaughton's "insider knowledge". If he had already set out suspecting Druitt as the Ripper, then arguably it wouldn't have taken groundbreaking evidence to reinforce that belief. E.g. Perhaps Druitt had an unhealthy interest in the murders and spoke of them to a relative, who in turn shared Macnaughton's suspicions. No more, no less.

Chances are, as with Anderson's "poor Polish Jew", the high-ranking police officials at the time just didn't want to concede that they hadn't a Scooby Doo who the real killer was.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Good evening to all - this is my first post, though I have been perusing these forums off and on for years.

A question occurred to me, and this seemed the best place to posit it. If the identity of JTR were one day proven beyond all reasonable doubt (who and how is not important - this is just a thought experiment), what would follow?

Now obviously, these forums would explode, books would be written, a movie made, and the media would jump all over it, but from a judicial perspective, what could we expect? Would the police be required to take some sort of action, such as officially stating the case resolved and thus closing the file? Would it be possible to take the case to court posthumously, if (pretending) the evidence that came forward was that good? Would anything even happen at an official level (or be required to) that would bring closure to the matter?

I'm simply throwing this out to anybody who may know how cold cases are handled in the UK. Hope reading this hasn't wasted anybody's time!

Thanks,

Single-O-Seven

Hi, Single.
I don't know if you noticed but these forums already exploded simply at the suggestion that the case might have been 'solved', through the use of mDNA.
In reply to your query, in English law there is no time limitation regarding prosecution for the crime of murder.
However, irregardless of the evidence that may be forthcoming, there would be no method in this circumstance, under the law, to declare an individual guilty of such a crime.
For a person to be declared guilty of any such crime, a trial would have to take place.
After such a lengthy period has elapsed after the murders, it is almost a certainty that there could be no trial.
The accused is very likely deceased, no witnesses survive, the police records that pertain to the crimes are incomplete and for what physical evidence there may remain, there is no chain of custody.
The British Home Secretary does not have it within their purview to declare a person guilty, simply because of a laypersons untried accusations.
The most that might occur, from the law enforcement or governmental agencies, and even this is unlikely, is a pronouncement regarding the likelihood of the involvement of " subject X " in the crimes
In summation, no trial and so no person declared guilty.
Yours, Caligo.

[Jonathan H]

To Sam Flynn

There is no evidence whatsoever that Christabel, the Lady Aberconway, had any knowledge of Montague Druitt and his family beyond what her father had told her and what he had written in his 'memo'.

Otherwise she would have infomed Team Farson that the chief suspect was neither a doctor nor middle-aged (the television team almost ran out of time before they could locate Montie, due to Sir Melville's discreet, fictional shield sending them on the wrong trail, as it had for researchers before them).

To Harry D

It is the other way round: far too little stock is placed in Macnaghten's "insider knowledge".

In his memoir he makes it clear he did not set out suspecting Druitt at all. He had never heard of him. There was no reason why he would have, until the story leaked out of Dorset in 1891.

Sir Melville was not provided with gossip or rumor, which he would have easily dismissed to posthumously protect the rep of a fellow gent in no position to do so himself--it was evidence so compelling he had no choice but to agree with the family's 'belief'' and the MP's 'doctrine'.

I understand why this is unwelcome and must be resisted.

It would mean that he 1913 source--alone!--shows that it is probably over.